SSOTT

[TopJimmy]

Is it that bad that Prez had to let in Mike Lindell (aka the My Pillow Guy) to see what crazy Q/Conspiracy stuff is still left to milk?

[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by minn19

I know it be extremely hard (maybe impossible/unconstitutional) to do,

I don't think it would be unconstitutional at all.

For example, we could create a law that says any publicly available broadcast must identify its content at the beginning and end, and before and after each commercial break.

So if you're Netflix and someone clicks on Lillehammer a short message says "the following content is fiction, any similarities to people or events blahblahblalh". Hulu kinda already has these intro bits you can't forward around.

And if it's Tucker Carlson, and any of his content isn't from verifiable sources and/or factual (i.e., it's the usual lies and/or conjecture), before the show and before & after each commercial it says, "the following content is fiction, any similarities blahblahblah".

I'm just spitballing, and this would make reporting harder (i.e., no anonymous sources), but all of this could be thought through. Thus speech isn't being prevented, just disclaimed when it's broadcast to the public.

[GrussGott]

BBC Comedy is always the best comedy.

[Lups]

Originally Posted by minn19

It’s made me truly think we need to look at curtailing certain things that are now considered free speech. People are a lot more stupid (and hateful etc etc) than I ever dreamed in this country unfortunately.

At one point I remember arguing with someone in the politics that we do have free speech in europe while he claimed we were slaves.


Before I had kids, it always scared me how freely kids obeyed authorities like parents. We never questioned them. As a granddaughter of a white supremacist some family traumas are behind my thinking for sure.


So I started off this parenting gig thinking I want my kids to question even me, if I tell them to do something stupid. Small things in safe settings, like when we were crossing an empty road, i told them to run the lights or something and then bought them an ice cream when they told me to fuck off and crossed the road as instructed a thousand times before. When we went to the grocery store, I told them to cut in a line and got the best evil eye from a child ever seen. Small things, just to make sure they listen to my words and think of their own actions before acting.


Here in school nowadays they do the same. In some second grade biology test the teacher asked if a snake lays eggs or gives birth to fully formed snakes. The answer is both naturally but there wasn't a box to cross for that. The teacher marked all answers as incorrect. There was an uprising and I'm proud to say my son was a leading voice in it. The teacher told the class it was apart of the test and that she was very proud of the kids. They've been doing shit like that ever since it, probably before it too. They keep giving them info texts to read with shit like Mao and obama were cousins and used to play baseball for the Mets (not a real example). Basically to give them a jolt while bored reading something that makes them question the whole thing and to find better sources for the information given to them, to make them check again before accepting the information.


they expect us to learn to think before we spew hateful shit. For example I can write that I fucking hate all occupants of tampere cuz we have hairy faces, I can even start raising funds to donate us shaving kits. I can't write that lets roast all the people in my city for having creepy faces, or I can't write I think everyone here should be killed or harmed or forced to shave. A pretty mild example but that's basically how it goes.


Yes, i feel like the nation would benefit if we shaved more and posted pics less for sure, but i don't have the right to violate their right to be hairy. I most certainly dont have the right to tell others to take action against them. If that means I dont have free speech, then fuck free speech. Also, me screaming from a soap box that I fucking hate hairy mugs is free speech, me screaming I want all hairy people to be burned alive is hate speech.


Platforms can pick their customers just like when I was banned from the feminists forum for writing that men also should have rights when it comes to their children and they banned me for having an ugly penis.


It hurt for sure, I think I'd have a beautiful penis but that's their sandbox and they get to pick who plays there. Thanks to civics lessons I won't be crying my rights were violated.


the education system here aims for us all to be able to read and comprehend what we are reading and to find additional information to back up a claim made or to debunk it, a skill we need in order to defend ourselves against the russians. freedom of speech here is tied to it, I'd argue you can't have one without the other and our system seems to agree. Hate speech seems like free speech to many who don't process what they're doing and with time things just go from bad to shit.

Even small kids are meant to understand that the ability to read is precious and the ability to not be a dick is the final goal.


I think I lost my point in the process of writing this. I still fucking hate beards. I hope my kids graduate with better writing abilities than what I have too or the whole selective reading skills thing is useless.

[Lups]

I'm completely fucking up this parenting shit.

We were making lunch with the kids and as usual, one of the egg heads wanted to switch the language. Since we were talking about American politics, English was logical.

we were making lasagna and discussing the costumes of the insurrectionists. The eight year old little shit said "I'm glad we dont take Larp that seriously here." The older brother said to him that "yes, it would be harder to get an rpg here".

"J, what's an Rpg?"
"Mom, it's a rocket propelled grenade. I'm not talking about a roleplaying games here. I googled those last week, want me to tell you about those? I was wondering what one could hide under a coat and go through a tank if the buffalo shaman decided to go for another visit"

"No, honey, I was in the army. I just hoped you meant some cute furries running around."

How on earth does a kid across a huge fucking ocean end up googling that shit cuz obviously the finer points of the chaos get lost in their little minds?

[dmk08]

I cant believe people actually pay money to upgrade to the “LCI2” headlights. They look so much worse than the halo LEDs to me.

[Captain Blood]

So who will djt pardon today? Himself? Ivanka and Jared? His sons? The insurrectionists? Lil Wayne? Rudy? Benedict Arnold?

Days like this make me miss the p0litics section, and the ability to set up a poll.

[dmk08]

Originally Posted by Captain Blood

So who will djt pardon today? Himself? Ivanka and Jared? His sons? The insurrectionists? Lil Wayne? Rudy? Benedict Arnold?

Days like this make me miss the p0litics section, and the ability to set up a poll.

I miss reading that section but as a libtard it was tough posting there...

[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by Captain Blood

So who will djt pardon today? Himself? Ivanka and Jared? His sons? The insurrectionists? Lil Wayne? Rudy? Benedict Arnold?

Days like this make me miss the p0litics section, and the ability to set up a poll.

You prolly know all this but just for fun, a purely legal thought not referring to anyone specifically:

As a purely legal matter, a president pardoning anyone (him/herself, family, or otherwise) without specifically listing the crimes opens up extreme legal jeopardy - there are a bunch of reason for this, but it more/less comes down to the fact that a Constitutional right is not / can not be a defense of a crime.

For example, you have the right to carry a handgun in Chicago (and per 2008 SCOTUS, a Constitutional right) - but you can't walk into a bank with said gun on your hip, walk up to the teller and say, "give me all the money" and then walk out without being guilty of armed robbery* - even if you never draw the gun. Thus you DON'T have the right to bear arms in commission of a crime.

The same is true of any right or privilege any citizen has: you can't use it / exercise it in commission of a crime; and that includes presidential pardons. So back to presidential self-pardons:

• If a President were to issue a blanket self-pardon, first, that would directly contradict multiple elements of the Constitution which, if left unchallenged, would turn the presidency into free-for-all position outside of US law ... but back to the original point, the blanket self-pardon could (would?) be used by prosecutors to establish a fact pattern as to intent and state of mind, i.e., the pardon was used in commission of a crime and therefore illegal.

• If a President were to issue a specific self-pardon it might be somewhat more arguable, but would still have most of the same problems: the pardon was used in commission of a crime and therefore illegal. And, of course, it requires the public stating of the crime - not a PR win.

As for pardons for others, say family members, many of the same problems would be true for blanket pardons: it would open up each person to high legal jeopardy and immediate investigation. What would be lower-risk would be pardoning people for specific crimes ... but then he'd have to list the crime or crimes ... and if those crimes haven't yet been investigated then pardoning someone for them would certainly open up those investigations ... especially at the state level! Because, of course, Presidential pardons are only applicable for federal crimes. And also, not a big PR win to say, "my family member committed this specific crime".

So overall I'd say any presidential pardons for self, family, or associates would be (will be?) extremely interesting, be they blanket or specific ... and especially if specific for, say, seditious conspiracy or similar.

[GrussGott]

*sidebar interesting legal point that's more relevant these days:

Felony murder - This is a specific complicated doctrine on a jurisdictional basis whereby someone can be convicted for murder even if they didn't intend to kill and/or didn't personally cause the death, or were even present where the death occurred!

The classic example is the driver of a bank job crew who waits in the car while the crew robs the bank - if one of the crew in the bank kills someone, the driver can be charged and convicted with felony murder - even get the death penalty!

The key is if the murder happened in commission of an intentional crime, i.e., the getaway driver KNEW he was committing a serious crime and helped by driving the crew to rob the bank.

There are limitations to being charged:

(1.) The crime has to be a "serious" felony; burglary, arson, robbery, kidnapping, rape, prison escape, resisting arrest, et al. This varies by jurisdiction.

(2.) The death must've been foreseeable; it gets murkier here, but if bank robbers go in with guns, it's more/less agreed it's foreseeable there may be resistance and it may be armed and someone may be shot. If, on the other hand, a drunk guy being arrested punches a cop who then has a heart attack, probably not foreseeable.

(3.) The death must've furthered the felony; so if one of bank robbers sees an old rival and kills them, the getaway driver probably can't be charged.


The bottom line is, Felony Murder boundaries are an open question in federal law, but also a real risk for anyone getting near to a felony where death may result. "but I didn't kill him, i wasn't even there!" may not get one out of the death penalty.

[TopJimmy]

I suspect someone will issue "secret pardons" which would not be disclosed unless/until people need to use them.

[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by TopJimmy

I suspect someone will issue "secret pardons" which would not be disclosed unless/until people need to use them.

Those would be even more legally troublesome IMO:

(1.) There's no provision for such a thing, so no way to prove it & when it was issued, thus its authenticity could be legitimately challenged, but maybe this could be avoided somehow ...

(2.) A "secret" pardon would be even more legally troublesome than a blanket pardon since it's an admission of crime AND obstruction of justice / evading prosecution.

(3.) The only limit to the pardon power is for impeachments (whether of the president or other government official) - a secret pardon for a crime against the US government would certainly be abuse of power and impeachable, thus triggering another trial

[GrussGott]

Some other downsides of presidential pardons I forget to mention:

(1.) Opens the path to *civil* suits (especially applicable in cases of fraud or death: "wrongful death" and "survival cause of action")

(2.) Opens the path to witness testimony w/o 5th protections (if/when the DoJ is willing to compel witnesses)

[Lups]

Originally Posted by TopJimmy

I suspect someone will issue "secret pardons" which would not be disclosed unless/until people need to use them.

Ah well, biden could make them public day one.

Happy trump be gone day everyone! My god this 2021 has been a long decade so far but hopefully this insanity ends now.

[TopJimmy]

My pic for today.
Let the trials begin!

[Lups]

Originally Posted by TopJimmy

My pic for today.
Let the trials begin!

Omg, 14 minutes left. I don't know who the woman singing about land is but I'll even watch that to run the clock.

[Lups]

That was a long fucking four years.

Now we can talk about suspensions again.

[Captain Blood]

Originally Posted by Lups

Omg, 14 minutes left. I don't know who the woman singing about land is but I'll even watch that to run the clock.

I thought Lady Gaga was outstanding, when she got to the part about the flag she brought me to tears.

[Lups]

Originally Posted by Captain Blood

I thought Lady Gaga was outstanding, when she got to the part about the flag she brought me to tears.

That wasnt gaga singing then, my 8 year old told me who she was was. The second act was the mystery.

My coffee. We all can now breath.

[minn19]

Originally Posted by Lups

That wasnt gaga singing then, my 8 year old told me who she was was. The second act was the mystery.

My coffee. We all can now breath.

J Ho. It's the most clothes I've ever seen on her.

[TopJimmy]

Gaga sung it well, and with respect. Very well done.

Let's get back to One Nation under Gott... (not you GrussGott )

[Lups]

Originally Posted by minn19

J Ho. It's the most clothes I've ever seen on her.

No help what so ever. This is some pop culture thing again?