Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    42174
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. They have to charge a capital offense first. And doing so will be a stretch. This is the Utah homicide statute and it makes capital a number of forms of murder that probably wouldn't pass constitutional muster. https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter5/76-5-S202.html?v=C76-5-S202_2025050720250507 The only one factually even potentially applicable is the actor knowingly created a great risk of death to another individual other than the deceased individual and the actor;
  2. Generally speaking, the indictment is presented and read to the defendant, the defendant pleads, and an initial bail determination made. The indictment contains sufficient evidentiary facts typically to support that there is probable cause that a crime was committed and not much more. The prosecution wants as few facts as it can get away with and wants nothing that cannot be easily proven. There is some variance among the various states, one of the main variants being whether a plea is taken at the first appearance or a later arraignment.
  3. Above, I dissected his quote about black airline pilots, which, taken by itself, is disgusting. But his "broader" argument is that affirmative action, specifically preferences, has CREATED that doubt by creating a perception that less-talented minorities get jobs in place of more-qualified whites. That's a highly debatable proposition and ignores the very real possibility that without preferences, and "DEI" in the military, there'd be no perception because there would be no black airline pilots. But that's sophistry covering the essential racism of the basic position, that a dirty nagger can't possibly be an airline pilot. As revealed pretty clearly here:
  4. How so? I think I agree with you, but I'm interested in your reasoning. To me, the problem is the fundamental incompatibility of religion, practiced authentically, and politics. It's not just the election part, but the actual governing part, as well. Talarico is trying to run a Christ-like, or more Christ-like. campaign than the alleged Christians, but without invoking Christ by name. I applaud the notion in the abstract, but I think it's going to be a tough go.
  5. Careless People is an interesting read. It seems Zuckerberg can rationalize anything as promoting FB's alleged goal of global connectivity.
  6. Well, us lefties are vewwy vewwy dangerous.
  7. Well, Trump made that real easy. I don't have to go samesies to figure out for whom to vote. Not trying to start a fight here, but Catholics are responsible for a lot of what's going on here. From the dumbass Opus Dei types, to Leonard Leo, to some intellectuals like Patrick Deneen and Adrian Vandermeule. This is a must listen to understand where some of the alt-right policies are coming from https://freakonomics.com/podcast/has-america-lost-its-appetite-for-the-common-good/. There are actual underpinnings to this shit that aren't 100% bigotry. It's far too subtle for most of the right wing voters. Also, for someone who holds these views and is pretty influential, this is a great demonstration of civil discourse. He manages to avoid outrageous statements, acknowledges when things may be controversial, and things of that nature. Also, he has refused almost all media/interview requests, notably not Freakonomics, and is a bit perturbed at how the WSJ recently wrote about him. It's not an accident that these common-gooders are Catholic and working from Catholic universities.
  8. Seems quite plausible. OSU was stoutish competition, hyped at least, nerves, and expectations. He thought he'd shake it off against a creampuff and it didn't happen, and expectations and the reality of QB1 without a suitable fill-in started to hit, bingo-bango here we are. It feels to me like he's kind of rushing throws, not because of pass rush, or even serious problems with reads, but like "ok here it is, whip it out NOW" and maybe that's leading to mechanical issues.
  9. Tech or not, he's 20-something. A 20-something can drink like a fucking fish and still be about 90%+ functional. IYKYK. And really, most of us know.
  10. It's being pumped by a number of state legislators, so it's certainly their interpretation of the curriculum law.
  11. Well counselor, you may be getting a DM from me. Keep an eye out. Well, it's not my area, but I am familiar with the law on it. And, in the law that made the government can fire for otherwise protected expression, there was some "dictum" about teachers presenting a separate question not addressed. I shudder to think how this Court might resolve that.
  12. ztejas has us standing tall before the man.
  13. To be fair, we really don't have data on such things for a huge part of our history. But the fundamental mistake is that any number much greater than ONE wrongful execution is significant without anymore context.
  14. To fire a public employee for expression that is unrelated to work, there still has to be some nexus to the work environment, meaning the effect of the speech in question has to make the job harder for others in some way or otherwise adversely affect the work environment. So, the firing authorities will have to turn it into something work related in a pretextual fashion. "Reprehensible and irresponsible" is a rather poor job of framing it that way ahead of time. At least that's the way it was under oldlaw, and oldlaw was mostly made by reactionaries in this case, but not these particular reactionaries. Of course, the current reactionaries aren't very good with oldlaw, but they're also getting mulligans from SCOTUS, so . . . . .
  15. Posting this separately from the above. This is a Freakonomics show featuring Patrick Deneen, a Notre Dame professor that is an advocate of "common good." Perhaps not him specifically, but his writings underpin a lot of the right-wing authoritarian movement and provide a non-selfish justification for some of the shit that's going down. and He makes some very valid observations about problems with our "democratic experiment," some forewarned at the founding. But his proposed solutions are . . . distasteful. So, this is a guy that could be massively controversial and also provides intellectual underpinnings to some of the P2025/alt-right crew, like people claim was Charlie Kirk. But he's not. And listen to him talking to Steven Dubner on Freakonomics. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/has-america-lost-its-appetite-for-the-common-good/ Compare and contrast with Charlie Kirk. And, seriously, if you aren't familiar with "common good," listen to that.
  16. I'm gonna address just this one. If you asked Kirk about that statement, he would say "it's because affirmative action raised that question in my mind because it inherently gives positions to the less qualified." Without debating about that statement, which could be characterized as more of a debatable position than the above quote, it doesn't really matter what the genesis of the soundbite was: people only hear the pretty trenchantly racist part of it. And I think that's by design. That's an attention-seeking and less-than-good-faith argument style. Also on the "cost of the Second Amendment," he gives the example of driving and rattles off a few of the social benefits of driving and say they offset the 50k motor vehicle fatalities. But he just assumes any benefit of unrestricted gun ownership without itemizing any such benefits. And then he reduces the argument to absurdity: "we're never going to have zero gun deaths." And all of this was on some kind of very friendly show, not any kind of debate. The Charlie Kirk Show for the first, something else for the second, with a cheering audience.
  17. Well, wrongful executions is one of those numbers that doesn't need a lot of context and doesn't need to be "per capita" to be meaningful. I think most people are fairly serious when they repeat the old saw "better a dozen guilty go free than an innocent be convicted." And here we're not talking about merely convicted, but executed or well en route to being executed. The 201 actual exonerations from death row since 1973 should alarm the shit out of everyone. That's 201 innocents not only convicted, but sentenced to death despite all the safeguards. Yeeeouch.
  18. Well, really no more so than this board and these thread. If you give them that much credibility. Some have some good thoughts, others don't, or don't often, but no one has any real answers. Arch was anointed based on essentially $9.95ers, the actual ones and the national ones, and some of us bought into it hard. And that's not to say the "2A Lousiana" naysayer crew were right, either.
  19. 787 Million and counting shows who's lying and who isn't. And don't give me those cbs and abc settlements in response.
  20. Except that's not all he was doing. I'm not saying this in defense of his murder. I'm saying it to counter a load of shit about what a benign person and influence was Charlie Kirk.
  21. I don't doubt that the number of erroneous convictions is huge. Thankfully, most of those are not capital cases and even in a capital case, conviction does not lead inexorably to execution. The Death Penalty Information center identifies 201 exonerations from death row since 1973. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/
  22. Slightly is doing some heavy lifting there.
  23. I don't see that from the Times. I do see it from the Post.
  24. The death penalty procedure is currently set up in an attempt to "be fair" to the accused. Yet, we still execute innocent people, minors, and mentally retarded. That's pretty much anything but fair. So I guess it's not fair enough. Or maybe by its nature can never be fair. And, people can effectively be removed from society without killing them.
  25. Except that his "buts" had nothing to do with justifying or celebrating his murder. They relate to OTHER things that are being called justifying or celebrating his murder. It is completely fair to point out the hateful things he said when he is called a great Christian or civil debater. In typical MAGA argument/rhetorical mode, you don't address whether those expressions were hateful or not, or even somehow inaccurately portrayed, or whether a true Christian would frequently and stridently declare such things You shift the argument to "but it's no excuse for celebrating his murder." It's a slightly more sophisticated version of "but her emails," or "but Hunter's laptop."
Γ—
Γ—
  • Create New...