Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Edge-]

Hey, I'm all for stiffer penalties given that fraudulent votes from the last election inevitably seem to have been some crackpot loon who voted for Trump 15 times.

I'm all for stiff penalties for fraudulent malicious votes. Not shit like Kris Kobach going after a senior citizen who voted on everything at his primary home and voted only on local measures for his second home and didn't think he was breaking the law. That's shit where you educate the voter, maybe given them the lightest slap on the wrist you can, and move on. The problem is the laws, as I understand them, don't really differentiate.

[Breccia]

@Breccia he wasn’t just asked, he was previously penalized for not complying with the order

Indeed, he was fined too. $150,000 or so. Again, he would only have done this if he realized handing over the required documents would have fucked him harder.

All I meant was that they could argue that there is one ingredient, in the vaxx, that while harmless and necessary, is also included in antifreeze, for obvious and different reasons.

They could argue that, but it would still be objectively false. It's not the same chemical. This isn't even "there's chlorine in table salt" level of misleading, since organic compounds use different rules. It's purely an objective scientific falsehood. The two items do not share any complex chemicals in common, and any doctor or pharmacist that didn't know that would know within 15 seconds by reading the labels.

EDIT: Which, again, is why I'm wondering if there are penalties for this. I don't believe "Your Honor, I filed this statement under oath while not understanding how this worked, therefore, I am not liable for any sanctions" should work. Ignorance as a defense has its time and place, but not when you're the one filing lawsuits in court based on them. If you don't know the difference between a mony- and a poly- you shouldn't file a claim in court claiming they have the same effect.

EDIT EDIT: If it seems I'm especially irate at this topic, bear in mind I am a science teacher, work with other more applied science teachers routinely, and come from a family of them. What this sworn affidavit is, is asking to me suing Firestone Tires because their product is made of pumice, based purely on it being a "fire stone", while of course any tire made of pumice would be shredded to fine dust almost instantly.

[DarkTZeratul]

I'm all for stiff penalties for fraudulent malicious votes. Not shit like Kris Kobach going after a senior citizen who voted on everything at his primary home and voted only on local measures for his second home and didn't think he was breaking the law. That's shit where you educate the voter, maybe given them the lightest slap on the wrist you can, and move on. The problem is the laws, as I understand them, don't really differentiate.

Or a mother released from jail who cast a provisional vote because she thought she was allowed to, but her voting rights actually didn't come back for two more months so she was sentenced to more YEARS in jail.

[Endus]

Or a mother released from jail who cast a provisional vote because she thought she was allowed to, but her voting rights actually didn't come back for two more months so she was sentenced to more YEARS in jail.

Like, how is that even a crime?

"Oh, she's not entitled to vote. Discard that ballot." Done. Problem fuckin' solved.

[Breccia]

Like, how is that even a crime?

I get how that's a crime. Jaywalking is a crime. Parking in the wrong spot is a crime. I'm not sure this particular crime calls for "years in jail" level of punishment.

[Edge-]

Like, how is that even a crime?

"Oh, she's not entitled to vote. Discard that ballot." Done. Problem fuckin' solved.

She wasn't doing something white, that was her problem.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1841497.html

Seriously, she voted out of ignorance and was sentenced to 5 years in prison. Another guy used his dead mothers name to fraudulently vote, which is obviously not legal or right, and got 5 years...of probation. State laws come into play, but that the laws in each state may be so different in terms of penalties is itself also a problem.

Also, forever fuck Kris Kobach.

[Endus]

I get how that's a crime. Jaywalking is a crime. Parking in the wrong spot is a crime. I'm not sure this particular crime calls for "years in jail" level of punishment.

Why are either of those crimes?

Here, maybe, you might get a ticket. That's a minor civil infraction. Not a "crime".

"Crime" is a criminal infraction. Not civil.

[DarkTZeratul]

Why are either of those crimes?

Here, maybe, you might get a ticket. That's a minor civil infraction. Not a "crime".

"Crime" is a criminal infraction. Not civil.

Yeah, they're both technically traffic infractions rather than crimes.

[Edge-]

Why are either of those crimes?

Here, maybe, you might get a ticket. That's a minor civil infraction. Not a "crime".

"Crime" is a criminal infraction. Not civil.

It depends on the state, but in most states it's a misdemeanor, not anything criminal. That being said it's still largely stupid, and a result of how much influence the automotive industry has had on policy in a TON of areas across life historically.

[beanman12345]

Merck says experimental pill cuts worst effects of COVID-19--Potentially good news, though I feel this needs further study. This also will not help people who are already hospitalized with COVID as it needs to be taken within 5 days of the first symptoms appearing. Still, if it pans out it should cut hospitalizations and deaths dramatically and be a welcome tool in the fight against the virus.
.

I'm not optimistic about this helping honestly at least much. These people's IQ's are so low they argue the science against FDA authorized vaccines, in favor of either quackery or being so stupid they just think they're young and therefore their immune system will just prevent them from harm. Maybe good for the immunocompromised, but I also don't feel like they are very large portion of the population so won't make too big a dent.

[Breccia]

Why are either of those crimes?

Regardless of the technical term, I think we both agree that "misreading a deadline" shouldn't be five years in jail worthy. At least if you run a red light, you might hit and kill someone. Voting two months before you're allowed might be prohibited by law, but the only other person you're affecting is the election worker who has to dig out and remove your ballot.

[DarkTZeratul]

Regardless of the technical term, I think we both agree that "misreading a deadline" shouldn't be five years in jail worthy. At least if you run a red light, you might hit and kill someone. Voting two months before you're allowed might be prohibited by law, but the only other person you're affecting is the election worker who has to dig out and remove your ballot.

I may have been wrong about the two months thing (I was going off memory), but it was a provisional ballot, too! Those are explicitly meant for cases in which the voter's eligibility is in question.

[Breccia]

it was a provisional ballot, too! Those are explicitly meant for cases in which the voter's eligibility is in question.

I hope you either misremember or that the penalty doesn't stick, because if that happened as you remember that's a fucking tragedy.

[Endus]

Regardless of the technical term, I think we both agree that "misreading a deadline" shouldn't be five years in jail worthy. At least if you run a red light, you might hit and kill someone. Voting two months before you're allowed might be prohibited by law, but the only other person you're affecting is the election worker who has to dig out and remove your ballot.

I wouldn't agree it's worth a $50 fine.

It shouldn't be a legal infraction at any level.

If you're misrepresenting your identity at the polling station, that's fraud, prosecute that. Casting a ballot that shouldn't be counted should not be a crime, it should just be a normal administrative procedure for the poll workers.

[cubby]

They could argue that, but it would still be objectively false. It's not the same chemical. This isn't even "there's chlorine in table salt" level of misleading, since organic compounds use different rules. It's purely an objective scientific falsehood. The two items do not share any complex chemicals in common, and any doctor or pharmacist that didn't know that would know within 15 seconds by reading the labels.

EDIT: Which, again, is why I'm wondering if there are penalties for this. I don't believe "Your Honor, I filed this statement under oath while not understanding how this worked, therefore, I am not liable for any sanctions" should work. Ignorance as a defense has its time and place, but not when you're the one filing lawsuits in court based on them. If you don't know the difference between a mony- and a poly- you shouldn't file a claim in court claiming they have the same effect.

EDIT EDIT: If it seems I'm especially irate at this topic, bear in mind I am a science teacher, work with other more applied science teachers routinely, and come from a family of them. What this sworn affidavit is, is asking to me suing Firestone Tires because their product is made of pumice, based purely on it being a "fire stone", while of course any tire made of pumice would be shredded to fine dust almost instantly.

Since they can show that objectively there are no shared ingredients between the two, then yeah, they could/should face sanctions and fines. And you're right, ignorance isn't a defense under the law in most cases, this being one of them. If they claimed something, then they should know it - the "I thought it was true because Faux News told me" no longer works - if it ever did.

I don't know how any of the scientific community has kept their sanity over the past 16 months. Legally speaking I've been teetering on intellectual insanity, and all my stuff is inherently subjective.

Edit: more definite wording in the first part - "[s]ince" replaced "[i]f".

[Edge-]

If y'all caught Trump's rally last weekend, he brought up the marine who was recorded pulling a baby over the wall at the Kabul airport. The guy teared up and told the sad story of his experience.

Or he made it up. Probably the latter.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1930744.html

Regarding the viral photo that began circulating around August 20, 2021, the marine identified in that particular image was not LCpl Clark

That's the official line from the Marines. Clark was in that unit on the wall, but was apparently not actually one of the soldiers grabbing babies and pulling them over.

Oh, and also Clark is under investigation by the marines for speaking at a partisan political gathering, something active duty troops are not supposed to do.

[cubby]

If y'all caught Trump's rally last weekend, he brought up the marine who was recorded pulling a baby over the wall at the Kabul airport. The guy teared up and told the sad story of his experience.

Or he made it up. Probably the latter.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1930744.html

Regarding the viral photo that began circulating around August 20, 2021, the marine identified in that particular image was not LCpl Clark

That's the official line from the Marines. Clark was in that unit on the wall, but was apparently not actually one of the soldiers grabbing babies and pulling them over.

Oh, and also Clark is under investigation by the marines for speaking at a partisan political gathering, something active duty troops are not supposed to do.

And what I struggle with day in and day out, is that those facts won't matter. Whomever is still blithely following Trump will ignore the reality, cry fake news, and the chasm will grow wider.

[DarkTZeratul]

I hope you either misremember or that the penalty doesn't stick, because if that happened as you remember that's a fucking tragedy.

That part I didn't misremember; Edge posted the link above:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1841497.html

And yes, it IS a fucking tragedy, but this is Texas we're talking about.

[beanman12345]

I may have been wrong about the two months thing (I was going off memory), but it was a provisional ballot, too! Those are explicitly meant for cases in which the voter's eligibility is in question.

Actually what happened was she signed a provisional ballot affidavit stating she had not been convicted of a felony and they used that as basis to convict her. But she also was guided to do such by the election worker. 5 years for such bullshit is unacceptable. The real crime she committed was being black and not voting Trump. If she didn't commit either of those, they wouldn't have even charged.

[Breccia]

If they can show that objectively there are no shared ingredients between the two, then yeah, they could face sanctions and fines

As pointed out earlier, the lawyers who filed that did a "WHOOPS my bad!" and tried to yank it back. Maybe. But yes, two chemicals that sound the same doesn't mean shit. Ferric oxide and ferrous oxide might only be a few letters off, but try making thermite with the wrong one and your welding career ends with some colored smoke.