tl;Dr The court made a weird ruling that says there is no secondary liability (Backpage) but there is tertiary liability (providers they purchase or contract with).

The tiny majority of voters. Not the country. Close? Not really.

Right right. That’s why he needed to start doing things 3.9 years ago instead of screwing around for so long. What a failure. Or a success, depending on your perspective.

Word is that the nachos are stale, and come with pickles and cold cheese.

For those who weren’t closely tracking the news over the past thirty years on the topic, this is an excellent summary.

He’s just talking nonsense though. There is zero chance Trump will tax the billionaires overall. They paid him off, they own him.

But possibly of he’s feeling particularly pesky, he might target people he doesn’t like and target only them and pretend he did something meritorious.

If the garbage takes itself out, I won’t complain. YT doesn’t see how the cable companies dying is the exact same future it is racing to emulate.

Everyone has a horse in the race, just like with breaking traffic laws. If I’m a juror on a speeding case, and I speed too, of course I’m likely to be sympathetic to the defendant. Similarly, what about cops investigating or testifying about DV when over 1/3 of them beat their families? There’s bias, but the “justice” system still operates.

Or we could look at the Google trials. Are we seriously thinking that no potential jurors would be able to have ever used use their services or products? … That all just doesn’t work. It’s nearly impossible to avoid Google. And your standard is even lower – you’re talking about exclusion based on use of competing companies in the field along with the company itself. In other words, I can’t be a juror on a Google case if I’ve used Google or Apple or Microsoft products…? That’s the parallel to the health insurance industry.

Of course that standard couldn’t possibly make sense, and legal scholars knew this centuries ago. So it’s not how the law works, and it never was.

I think they know how out of touch they are. But they don’t understand the level of discontent across vast swaths of the large percent of the population that they would never dream of chatting with.

They will try, but people will answer that murder is not acceptable and then find not guilty later anyway. And they can potentially do that truthfully. If they find small issues with the evidence, they can go with not guilty.

If you think of other issues, it’s not as strange as you would think. If someone is accused of speeding and goes to trial, or reckless manslaughter for a traffic accident, let’s say, the jury will be filled with drivers, most of whom break traffic laws on a daily basis.

As a result of this obvious impasse, the standard is not whether people have exposure to the general issue or the shitty system at hand. You can be sure the prosecution will pretend it is, and the defense will point out it’s not.

I see the ultra-rich as human. The worst kind of human. They had hearts once, but those have long since rotted to nothing. It’s possible for them to figure shit out, but almost none of them will.

Yup. The article mentions that the prosecutors have a problem, but the U.S. people certainly don’t.

You can certainly interpret the killing that way, but there are many other reasonable interpretations, and to get a conviction you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Do we have a quote of him saying before the murder or publishing at any time something indicating that he was killing this guy to send a message to all the evil m************ who act just like him? If we do, your conclusion is warranted. If we don’t, your conclusion is speculation.

Let me give you a parallel. Imagine someone cuts me off in traffic and I pull out a gun and I shoot them. Am I terrorizing other bad drivers? Probably not. Probably I’m a psychopath dealing with road rage in a terrible fashion. In other words, the fact that other people can draw conclusions about similar behavior does not in itself make my actions threatening to them in any way.

My understanding is that Luigi did not publish the manifesto, and that it was discovered by others later. If that’s true, then the manifesto itself is not particularly relevant to anything criminal. The message on the bullets could be considered relevant, but I don’t see how that alone would be proof of intent to terrorize.

I think you’re missing several things. First, if the phenomenon is accurate, and it is, then the burden is on you to figure out how to stop getting played. Don’t ask other people to solve your problems. Recognize your problems, and then work to solve them directly.

Second, the spoiler effect doesn’t exist unless you’re in a swing state. But how many Americans were told that they have to vote for Harris or they’re supporting Trump, when in fact their state was nowhere close to 50/50 so realistically they could have voted for anyone?

Third, there is no single leftist community. There are many different leftist communities that overlap and agree on various points. Also, you’re suggesting that leftists are idealist, but that’s not the truth. We all recognize the current situation, and we’re trying to make a better one, but you’re not. In other words, your cynicism has caused you to throw in the towel, and to accept the current reality as permanent, unchangeable, it sucks but there’s nothing you can do, and that’s certainly true if you believe it.

My friend, what you wrote totally ignores the passage of time. Everything you wrote is true if we only look at one election, and none of it is true if we consider the passage of time and how pressure operates. If the political party is not getting votes, if all of their candidates are losing, either they will disband or they will find different policies to push.

I think you need to look at the above the graph and try again, maybe with less f****** around and more using your brain.

Rather than “admitting”, I would think that most of these people are proud of it. If the insurance companies can kill people in large numbers (and they do), and somehow that’s OK (which it shouldn’t be), then that’s the new standard (sadly), and that’s life (or death, as the case may be).

I imagine it’s from people who just don’t watch the news. They don’t know how evil that CEO was, so they blindly apply common sense.