wernercd

"if they take it too far."

The question isn't if... it's when. We've already seen how far the left will go and the only reason they aren't jailing those they disagree with is because they can't.

Yet.

it was not handled in a way that gives most Democrats faith that it was a fair ruling.

You don't have faith it would have been handled the same but you have faith that a Democrat would have had these charges against them?

Just for comparison... Hillary committed misdemeanors that LITERALLY was money crimes to influence an election. The exact same "crimes" that Trump had turned into felonies (without actual evidence of the crimes).

The problem we are in today is that these cases (4 of them) are obviously, blatantly and undeniably political and everyone knows that if Trump wasn't running for reelection or if Trump wasn't a Republican? These charges wouldn't be brought.

it wasn't tested because

exactly. It wasn't tested. A draft grand jury indictment isn't an indictment.

you aware of any former presidents where a prosecutor concluded that criminal charges were warranted

Are you aware of any prosecutors that were illegally appointed and paid for? because if you want to talk details, stuff like that is important as well. Florida wasn't appointed properly.

And, lets be honest... a lot of the "proof" is suspect. IE: The J6 committee that hid and deleted evidence from Republicans or the Jean trial where character evidence wasn't allowed showing that she's crazy. (Oh... statute of limitations be damned as well for a he said-she said civil trial).

The end of the story the main problem is you can complain that SCOTUS would do differently if it was another party... but you can't do that and ignore the fact that these cases are getting to the SCOTUS because the lower courts are treating Trump differently because of party and politics.

Weaponization of the "Justice System".

Last thought - the classified documents case is one where Trump has gotten extreme leniency compared to what an ordinary defendant would get

Really? I find it extremly lenient to not charge a Senator for keeping classified documents unsecured in his garage. I find it lenient for another Senator to not get charged for storing classified info on an illegal server then deleting the evidence that was under subpoena.

Yet somehow... it's lenient that a POTUS who's working with the "archive" gets raided without warning and a photo op happens? then the prosecutor admits to doctoring evidence?

Trump is being treated leniently?

We have a different definition of lenient, I think :)

When the court was full of liberals, they were doing judicial activism and that was bad and their decisions should be overturned

and now we are in a court full of conservatives who are doing judicial activist and that's bad and their decisions should be over turned, the courts should be expanded and those we disagree with should be charged with crimes, etc.

That argument goes both ways.

The reality is we are having the conversations as a result of the Justice System being abused SOLEY because one side is charging a political opponent with EVERYTHING they can think of by stretching laws in ways that were never intended.

Previous Presidents weren't presumed immune? That's never been tested because previous presidents weren't prosecuted - despite clear evidence that things have been done wrong but any president you can choose. Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc? Pick your president and we can probably find crimes worth prosecuting. Yet... it didn't happen previously.

What we have now is CLEARLY political persecution against a political rival. Crimes he's being charged with (IE: his "felony") are done by others (IE: hillary who was convicted of money crimes and paid fines to influence an election) and yet not thrown to the wolves via political persecution.

Why are we here? because of the weaponization of the court system.

"was impeached, not convicted" you're being pedantic and you know I meant convicted. Yes, he was impeached... but not convicted so that's the end of it. A democrat house impeached and a republican senate found him not guilty.

"his own lawyer" lawyers talk shit... we now know, per SCOTUS, the correc tpath.

"presumed immune" I don't think that the President should be immune, per-se... but the crux of the current problem is Democrats going after a Republican - and vice versa, if that was to happen.

Remember... Trump said "lock her up". Then didn't. (and yes, she's not the POTUS - thankfully - but my point stands).

Trump's response through the courts is in response to Democrats prosecution through the courts.

For example... he was charged with and became a "felon" for misdemeanor charges (no clue what those were) bumped up to felonies for "election interference".

Meanwhile: Hillary was charged with and actually convicted of those things - misdemeanor charges that she paid a $130k fine for (if I'm not mistaken). Doing stuff to influence an election. The exact thing that should have been turned into a "felony" per the law as being used by Democrats.

We are at this place, arguing about presidential immunity, which we haven't been to before because one side is actively persecuting a rival who they LITERALLY wouldn't be persecuting if he wasn't running for office again.

So the "the president isn't presumed immune" was never tested because the Justice System was never weaponized before.

The problem with that is - as demonstrated by the RvW over turning - is that it's not what the law says - since there was never law backing RvW. It's what THIS court says vs what PREVIOUS courts said.

The good lawyers giveth... the good lawyers taketh away. Judicial activism overturned by judicial activism.

The trump immunity case put forth what has always been - Presidents aren't charged without being impeached first. Something the left was trying to change. because lets be real... others - ie: Clinton lying under oath. Obama bombing countries. Bush. etc. All have done "criminal" things. The only difference is both sides of elites don't like Trump so the left decided to try and treat him differently. Which got rejected as it should be.

and besides that... "direct contradiction to established law" is a direct contradiction to what actually happened. The left was trying to wrangle laws into directions not intended to be overly broad - like they are doing to jail "J6" people.

Fact has backing evidence. AKA: Citation Needed.

Those other countries also have problems and people with money still go elsewhere when they need help. Rationing exists. Long lines exist. Denials exist. Shortages of doctors exist. etc.

The problem is that the conversation only focuses on the good parts of those systems and ignores the issues.

You can't have a real conversation and claim "have it better" when that may be true in parts but not in whole.

I don't claim the US system is better... or the best. But claiming that government ran or government overregulation leads to better is a lie. The VA is proof of that. the lies around the unACA is proof of that. The ever increasing prices and decreasing results due to government influence is proof of that.

Destroying what we have with something like the ACA isn't proof that government ran will be better... it's simply proof that people are willing to destroy what was working and claim that the destroyers will do a better job if only they have more money and more power.

That's like CA solving homelessness. "more money, more power and we'll solve homelessness" and there's never been more homelessness or less affordability in CA.

And it's gotten worse the more the government steps in to help.

The problem is the suggestion that government solutions will solve government created problems.

I have no problem admitting things can be fixed... but stuff like the unAffordable Care Act which is built on lies (Like your plan? Like your doctor? save $2500/year) is not going to solve the issues - nor is single payer, government ran solutions.

You'll never solve government created problems with government ran beauracracy.

Yeah... and the people that commit suicide in the parking lots waiting on help? They are chopped liver? They don't matter.

"it's not perfect" It's garbage and a prime example of government programs. Works for a few and fucks over the rest.

The ACA helps a few... and is built on lies - keep your plan? keep your doctor? save $2500 a year? Lies, lies, lies... a few million get help. The other 100m pay more, higher deductibles, lose their plans, lose their doctors.

But who cares about the 100m if the 1m get helped, eh?

the biggest problem is the wasted money, the lies and the people dying in the parking lots.

But who gives a f' about them eh?

maybe if regulations and taxes weren't so high, there could be more competition? Transparency and the like would help...

Increasing taxes and removing alternatives is never a good deal.

"market forces aren't enough" government forces aren't enough either.

The VA is the penultimate example and I wouldn't wish that upon my worst enemy. That's where our veterans go to commit suicide in the parking lots waiting on help.

22 Veterans.

Yes... lets make life more expensive by getting rid of taxes.

The reason life is so expensive OBVIOUSLY isn't because of the massive and ever increasing tax burden. NOOOO of course not. Its because people aren't taxed enough.

So lets increase taxes more so we can have goverment solutions to the government problem. Obviously we simply aren't governmenting enough.

Yo dawg... I heard you like government. So I got some government to put in your government!

Carbon Neutral is the term I was looking for so thank you for that.

Don't give up good in the pursuit of perfect.

If we get a few of these types of solutions - IE Growing algea to pull it from the air and burning it to get electricity and "putting it back"? If scaled? that can be the path forward - especially if we're getting electricity on both sides of the fence.

The question is what's the circle? for all the "ZOMG You're just burning it back into the sky!" worries - which are legitimate in a sense... this seems like a usable circle where CO2 gets pulled from the air and turned into Carbon, Oxygen and Electricity... then the carbon that's now algea can be turned into more electricity via burning which puts CO2 back into the air sure but now you have a cycle.

The issue with gas/oil/petrol is that the "cycle" is pull from ground and pump into air without a way to pull it back from the air.

So yes, this puts CO2 back into the air... after pulling it out of the air. So how is it not a step forward?

"the question is how it scales" and which mega corp is going to buy and bury the tech.

But seriously... stuff like this ("ZOMG MIRACLE BATTERY! MIRACLE SOLUTION! ZOMG!) seem to disappear because it takes years to turn an idea into a demo... and longer to get a demo to market and to scale.

We are surrounded by stuff that followed that route but I hope stuff like this actually makes it to market.

I have a 7 digit number but I remember it still after all these years lol Was able to login still.

It doesn't take supply away... but it does add overhead and middle men - which increases costs. Those investors need returns on their investments - whether you agree with capitalism or not.

"more supply" which is why I included places like CA that have had DECADES of shortages because of regulation, corruption, NIMBY, etc.

When you add the need for "more supply" to the need for investors to recoup costs, increased costs to build (IE: More safety features, solar requirements, etc), increased interest rates, etc?

It's easy to say supply and it's easy to say "towns used to pop up"... it's harder to admit that there's only so much space and those easy to pop-up areas are becoming fewer because there's fewer places to put up "towns" out of nowhere.

Inflation makes everything more expensive (light bulbs, nails, electricity). Regulations to make stuff "safer" also makes stuff more expensive. Places like CA have had a housing shortage for decades - they are short on houses built vs needed by tens of thousands a year for decades.

Add to that "investment" in rentals and the like.

it all adds up. I assume it's going to get worse.

True... but we've never had absolute capitalism. Just like we've never had absolute communism. Absolute socialism. Absolute monarchy. etc.

What we have is imperfect capitalism vs imperfect communism vs imperfect socialism vs ...

The reality is that imperfect capitalism, despite its flaws, is better than the alternatives, despite the attempt to ignore their flaws.

Because that's the only way you can argue socialism is better... is arguing the idea of socialism vs the reality of capitalism.

We can discuss the "line" that gets drawn but when that line crosses from one system to the other? We can absolutely judge Capitalism vs Socialism vs Communism.

"outside of the US" its still true.

Outside of the US, do people think that truth can be changed because you aren't in the US? Just deny literally 100+ years of history?

The only way Socialism works is in The Utopia that's never existed.

The real life examples of socialism are authoritarian nightmares. Thinking that outside of the US this isn't still true is an... interesting... attempt to deny history.

Capitalism did work. Socialism has never worked. Capitalism still works. Socialism still doesn't work.

and the problem is the predicted solution from the communists is worse.

You can sit and scream "companies are going to become mega corps and kill us all!!!"... but then when you scream "the solution is government ownership of everything, that will save us all!!!" you lose credibility.

For reference: All of human history and the real world results of socialism/communism/marxism.

The real truth is people understand what capitalism was... what it is... and understand that despite the issues? The alternatives are worse.

I know causation isn't correlation but all you have to do is look around and see that given more opportunities? people take advantage of others.

AKA: more "criminals".

"the only reason you're not killing your neighbor" thats a bit extreme but... yes.

"you can't pretend it's logical rational" Of course I can.

One, it is logical/rational - it's the same reason why people smoke less when you raise taxes on cigs. If it costs more? people will do it less. That cost might be taxes... or possible repercussions. Public shunning. Jailtime. Death penalty. You can pick your topic and if we look at push back against "bad" then the result is less bad.

Two, who says humans are logical/rational? We aren't that far out of the animal stage... we can pretend that we aren't driven by base emotions and the like. Humans are more often than not illogical and irrational. Making stupid decisions. IE: Gambling, drinking, drugs, cheating, etc.

So it's absolute defensible that more police (or, at a baser level, more consequences and more visibility of those consequences for bad decisions) results in less crime (or bad decisions). It's also absolutely defensible that humans are not rational/logical.

"stop and frisk" 1990 called and wants its talking point back.

S&F has been "unconstitutional" for over a decade - and that's not counting Defund The Police shenannery, open border policies and stuff like "bail reform".

IE: Illegal immigrants attacking police and getting released without bail.

I'm going to fight tooth and nail when someone calls NYC unsafe

Not the main thing I've been arguing, per-se but the fact that the national guard is being deployed into places like the subway seems to bolster the notion that NY isn't doing well.

https://abc7ny.com/subway-crime-nyc-statistics-assault/14381...

"According to the NYPD, there were 570 reports of felony assault on trains or in stations in 2023, that's the highest number in more than 20 years and a 53% jump from pre-pandemic levels."

January crime was up 50% compared to 2023 - and yes, that's a 2 year snapshot. Statistics is the game of picking the two points and saying "SEE! I'M RIGHT!"

but the main points is that violent crime is up.

The main point of my comments is more general crime - its hard to say crime is down when recent decisions to raise the bar to charge people has literally made fewer things crimes so "crime is down" can be true from a "statistically reported" perspective while actual numbers are up.

Look at California that raised the level of misdemeanor to $950... so felonies are down? Gee... I wonder why? Even though objectively more crime is happening, less is getting reported because people won't waste their time on "misdemeanors" that won't get charged by soft on crime DA. Crimes down? True... but also a lie.

Crime is running rampant as criminality is now, for all intents, legal if you're under a threshold. (or, if you're of the right demographics to "atone for past injustice")

You can't argue that policing deters crime simply because when there is policing, crimes are prosecuted.

Why couldn't you? Defund the police = less prosecutions, less policing = more criminals...

Why wouldn't someone argue easily proven points that more police = more safety (Yes, some corruption does exist but it's not like that corruption goes away when the police do.)

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/04/20/988769793/when...

"...from that perspective, investing in more police officers to save lives provides a pretty good bang for the buck. Adding more police, they find, also reduces other serious crimes, like robbery, rape, and aggravated assault."

It's a combination... DAs wont prosecute misdemeanors - which businesses won't then report... and DAs are also not prosecuting those higher crimes as well - which also means businesses won't report.

Part me of wonders... others are saying "all that theft is employee driven" as a talking point (yeah, I've got my own talking points too. Se'la'vie lol) - how much of it is old data - data from a decade ago before the soft on crime, defund the police crowd took over - and how much of it is employees not reporting crimes that waste everyones time in the current climate.

It'll be interesting to see if we get real data over the years and can look back at this failed experiment on "justice" objectively enough to show what an utter disaster it currently is.

So instead of it being $1000... it's $950... that's like me calling an item $10 when in reality its 9.99. The point still stands.

"Texas" Texas also has stand your ground laws and castle defense... so it's a lot easier to stop criminals. IE: Florida where a sheriff said "We have free gun classes so you can help save tax payers money when defending your property by not missing" (paraphrased).

The point still stands: CA took a $50 limit, bumped it up to $950, elects DAs that don't prosecute misdeamenors - and, as such, store owners don't report crimes that won't lead to prosecutions. Why waste the time? - so when you look at it from a statistical perspective? Oh look... crime numbers are down.

Never mind that more stuff is being stole on a more consistent basis... the lack of higher level crimes (Fewer felonies) and the lack of prosecutions (Why prosecute a misdemeanor as a DA... and why report stuff to police that won't get prosecuted as a business owner...) look better on paper but businesses and people are more unsafe than ever.

Crime is historically low... as crimes like theft are decriminalized.

It's easy to say there's less crime when you make stuff not a crime.

For reference: all the stores closing because of all of the theft not being prosecuted or that's no longer enforced.

IE: California where theft of under $1000 is no longer enforced.

The problem is the differences...

IE: Soft on crime policies in large cities.

I seriously doubt a lot of these larger cities that are in the "doom loop" will have the same results with the current differences between 20-30 years ago and today with simply turning buildings into apartments.

Just look at New York where businesses are closing all over because of rampant theft. They aren't closing because people aren't there. They care closing because they can't afford to have half their wares walk out the door because New York is refusing to charge criminals because of "justice".

The world we live in is vastly different than it was and the doom loops aren't just because of remote workers.

I went through the old save files and it was dead. I know where they were located. I found the same manuals and the same walkthroughs.

My game files were trashed. Restoring the different saves did nothing.

I promise you, I know how to restore saved files and follow instructions on how to do as such.

The emulators we easy to use. beautiful. responsive. After TOTK, the energy behind them had them getting constantly updated and was a good experience.

Until it wasn't.

Restarted TOTK on my Switch. I had bought it because I support games that are worth it even if I emulate them. I've got a Powkiddy RGB10 where I also emulate games. I've got a plex server where I host my own library.

When I, a random person on the internet you can believe or not believe, say that my emulator died and I lost weeks of progress on my game? I lost weeks of progress on my game. I can't remember which I was using (I switched between them at one point because one was faster/better but I can't remember which one it was)