US Politics: Losing Appeals

[TrackerNeil]

3 hours ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Why even have laws? Every person in NY should now demand they get the same bullshit treatment. 

The courts aren't going to save us from Donald Trump. Not Jack Smith nor Tanya Chutkan nor Leititia James, and certainly not the Supreme Court. Not the House of Representatives, and not the Senate. They'll stop the most egregious attempts to seize power, maybe, but for anything short of that, it's up to the voters to write an end. It's a sad but clarifying truth.

Edited March 25 by TrackerNeil

[The Big Stink]

2 hours ago, Week said:

Starship Troopers is another that seems to go through periods where it becomes apparent that some people are immune to satire (and basic media literacy).

The idea that Starship Troopers was written as satire is floated by people who never readthe book, and are also of the disposition to automatically believe that the "film adaptation" says it's based on the book, and therefore most definitely represents the book.

It's instead an exploration of ideas, like most Sci-Fi. It presents certain points of view and ideas, and extrapolates what sort of world and story that might produce.

The film has about as much to do with the book as the 1990s Mario Bros. movie does with the games. Less, really

[The Big Stink]

There was a bit of good news about the future of public discourse this week. The United States Supreme Court indicated it was going to give the Biden administration the go-ahead to try to persuade social-media platforms not to put out content promoting  conspiracy theories.

No restrictions on speech means that extremes of free speech will continue to be tolerated, creating a pathway for more Donald Trumps..

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

22 minutes ago, The Big Stink said:

There was a bit of good news about the future of public discourse this week. The United States Supreme Court indicated it was going to give the Biden administration the go-ahead to try to persuade social-media platforms not to put out content promoting  conspiracy theories.

No restrictions on speech means that extremes of free speech will continue to be tolerated, creating a pathway for more Donald Trumps..

Huh?

[Makk]

Very disappointing, I was really looking forward to waking up to good news but it would be so epic if Trump couldn't come up with a $170 million bond.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

You have laws to punish the people you don't like, namely those without money. Occasionally you need to punish someone with money who you stop liking, but most of the time you don't. 

I guess, eventually, you might come to the conclusion that someone like Trump will not face legal repercussions in the US system and that is largely by design. You cannot rely on a system like this to get punishment for these kinds of crimes, or possibly any crimes.

You will, however, have him happily using it to punish people he doesn't like. 

This proves my point. 

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

The courts aren't going to save us from Donald Trump. Not Jack Smith nor Tanya Chutkan nor Leititia James, and certainly not the Supreme Court. Not the House of Representatives, and not the Senate. They'll stop the most egregious attempts to seize power, maybe, but for anything short of that, it's up to the voters to write an end. It's a sad but clarifying truth.

It's always been the truth and I hate to break it to you, the voters are getting dumber. Some things die quickly, others are a slow process. We're past the breaking point. It's just a matter of time now. 

[JGP]

I don't know how this sheesh works, is it just the bond that got knocked down but Herr Orange will still have to pay the entire 400 and whatever mil if the OG ruling is upheld, or...

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, The Big Stink said:

The idea that Starship Troopers was written as satire is floated by people who never readthe book, and are also of the disposition to automatically believe that the "film adaptation" says it's based on the book, and therefore most definitely represents the book.

It's instead an exploration of ideas, like most Sci-Fi. It presents certain points of view and ideas, and extrapolates what sort of world and story that might produce.

The film has about as much to do with the book as the 1990s Mario Bros. movie does with the games. Less, really

The book is more or less a positive argument for fascism. The movie is mocking the idea. 

9 minutes ago, Makk said:

Very disappointing, I was really looking forward to waking up to good news but it would be so epic if Trump couldn't come up with a $170 million bond.

His lawyer wouldn't deny he was looking into loans from foreign banks.

The dumbest timeline just keeps getting dumber.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, JGP said:

I don't know how this sheesh works, is it just the bond that got knocked down but Herr Orange will still have to pay the entire 400 and whatever mil if the OG ruling is upheld, or...

In theory he'll have to pay regardless. The implication of the bond and the appeal is that they likely think that it will be knocked down some on appeal, or there is a better chance of settling. As of now he's still on hook for the full amount.

Of course, with appeal and whatnot  it won't matter as he'll be able to get 3bn in money in a few short months anyway. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

7 hours ago, Zorral said:

@Larry of the Lawn -- if you don't believe the constant bombardment of this kind of violence from birth on up, in television, movies, video/computer games, and even sports, has no effect on the brains and attitudes of people you need new drugs.

One thing that is interesting about this is that as far as data goes, if violent video games and TV caused more violence we'd expect that rates of violent crime would have increased along with screentime and the explosion of visual digital media over the last 30-40 years.  But that's not the case, at all.  Violent crime is significantly down from that time period.  

https://www.statista.com/statistics/191219/reported-violent-crime-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990/

 

Obviously there are so many factors that [go into] crime and crime reporting that this statistic is meaningless on its own.  And clearly, the rate of violent crime isn't the only expression of the influence of violence in media.  

We've certainly seen a proliferation of school shootings recently, hate crimes have increased from 2016 (and theres a noticeable drop in hate crimes during 2008-2016, hmmm). 

https://www.statista.com/chart/16100/total-number-of-hate-crime-incidents-recorded-by-the-fbi/

I'd guess, but I don't know enough about how these things are calculated to say, that this is a more difficult statistic to track, and that even when the overall rate is declining there could be some groups that become targeted at higher rates.  

I don't doubt that seeing violence 24/7 in every form of media does something to our brains.  But I do think it interesting that whatever it does, it doesn't seem to be changing behavior as it relates to violent crime in any predictable way.

 

Edited March 25 by Larry of the Lawn
Link

[Kalbear]

Yes, violence does something to our brains, which is why Japan - which has absurdly violent media by most standards, including crazy violent comic books - is leading the world in violent behavior. 

O WAIT

[Jaxom 1974]

11 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Trump has always behaved more like a mafioso than a businessman or a political leader.  Always.  That people find this admirable is bizarre and disgusting to me.

What is the mafia Don, particularly the pastiche of the 20s and 30s mafioso, but another archetype of the authoritarian? 

The idea of the Don walking the neighborhood and distributing largesse to his "people"...all while they pay "respect" with the idea that they're being "protected"...

6 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Agreed, although that movie is straight terrible if you aren't watching it as satire. 

Once you accept the satire and watch it more closely for all of the markers, it's so much better on a subversive level. It's actually kinda brilliant in its way.

[ThinkerX]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Of course, with appeal and whatnot it won't matter as he'll be able to get 3bn in money in a few short months anyway. 

To me, that 'deal' is looking more and more like a scam. Trump's media outlet has been bleeding money from day one and was never valued anywhere close to a billion dollars. Plus, the whole NYC civil/criminal trial revolved around Trump falsely inflating property values. Might be interesting to see who gets burned when it blows up and what actions they might take.

[Makk]

29 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

To me, that 'deal' is looking more and more like a scam. Trump's media outlet has been bleeding money from day one and was never valued anywhere close to a billion dollars. Plus, the whole NYC civil/criminal trial revolved around Trump falsely inflating property values. Might be interesting to see who gets burned when it blows up and what actions they might take.

I'm not sure its a scam precisely but it certainly looks like a terrible investment in the long term. I'm assuming the origins and current holders of Digital world funding has been thoroughly investigated for this merger to go ahead, but digital world is a publicly traded company. There seemed to originally be a lot of Chinese investment, I would hope the entire thing isn't a front to channel foreign money in illegally.

Truth social itself, which is the only "asset" involved after the merger as far as I am aware, has really badly performing numbers that don't in anyway come close to justifying the combined $10 billion dollar valuation. But people do seem to want to invest in dumb shit these days, it may be legit.

[The Anti-Targ]

High pathogenicity avian influenza (HPAI) detected in some sick dairy cows in Texas and Kansas, and maybe New Mexico. No evidence that the virus is likely to further jump the species barrier to people. Almost certainly wild birds carrying the virus pooping on the cattle feed as they fly overhead. Pasteurisation kills the virus so as long as you aren't big into drinking raw milk the risk of exposure is very low, even from milk from those farms, so long as you are not working on one of those farms.

[Larry of the Lawn]

58 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

High pathogenicity avian influenza (HPAI) detected in some sick dairy cows in Texas and Kansas, and maybe New Mexico. No evidence that the virus is likely to further jump the species barrier to people. Almost certainly wild birds carrying the virus pooping on the cattle feed as they fly overhead. Pasteurisation kills the virus so as long as you aren't big into drinking raw milk the risk of exposure is very low, even from milk from those farms, so long as you are not working on one of those farms.

Oh boy!  The last time raw milk came up in US politics we got this sweet thread out of it:

 

[ThinkerX]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

High pathogenicity avian influenza (HPAI) detected in some sick dairy cows in Texas and Kansas, and maybe New Mexico. No evidence that the virus is likely to further jump the species barrier to people. Almost certainly wild birds carrying the virus pooping on the cattle feed as they fly overhead. Pasteurisation kills the virus so as long as you aren't big into drinking raw milk the risk of exposure is very low, even from milk from those farms, so long as you are not working on one of those farms.

I have seen scattered reports of a rapidly spreading disease in Japan, affecting mostly older people, with a 30% fatality rate. I figure it is only a matter of time before it reaches the US...

[DMC]

6 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Huh?

I suspect the post was referring to/copying and pasting something related to this - Supreme Court seems favorable to Biden administration over efforts to combat social media posts.

Quote

The Supreme Court seemed likely Monday to side with the Biden administration in a dispute with Republican-led states over how far the federal government can go to combat controversial social media posts on topics including COVID-19 and election security in a case that could set standards for free speech in the digital age.

The justices seemed broadly skeptical during nearly two hours of arguments that a lawyer for Louisiana, Missouri and other parties presented accusing officials in the Democratic administration of leaning on the social media platforms to unconstitutionally squelch conservative points of view.

[The Anti-Targ]

44 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

Oh boy!  The last time raw milk came up in US politics we got this sweet thread out of it:

 

It's mostly a statistical game. If people ate raw meat and raw shellfish at the rate people drank milk then it would end up being illegal to sell raw meat and raw shellfish because of how many severe illness outbreak there would be. If people drank milk at the rate people currently eat raw meat and raw shellfish there would be very little regulation of milk pasteurisation.

I have to say that anyone who eats raw shellfish is playing Russian roulette, if not with their life then with their short and long term health. But having said that there are as many regulations around growing, harvesting and processing of shellfish as there are for milk. People should have a read of the US National Shellfish Sanitation Program (there are similar regulatory programmes in pretty much every other country with a commercial shellfish industry) before they try to make comparisons. And most of the microbiological problems are because of human and animal waste contaminating the growing areas.

Raw fin fish meat is basically safe to eat unless you abuse it. And the most dangerous thing about fin fish meat (for some species) is histamine and cooking doesn't get rid of it, nor does it make fish smell or taste bad.

The takeaway for fish is that they are so different to people that the bugs they naturally carry in a clean environment are too different to be a risk to human health. And for shellfish especially there are harvesting bans when the environment is [literally] shitty. There is listeria of course, which is also highly regulated.

Properly prepared raw meat is just as microbiologically safe to eat as fully cooked meat. I don't know about the US but retailers are not allowed to sell raw meat as intended for raw consumption. 

As a food safety regulator I would never eat raw shellfish (raw marinated, yes), raw meat unless I knew how it was being prepared though I don't particularly care for it, or raw milk.

All good regulation is about managing public safety / public health. The fact is mandatory milk pasteurisation with the ability to allow for well managed exceptions is sound public health policy with a proven public health track record. Mandatory cooking of all meat, fish and shellfish is not good public health policy.

Edited March 26 by The Anti-Targ

[DMC]

12 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Mild shock! Who could have ever foreseen this set of events

Good question!  It's certainly not anybody who argued "they'll settle for pennies on the dollar," right?  Because last time I checked doing basic math, $175 million in relation to $454 million is not "pennies on the dollar."  More like a quarter, a dime, and then a few pennies.  And you know what they say - a hundred million here, a hundred million there, and pretty soon you're talking real money.

On 3/18/2024 at 12:29 PM, Kalbear said:

They'll either settle for pennies on the dollar or they'll balk and give him more time. Possibly both. 

Anyway, I do agree that this obsession with how much Trump will have to pay is thoroughly beside the point.  I don't give a shit if he lives the rest of his life on a golden toilet flying a diamond airplane as long as he's not president again.