She should challenge him to a duel. His pro guns strong man fans will have to watch him give excuses as to why he can't show up. Could be legal in Washington and Texas I think as fair fights are considered legal there if supervised.
/Joking in case it wasn't obvious.
My brain doesn't like this image. I have to keep telling myself there is thin translucent connections holding the pieces in place further back in the pumpkin that I can't see.
Let's go to the part where he gives away everything to those less fortunate please.
I only heard the clip from here.. but it sounded like he said for long term prosperity, not necessary.
I assume what he was saying is that people will suffer while we force the market to move into isolation.
What he doesn't want to admit to the populous is that to have long term benefits of cheap labor, you have to have cheap labor.
So either you have that by being richer than other countries and outsourcing the labor, or isolating the country and subjugating a portion of the population so much that they are the cheap labor. That portion... Isn't going to be small if it's going to be able to provide everything for the rich who blast through resources like crazy.
It's only going to be temporary though, see.. we starve everyone for 30 years as we force ourselves into isolation, then those who are left.. wait, who's left, we killed the work force.
They are pro free-market, so long as the market is contained and controlled in every measure by themselves. Okay so maybe not free, maybe more of an enslaved market. They are going to need to shop that name, stick with calling it what it isn't for now, free
"was acquitted of attempted illegal voting"
Maybe you read something different than I did. He was acquitted of attempting to do what he did.
Therefore someone driving drunk, should be acquitted of driving drunk, right? That is worded as the attempt is the charge, not the act.
Which is why I compared it to something that we ban because it could injure someone, and then change the charges when they do harm someone.
From said page:
In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction: "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification." In United States v. Thomas (1997), the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law. The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification. In 2017, a jury was instructed: "You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that means, for your duty to follow the law, whether you agree with it or not. It is not for you to determine whether the law is just or whether the law is unjust. That cannot be your task. There is no such thing as valid jury nullification. You would violate your oath and the law if you willfully brought a verdict contrary to the law given to you in this case." The Ninth Circuit upheld the first three sentences of the jury's instruction and overruled the remainder but deemed that instruction a harmless error and affirmed the conviction.[67]
Looks like it will get messy about whether such would be allowed, and whether you yourself could catch trouble for ruling against the law.
If the Democrats had any balls Biden would court-marshall him and charge him for interfering in international affairs pertaining to both Israel and Russia. Skip the courts, he served the executive branch, head of the military, take him to a military court.
Someone should argue that every arrest made by undercover officers pretending to be prostitutes should be thrown out under this.
Just because you said yes, or even paid, doesn't mean you would have actually had sex, so you in reality could have just paid to "test" if the prostitute would actually agree.
Laws are written in such a way that they don't allow the jury to decide if what the person did was right or wrong, just if they did or did not do what was said.
Do you agree they had a pipe in their possession? Yes - jail.
Do you agree they had the drug on them?
Yes -jail.
The jury doesn't get to decide if they think it was okay for them to have the pipe/drug on them. A lawyer does their best to spin it in a way that maybe makes it appear the officer illegally made a search to make all subsequent findings inadmissable and invalid for charging. Or that the possession was not actually the person. But usually it comes down to, we found this on your person... And conviction of possession.
We punish people for DUI's harshly because they COULD cause harm. They get charges beyond the DUI when someone IS harmed. This is like saying a person drove a car at parade full speed but ran into a baracade. "I was just testing the baracade to make sure the people in the parade would be safe."
So your telling me they are infested with deamons and I need to crack out my ghost hunting tools!? Okay, maybe I read that differently than I was supposed to. Ugh, and here I thought I was going to get to borrow someone's old Kinect to investigate some pumpkins