Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    34428
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by TwiceHorn

  1. On 3/20/2024 at 7:54 AM, Orange&White said:

    I wasn't aware that the prisons got a vote or an option on who the courts sentence to prison? Are you saying that the prisons have a right or ability to deny a prisoner that has been convicted to prison time?

    You can't try or convict someone who is incompetent to stand trial. That whole Constitution thing. 

  2. 6 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

    I never realized in a criminal case the defendant has to be physically present all day every day. 6-8 hours a day 4 or 5 days a week over how many trials? Last week already had him nodding off multiple days. I expect it to take a tremendous toll on him physically, not to mention the mental stress of not being able to do as he pleases at all times. If he has to beg off from being present due to illness he is done imo

    Cultists can forgive just about anything from their leader except physical weakness. Gods don’t wear down 

    Yeah and even in a civil case, where it is not required, it is highly advisable to show the jury your level of commitment by attending. 

    You cannot underestimate the stress of a trial, any trial, but especially a criminal trial. 

    You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride is a serious truism. Even for a psycho like Trump. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  3. 12 minutes ago, TexPx said:


    d0871898decb08178d5f9a2b296483f3.png

    I am grateful that I know of very few of those people. 

    I also find it interesting that about half of the Qbaits don't use a real name, just their Truth/rumble handle.  Luceferian pedos indeed. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  4. 5 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

    I totally agree, but an image of some poor brown dude that got railroaded into a wrongful conviction wouldn't draw recognition like the ones I posted.  I just found it amusing that you would ask such an obvious question especially considering your response shows you knew the answer already.

    I didn't ask a question, I made an observation. 

     

    The problem is that even the best intentioned lawyers are or get competitive in a trial scenario.  Again, that's intended to benefit "the system," but on occasion it goes overboard and things get fucky because of it. 

    The example here is jury selection, where the ostensible goal is to keep the biased off the jury. But the line between that and putting people biased in your favor is thin, maybe imperceptible. But if keeping biased people off the jury is "right," then intentionally putting people biased in your favor is "wrong."

    And as has been pointed out repeatedly, the odd situational ethics of law dogging may even actually require that attempt. Does anyone here not want Trump-opposed jurors on this case? Didn't think so. 

    The one limiting factor that maybe avoids some of the problem is that people are incomprehensible, so you may not be doing what you think you are. 

  5. 14 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

    Gee, ya think?  Surely not, the legal system is the most bestest greatest thing ever and is as pure as the driven snow.

    Or,

    wirestory_a62a6c79869955b546691f9dc4b7a8

    1373769451000-AP-Neighborhood-Watch-1307

    t_128f3b961d7b43ad8b79245a7040324e_name_

    No one here has ever contended that it's perfect. But the latter two are probably more the result of bringing charges when you don't have the evidence or the law to convict.  

    And if you want evidence of gamesmanship negatively affecting outcomes, the better examples are prosecutorial and police misconduct. 

  6. 1 hour ago, safe sex said:

    I know the human motivation: greed. I was interested in the utility beyond personal wealth, which appears to be putting needed liquidity into the market, which is fair enough, but I think the practice needs guardrails that it currently lacks (and that feeling applies to almost the entirety of our financial system).

    I think the distinction needs to be made between "personal wealth" in the form of "retail" investments that you and I can make and some people richer than us can make. 

    And those investments made by institutional types that make money only for institutions, some of which are "worthwhile," like those that benefit universities and retirement funds, and some that only benefit private, wealthy interests like banks, ibanks, hedge funds, etc. 

    I think a lot of the latter have lost most or all connection to benefit the capital markets. Or at least it's very tenuous. 

  7. Well, as the OP, our pretty standard Whirlpool has been chugging along fine for almost three years now. 

    That seems like damning with faint praise, but three years without a problem seems pretty good these days. 

    A couple of notes. The impeller seems to be a good thing.  The washer seems to be easily unbalanced during spin compared to the prior old unit, but some of the cycles, for sheets and bulky items, seem to avoid this, perhaps with longer, lower rpm spins. 

     

  8. 3 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

    Not during the trial they won’t. “Can you be impartial “ cuts both ways. 

    Yuuuup. But, as juror 2,the state no doubt had strikes left to use. Something must have indicated that this person was going to be ok. 

    Because we have an underlying criticism of the justice system on this thread, this is one. It is a noble goal to remove biased/prejudiced jurors from the panel. 

    But voir dire sometimes reaches the level of almost pure gamesmanship: attempting to place jurors biased in your favor on the panel. 

    This is not the only instance in a trial where notions of fairness may take a back seat to winning at all costs. 

    The adversarial, competitive nature of trials is supposed to produce a good facsimile of truth in the sense of iron sharpens iron. But I wonder sometimes if the gamesmanship doesn't produce unjust results. 

  9. 10 minutes ago, safe sex said:

    Of course profit is always in the equation for why someone invests. But is there not a difference between someone who invests because they believe in the business and want to have a say in how it's run in order to, ultimately, make more money, and someone who sells something they don't own yet in hopes of manipulating the market for a quick turnaround that probably harms a lot more people than it helps?

    I believe capitalism with all of its flaws is still the best overall philosophical model to base a society on. But the way we approach it has got to change, and shit like short selling (among many, many other stock-related manipulations) needs to have maybe a few more rules that apply to it. What they would be I have no fucking clue, obv.

    Could also be that I'm just stupid and naive, but there's worse things.

    Well there are certain investments that are utterly unavailable to most that serve very little purpose in the capital markets except to make banks and similar more money. Which arguably very arguably, makes them better available to serve capital markets through more conventional vehicles that still bear some relationship to raising capital and lending. 

    Short selling stock is not really one of those but it can be very risky and most retail investors don't indulge in it. 

    Put options are a pretty similar way to bet on a stock going down or short, and is more common among retail investors. 

  10. 34 minutes ago, safe sex said:

    My opinion remains unchanged.

    Is there an actual purpose other than increasing personal wealth?

    Short sales apply downward pressure on the price of an over-valued stock. Just plain sales of a stock do, but less so. 

    Yes, the stock market/financial markets are a big load of bullshit, but short selling has been around for a long time and is regarded as a "price discovery mechanism." That is, it helps the market figure out the best or right price for a stock. 

    ETA I am not trying to change your opinion, just give you another data point. I fully agree that the market is D&D for rich fuckers, but in the grand scheme of things, short selling is on the legitimate and long-standing transactions, compared to say, credit default swaps on CDOs. 

    • Hook 'Em 3
  11. 13 hours ago, safe sex said:

    That's still insane.

    For a fully legal short sale, you borrow the shares you sell, and it is the borrowing contract that obligates you to cover, that is, return the shares to the party from whom they were borrowed, you hope purchased at a lower price.

    Naked shorts, without the borrowing part, are illegal but still happen.  Surprise.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  12. 4 minutes ago, Goredho said:

    For you surly law dogs, can a judge order that a defendant be fitted with a shock collar so they can be issued a mild correction whenever they fall asleep at their own criminal trial?

    Haha no.  But like a lot of things in actual courtroom time before a jury, the penalty is self-executing:  nodding off tends to put off jurors.  They're sitting there listening and the fucking defendant can't keep from nodding off? 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  13. Well, sadly, the Dallas court of appeals affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Sidney Powell.  Read it and weep. https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=430b390e-0f80-43e2-9d6b-53a97caf9fb9&coa=coa05&DT=Opinion&MediaID=e591d629-9c76-4d77-920d-f04faab58bf7

    The main thrust of the opinion is that the Bar irretrievably fucked up the exhibits and the one they didn't fuck up, the Georgia complaint with the attached misrepresented exhibits, did not sufficiently show a knowing misrepresentation.

    The three-judge panel was entirely Democratic justices.

    Sucks.

     

     

    • Rage+1 4
  14. 14 hours ago, YChang said:

    Some good stuff there and citations/links to other good stuff.  Funny thing, I had half-heartedly searched for critiques/contrary views but the channel is so flooded with bullshit right-wing sites repeating the same shit that it is difficult to find anything else.

    This is a common thing these days, but for whatever reason, I lacked the diligence to track down any contrary views.

    • Hook 'Em 3
  15. 7 hours ago, sheeeit said:

    Which is why I said RFK is probably the best choice.  He may be the one eyed man in the land of the blind.

    Seriously.  If someone on Texags told you today that the current POTUS, the most powerful position in the world,  who is in an intense campain for relection and where his mental acuity is a huge issue in that campain said publicly, on more than one occasion, that his uncle or his uncle's remains were eaten by cannibals in WW2, you would rightfully think that Texags poster was a lunatic.  But somehow its true.

    Well, actually no.  I may be an above-average student of WWII history, but he did not say he was eaten by cannibals.  He said he was shot down on NG, which is a slight miss, and that there were cannibals on NG, which is 100% true.

    Compared to some of the shit Trump has said, about current events, on a near daily basis, it's kind of a gaffe.

    There were and are cannibals on the island of New Guinea.  They even caused a variant of CJD because of it.  Mad cannibal disease.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
    • Prepare your anus 1
  16. 2 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

    I can not stop laughing.  I saw a tiktok about this and just assumed it was a joke or some instance where Biden just slurred his words a little bit and they guessed about what he said.  Now, quite high, I decided to check it out.  Holy shit.  The POTUS, figuratively the most powerful person in the world, just said, with a straight face, that he believes his uncle was a pilot eaten by Aboriginal cannibals when his plane went down during WW2.  Its impossible but it isnt.

    Even if we give him him the most gigantic benefit of the doubt in human history that this was some family story passed down through the years and so he just repeated it, it is still unbelievable.  How do you ever say that to the press?  Ubder any circumstances?   A 10 year old can google it and see that his uncle was not the pilot and that the plane went down over the ocean.  There was an actual fucking survivor that told the story.  It is impossible that Biden did not know the true story at one time.  He is ful blown senile.  No person in any way still cognizant would ever say or do that.  I kind of feel bad for him and Jill must be one tough woman. 

    I guess maybe I am really high because if I am presented a situation where the only options for POTUS next year are Biden, Tump or RFK, I actually think RFK might be the best option.  And he is a terrible option.

    This POTUS election should make us change the rules of the game going forward regarding politics.  The system is great but the current rules allowed it to be gamed.  There is no other rational explanation.  We have some of the very best and brightest and capable people in the world in the US.  Hundreds of thousands of them.  But our POTUS will be one of 3 of the worst choices we could make.  That is only possible in a rigged game.

    Yeah, you're high and you have fucked up news sources.

    Yeah, it appears that it probably wasn't cannibals, but that's far from an impossibility.  New Guinea has had cannibals forever.  https://www.livescience.com/51191-cannibalism-prions-brain-disease.html

    • Hook 'Em 4
  17. On 12/27/2021 at 3:15 PM, WhatTheBuck said:

    If they do only one thing it should be to punish Donald Trump for the campaign finance violations he committed when he bought the silence of Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. You know, the same crime that sent Michael Cohen to jail. We know he did it. The court knows he did it. The court acknowledged he did it. We’ve seen the checks he wrote to reimburse Cohen. He even won the lawsuit he filed against Stormy Daniels for violating the NDA she signed to keep their affair secret.

    I don’t understand why he’s getting away with that. It’s inexcusable. 

    We should probably be clear that Michael Cohen was charged with quite a bit more than campaign finance violations, including the "headshot," bank/mortgage fraud. 

    Although it is true that he pled guilty to all of the offenses charged, I'm pretty sure the campaign finance violation was pretty low on the priority list of avoiding trial and conviction. 

    Kinda like using marked cards in the list of Tuco Ramirez' offenses. 

  18. 1 hour ago, South Austin said:

    I agree.  It does seem baffling.  Maybe that Rudy was always lurking under the surface, or maybe he had been doing batshit crazy things for decades that never made the press.  But Rudy v. The Mafia and Rudy v. Wall Street in the 1980s, and 9/11 Rudy, were commendable, even though not immune from criticism.  

    This guy?  This guy is a fucking joke of a human being.

     

    Even despite his recent insanity, when he was speaking to courts and legislatures during the peaceful part of the insurrection, he was smooth and articulate. You could see at least glimpses of who he was. 

  19. 1 hour ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

    What kind of rock did one have to live under to qualify as one of the 7 jurors? 

    Unless there's something from social media or otherwise that indicates a clear bias, the magic words from a juror are "yes, I can be fair and unbiased."

    • Hook 'Em 2
  20. 50 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

    Anyone know what's up with the E. Jean Carroll bond?  

    He posted a $5M and $83M bond in each of the Carroll appeals.  Probably has something to do with why he's low on cash.

    • Hook 'Em 2
×
×
  • Create New...