First conviction, they'd be concurrent and highly unlikely he'd get max time. However, this is a first conviction, breaking the glass ceiling for convicting an ex president, in the weakest of the four current trials. Sentences become more likely to be jail up to minimum guaranteed imprisonment for some time, because of sentencing guidelines, as well as the terms getting longer for each conviction.
Shouldn't you be able to get it in in at least some states via ballot measures, from where you can use it to send better people to DC to implement it federally?
I mean, acknowledging that humans are never going to be fully informed or perfect calculators, the correct time is approximately when the expected outcome of action is better than the expected outcome of inaction, plus some finagle factor to account for bias.
A lot of things, apparently. He's been leaning further and further into it, and as it's caused his channel to fall off he's making pity me videos about how the sjw algorithm is out to get him.
Yes but see, if we just sit on our hands and don't vote we won't have any responsibility for what follows! Only voting for someone who is less than ideal on this issue is a morally bad choice!
Yes. Humans are given to certainty and judgement in excess of what the evidence merits, so I have taken to understatement.
I'm not convinced that Joe Biden is fascism, though. Would you be so kind as to compare him to Umberto eco's list, and share examples on each point? Trump seems like a much better match to that, but perhaps I have missed something.
I don't think I said that. Can you show me where I did?
I will say that you have a slice of responsibility over the future, and you'll have to live with the consequences of whatever decision you end up making - including the one where you sit on your hands. No matter what you do, you can still complain about it, but the future will be whichever one we collectively steer to. One of those possible futures is worse than the other. So it seems to me that we should steer away from it, rather than wrong our hands about how we don't like the choices. Sure, you don't like the choices. They're the choices regardless. Model the outcomes of each possibility, decide which one you hate the least and steer towards it, because we are getting a future selected from among the possibilities. Jesus is not going to rapture us out of this.
Yeah, I've been having this argument a lot lately, so the sarcasm shit right past me. It's exhausting trying to get people to understand that no, really, genocide a * 3 plus additional genocide b is worse than genocide a alone.
I have no interest in downvoting you, but I would like to say that on priors, I would be surprised to learn that she saw "Hamas" and "Palestinians" as anything other than a distinction without a difference. She's electively of a set with Lindsey "Nuke Gaza" Graham, and she's voting for Trump apparently now, who has been very vocal about his support for the "kill them all" perspective.
Do you have specific evidence that leads you to believe otherwise, or is it more of a charity in humanity thing?
Scientists have warned that a court decision to block the growing of the genetically modified (GM) crop Golden Rice in the Philippines could have catastrophic consequences. Tens of thousands of children could die in the wake of the ruling, they argue....
"Big corps" aren't involved here. It's a philanthropy project, and from what I can find it's not legally encumbered in any way like Monsanto stuff is. This is entirely Greenpeace doing something that gets headlines, instead of something actually good. Don't forget that that organization, too, has motives, first among which is going to be survival and advancement of the organization.
If people don't want it, because they are being lied to about it, we should maybe stop the people lying and spread accurate information, before we decide that "it's not the right solution".
I assume poor idiotic people everywhere are being misinformed. It has nothing to do with the specific subset of humanity they belong to, and everything to do with incentive gradients and entrenched power nodes.
One day, you will almost certainly die. Since that's the case, might as well quit eating and drinking and breathing. It just staves off the inevitable.
No genocide is the correct amount of genocide, yes.
Now that we've established that, in the case where you have exactly 2 possible outcomes, one where x people die, and one where y people die, where y is at least an order of magnitude larger than x, and you can, as I said, have one of those two outcomes and no other, which outcome do you prefer?
Dodging the question in any way will demonstrate your fundamental unseriousness, so consider carefully before you answer.
Your hands aren't clean in that world, dude. Deciding not to act is also a choice. You decided to let things move towards more genocide, and so you have all of the blood on your hands that I do for the world with a second term of biden, plus all of the additional blood of the second term of trump that you're enabling.
I'm sure you'll be able to justify it to yourself, though.
So, I think I'm probably wasting my time with this, but I would like you to consider a hypothetical possibility that other people have different morals to you, rather than no morals.
So, it seems like you're coming at morals from a place of deontology, where things are moral or not based on whether they follow a specified set of rules, regardless of outcomes.
Personally, I'm a consequentialist. What matters is not the specific action, as much as the outcomes of that action. Which is to say, given the trolley problem, I pull the lever so that one person dies instead of five, whereas you seem likely to leave the lever alone, because that would be killing someone, regardless of whether more people die of your inaction. You seem to see that inaction as a kind of neutral position, whereas I view it as an action, the action of standing by when you could have helped.
I would rather live in a world where fewer people die, than one in which more people die. You would, to the best of my ability to discern, rather live in a world where you can claim a clear conscience, because you were just following your rules and refraining from actions.
I think that both of us regard the other's position as questionable at best and repugnant at worst, and it's not obvious to me if that gap can be bridged.
I love free Trump Felon stickers! (lemmy.world)
MoveOn Free Sticker act.moveon.org/survey/trump-felon-sticker/
Biden camp warns Trump could still get re-elected with ‘unhinged campaign of revenge’ (www.independent.co.uk)
Reductress is savage. (lemmy.world)
Every Protest but White Supremacists, Gets Suppressed and Broken up by the Police (lemmy.world)
Just USAmerica things
What QAnon supporters, butthole sunners and New Age spiritualists have in common (theconversation.com)
Texas GOP platform calls for ban on same-sex parenting because being gay is "abnormal" (www.lgbtqnation.com)
Yes, this article is from 2024
Anon is a samurai (sh.itjust.works)
Nikki Haley writes ‘finish them’ on IDF artillery shells during Israel visit (www.theguardian.com)
‘A catastrophe’: Greenpeace blocks planting of ‘lifesaving’ Golden Rice (www.theguardian.com)
Scientists have warned that a court decision to block the growing of the genetically modified (GM) crop Golden Rice in the Philippines could have catastrophic consequences. Tens of thousands of children could die in the wake of the ruling, they argue....
I wonder which one is harder (midwest.social)
Edited to be slightly more fair to people complaining that they don’t think genocide is good just fine...