Jump to content

Foosters

Burnt Ends
  • Posts

    5339
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Foosters

  1. 3 hours ago, statsman said:

    I am a very political person, and am very disappointed to discover there really isn’t a party in the U.S. that advocates limited government, inalienable rights, free-ish markets, fiscal responsibility and national security- all ideas that seem reasonable and tested to me. I alternate between anger and relief (“not my monkey, not my circus” is liberating when confronted with idiocies from members of the party I used to claim). 

    A lot of people would be on board with this. The issue is your second item on the list - inalienable rights. About 80% of our political battles lie in trying to define which rights are inalienable.

  2. 2 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

    So I haven’t paid much attention to California politics. I didn’t even realize Schiff was running for Senate. Why has the Democratic Party there allowed these two key politicians go head to head like that? I would have thought there would have been better planning. I didn’t even realize Schiff had a shot at Senate. And Porter had a lot more room to move up in the House. 

    CA has an open primary. The ballot had like 20+ candidates from all parties. What is the advantage to the Democratic party if they had not "allowed" Porter to run?

  3. I can't think of a more appropriate "Leopards Eating People's Faces" moment than voting for a guy who has a platform that will retroactively seek to strip you of US citizenship and put you on a plane to a country you've never been to.

    • Hook 'Em 7
    • Like 1
  4. On 3/5/2024 at 7:16 PM, Captainant said:

    It's not youf ministers, but Liberty University was fined a record breaking $14,000,000 for failure to disclose criminal rapes under the Cleary Act

    Liberty has marketed itself for years as having one of the nation’s safest campuses, with more than 15,000 students enrolled at the school in Lynchburg, Virginia. But its police department had a single officer with minimal oversight for investigating crimes during most of the time period reviewed by federal investigators, 2016 to 2023.

    The U.S. Department of Education said it identified numerous cases that resulted in the misclassification or underreporting of crimes. And there were several incidents that the university determined to be unfounded, without evidence the initial report was false.

    “This was especially common with respect to sexually based offenses, including rape and fondling cases,” according to the department’s Final Program Review Determination.

    Federal investigators cited a case in which a woman reported being raped, with the attacker telling her he had a knife, the final program review stated.

    Liberty’s investigator “unfounded this case based on a claim that the ‘victim indicates that she consented to the sexual act,’” the final program review stated. “In point of fact, the victim’s own statement merely indicated that she ‘gave in’ in an attempt to get away from the perpetrator.”

    That episode was ultimately counted in the crime statistics, the final program review stated, after Liberty’s Clery compliance officer realized the case was “mishandled at several points in the process.”

    Many victims of sexual crimes feared reporting because of concerns of reprisal, the final program review stated. Several were punished for violating the student code of conduct known as “The Liberty Way,” while their assailants were left unpunished.

    “Consequently, victims of sexual assault often felt dissuaded by Liberty administration’s reputation for punishing sexual assault survivors rather than helping them,” the final program review said. “Such fears created a culture of silence where sexual assaults commonly went unreported.”

    This is the least surprising thing I've ever read in my entire life 

    • Hook 'Em 4
    • Like 1
  5. 1 hour ago, Scheiss Meister said:

    A question for the Surly Law Brigade:

    Let's say that the person taking that video sees the old man pull that gun, feels that his or her life is in imminent danger (as seems likely they did due to their rapid displacement to another location), and instead of running pulls a firearm of their own and perforates the shit out of the old guy.  Would that not clearly be a case of self defense and justifiable homicide under Texas law?  If not, why not?

    That's valid self defense in almost any jurisdiction.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  6. It can be done. I coordinate a diversion program out of a court that accepts clients charged with crimes that have a nexus between the offense and the diagnosis (can be alcoholism or addiction.) They are linked to a case manager, a program serving their individual needs, and they have regular court dates for progress reports. We just celebrated our 2000th graduation and have a non-recidivism rate of just over 90%. Services can remain in place even after the case is dismissed.

    Wouldn't be possible but for a statute passed by the CA leg that our office helped write and push through.

     

    • Hook 'Em 5
  7. As someone who has very fond memories of growing up in Texas, I expressed to my wife that I would love it if our daughter went to the same summer camp that I attended every summer for 8 years. I was met with a resolute "no," and told that if she goes to summer camp in Texas, she'll befriend lots of native Texans, who will then mostly attend college in Texas and our daughter may want to do the same. 

    Couldn't really argue. I've spent the last decade explaining that Texas isn't "that bad" and the extremists don't really represent the state, but I really don't have a leg to stand on anymore.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  8. 13 minutes ago, Bevo said:

    Read my first post. All I did was laugh at Micron with 3 words, "That is hilarious". And I wouldn't personally call a 3 word sentence a rant. K. Furthermore, I went to Hautes Études Commerciales so you trying to call me out on not understanding France is absurd. If you don't think it is funny that Micron basically called Schultz a pussy, I can understand. But, I can't understand you driveling on and on regarding basically a throw-away comment.

    ah yes, driveling on and on . . . with my one sentence joke. lmao

  9. Quote

    The next day, President Trump attempted to elevate Jeffrey Clark to Acting Attorney General, based on Mr. Clark’s statements that he would write a letter to contested states saying that the election may have been stolen and urging them to decertify electors. The White House Counsel described Mr. Clark’s proposed letter as a “murder-suicide pact” that would “damage everyone who touches it” and commented “we should have nothing to do with that letter.” President Trump eventually did not promote Mr. Clark after multiple high-ranking members of the Department of Justice threatened mass resignations that would leave the Department a “graveyard.”

    In the months following the election, numerous credible sources–from the President’s inner circle to agency leadership to statisticians–informed President Trump and Dr. Eastman that there was no evidence of election fraud. One week after the election, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency declared “[t]he November 3rd election [] the most secure in American history” and found “no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.” An internal Trump Campaign memo concluded in November that fraud claims related to Dominion voting machines were baseless. In early December, Attorney General Barr publicly stated there was no evidence of fraud, and on December 27, Deputy Attorney General Donoghue privately told President Trump that after “dozens of investigations, hundreds of interviews,” the Department of Justice had concluded that “the major allegations [of election fraud] are not supported by the evidence developed.”

    Still, President Trump repeatedly urged that “the Department [of Justice] should publicly say that the election is corrupt or suspect or not reliable.” By early January, more than sixty court cases alleging fraud had been dismissed for lack of evidence or lack of standing.

    2. Plan to disrupt electoral count

    In response to alleged fraud, Dr. Eastman researched and planned a strategy for President Trump to win the election. Just after Christmas, Dr. Eastman wrote a now-public twopage memo proposing that Vice President Pence refuse to count certified electoral votes from states contested by the Trump campaign: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

    The memo outlines the two ways in which Dr. Eastman’s plan ensures “President Trump is re-elected.” If Vice President Pence refused to count electoral votes from all seven contested states, President Trump would win 232 votes to 222. Alternatively, if Congress claimed that a candidate could not win without reaching 270 votes, Vice President Pence could send the election to the Republican-majority House of Representatives, which would then elect President Trump. The memo emphasizes that “[t]he main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission – either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court.”

    On January 4, President Trump and Dr. Eastman invited Vice President Pence, the Vice President’s counsel Greg Jacob, and the Vice President’s Chief of Staff Marc Short to the Oval Office to discuss Dr. Eastman’s memo. Dr. Eastman presented only two courses of action for the Vice President on January 6: to reject electors or delay the count. During that meeting, Vice President Pence consistently held that he did not possess the authority to carry out Dr. Eastman’s proposal. The Vice President’s counsel and chief of staff were then directed to meet separately with Dr. Eastman the next day to review materials in support of his plan. Dr. Eastman opened the meeting on January 5 bluntly: “I’m here asking you to reject the electors.”

    Vice President’s counsel Greg Jacob and Dr. Eastman spent the majority of the meeting in a Socratic debate on the merits of the memo’s legal arguments.  Over the course of their discussion, Dr. Eastman’s focus pivoted from requesting Vice President Pence reject the electors to asking him to delay the count, which he presented as more “palatable.” Ultimately, Dr. Eastman conceded that his argument was contrary to consistent historical practice, would likely be unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court, and violated the Electoral Count Act on four separate grounds. Despite receiving pushback, President Trump and Dr. Eastman continued to urge Vice President Pence to carry out the plan.

    bUT hILLarY!

    • Rage+1 1
  10. Here's a clip of someone saying we should "kick ass and take names"

    here's a clip of a violent assault. 

    Obviously the two are equal.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  11. 1 minute ago, BHMCruiser said:

    She is on record publicly claiming Trump stole the election, that there was hacking, and voter suppression, and he's an illegitimate president. 

    Ok. Strange then for you to say "I wonder what she was saying? Probably something about "accepting the results" and "oh well fair is fair""

    Which is all I was responding to.

    That said, now that you've corrected the record, please read pages 3-10 and compare Trump's actions to Hillary's remarks.

     

×
×
  • Create New...