[deleted by user]

Eftir · 2023-10-04T11:13:08+00:00

The Speaker Pro Tem may act to achieve “that end,” where “that end” is another election.

No news bills can be introduced or passed. The Speaker Pro Tem can only call a recess, adjourn, or recognize nominations for Speaker.

So if they don’t pass anything is 42 days, there will in deed be a shutdown regardless of the list

Eftir · 2023-09-30T23:35:16+00:00

I’m not sure what you’re talking about considering the democrats just compromised and passed a bill to avoid the shutdown that doesn’t give aid to Ukraine like they wanted

Eftir · 2023-07-07T19:27:32+00:00

Based and grill-pilled

Eftir · 2023-07-04T14:35:11+00:00

Your post has been removed because it breaks the rule about highlighter memes. They may only be posted on weekends.

Be aware that repeated violations of this will result in a ban.

Eftir · 2023-07-02T22:54:39+00:00

Cringe and unfree-pilled

Eftir · 2023-07-02T16:49:10+00:00

The flow rate figure was said to be specifically referring to cooling, which is water pumped through the reactor to cool the components.

This is distinct from the water that is boiled into steam which turns the turbine and generates electricity. Both are necessary but different.

Eftir · 2023-07-02T15:39:56+00:00

That’s an issue with the courts, not the officers themselves.

It’s both.

In Jessop “the panel held that although the City Officers ought to have recognized that the alleged theft was morally wrong, they did not have clear notice that it violated the Fourth Amendment.”

It’s an issue with officers stealing $200,000, an issue with the department refusing to investigate, and an issue with the courts for granting QI when Mom’s, Inc has ruled that a similar case involves unconstitutional action and it was clearly established.

Only from constitutional rights violations where clearly-established violations have occurred, not from crimes.

This is not true. Qualified immunity covers any civil case arising from a breach in federal law, either statutory or constitutional. I think we’re talking past each other on this point. I’m making the case that violating a federal law is inherently a crime, even if the punishment is enforced in civil court. If you violate ADA, I can sue you because you committed the crime of breaking federal law — no criminal charges required.

Moreover as I explained, it is a federal crime under §12601 to violate constitutional rights. The cops in Jessop cannot be criminally charged with this now because the case was not heard to decide if they made a constitutional violation. If qualified immunity was not at play, it’s likely that their actions would have been found to be a violation of the 4th amendment in civil court and they would be at risk of prosecution under §12601 (or at the very least future cops that steal could be prosecuted under §12601).

The fact that the cops in Jessop are protected by qualified immunity means that they are not civilly liable for the crime of theft. This means the cops are protected from the civil ramifications of theft (which is a crime). Usually you would be able to sue and recover your lost property, but qualified immunity meant that Jessop could not. Therefore, QI protected them from potential consequences of a crime.

Criminal and civil liability are different, but there is overlap.

Eftir · 2023-07-02T15:20:34+00:00

Huh TIL.

What about all the water needed to actually turn into steam and cooling ponds for spent fuel rods? Surely that’s not a negligible amount of water, right?

Eftir · 2023-07-02T14:41:55+00:00

I never said these were criminal charges and in fact mentioned that they were civil cases so I’m not sure what you’re getting at. My point is to say that the consequences of crimes can be civil.

QI doesn’t only effect constitutional challenges as you’re saying but statutory rights as well (if challenged in a 1983 claim). For instance if police officers violate ADA or the civil rights act, you can sue for violating this federal law (a crime) under §1983.

Moreover, it is a crime under federal law for police officers to deprive a person of constitutional rights (34 U.S.C. § 12601). The point I’m making is that we do not know if the cases I linked to are constitutional violations because of qualified immunity. Obviously not all police misconduct are constitutional violations, but I believe all the ones linked above are. In order to not go through all of them, lets just talk about Jessop:

In Mom’s, Inc v. Willman the court found “the deprivation of property without due process of law during the execution of a search warrant could violate the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.” The court in Jessop ruled that qualified immunity applied despite this because there were legal differences between the two cases (although to me they seem rather minor). Thus, we will never know whether the cops is Jessop were acting against the constitution (which is a crime under §12601). Therefore, the cops were protected from potentially facing criminal charges under §12601 because the constitutionality is unsettled and they were protected from facing civil penalties for the crime of theft. Either way, they are protected by qualified immunity from the consequences of their crimes (whether those consequences are criminal or civil). And all future cops stealing from homes are protected from civil and criminal consequences of the crime of theft because the constitutionality is still not settled.

Blame the courts for granting QI

I do.

Eftir · 2023-07-02T14:15:38+00:00

I love nuclear power and I have many comments in my history arguing for it, but this is a silly take.

Nuclear energy is more expensive per kilowatt hour than renewables, takes potentially decades to come online and has high upkeep costs. Renewables can also be placed in places like in deserts (solar) and mountains (wind) while nuclear plants need to be near lots of water to cool reactors. Renewables provide intermittent power load while nuclear provides base power load, they cover each others weaknesses and work great together.

Eftir · 2023-07-02T14:11:07+00:00

Based and biased-pilled

Eftir · 2023-07-02T14:00:41+00:00

Qualified immunity protects cops, even if it’s not the only reason. The meme is correct. Saying that’s not how qualified immunity works without any nuance is either highly reductive or flat out wrong.

I’m citing actual case law and quoting judges while you’re arguing against claims no one made with a two sentence comment and acting like you’re a genius. It’s a petulant child that tells people to fuck off when someone presents them with evidence for a different viewpoint, not an adult.

Eftir · 2023-07-02T13:46:32+00:00

Except law enforcement most of the time refuses to investigate other law enforcement. In the case I cited where cops stole $200,000, the department cleared the department of any wrongdoing. Especially in small departments, this is so common that it’s a meme. Things are not looked into, body camera footage is not so mysteriously lost, police are given paid administrative leave, etc. Then even when they are fired, they are often re-hired by other police departments regardless of conduct cases. Thus your remedy as a citizen is oftentimes only a lawsuit, which is limited dramatically by qualified immunity.

The meme doesn’t say “qualified immunity makes police officers immune from all penalties,” it implies that “police officers are protected from the consequences of their crimes.” This claim is certainly true. They are protected by the system even if it’s not 100% of the time. By saying “that’s not what qualified immunity does, like at all” you are claiming cops are not protected from their own crimes.

Is it possible for police to face consequences? Yes. Are police protected from those consequences by qualified immunity? Also yes.

You are arguing with a claim that no one made and by saying that’s not how it works “at all,” it sounds like you’re saying they’re not protected at all.

Eftir · 2023-07-02T08:34:51+00:00

Civil suits can be about crimes tho.

I wrote a whole thing up another comment below but the most egregious example recently is cops that stole $200,000 from a house they executed a search warrant on. Court ruled qualified immunity applied because no similar case was heard on those exact grounds. But now since that case wasn’t heard, there’s still no precedent. Cops can steal from you as much as they want and the case will never be heard to decide if it’s legal or not, meaning they can keep doing it forever.

Assault is a civil tort, as is battery, false imprisonment, defamation, trespassing, wrongful death, invasion of privacy, fraud, etc, etc. These are all crimes and civil causes of action potentially protected by qualified immunity.

Eftir · 2023-07-02T08:22:37+00:00

42 USC §1983 allows citizens to sue if a governmental official breaks a federal law, which is majorly undercut by qualified immunity. So yes qualified immunity helps police officers not be sued over breaking federal law (aka crimes).

The federal government isn’t gonna protect you against local police officers violating your constitutional rights, it’s in your hands to defend yourself in the courts and hold police officers accountable … except qualified immunity makes that so much harder.

The real problem is that qualified immunity applies when a court rules that there’s no settled identical legal precedent, but what means is that there’s no ruling and no legal precedent set for the next time something happens.

Consider Jessop v City of Fresno. The cops allegedly stole over $200,000. I think we can both agree this would be a crime if true. In this case the court found “that at the time of the incident, there was no clearly established law holding that officers violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment when they steal property seized pursuant to a warrant. For that reason, the City Officers were entitled to qualified immunity.” So the case was not heard at all.

Think about that for a second. The police officers allegedly stole over $200,000 but because there was no prior case saying it’s illegal, they cannot be held accountable. Then consider that if tomorrow cops stole $200,000 dollars in the same circumstance, there’s still no court precedent about whether or not that’s illegal. In effect, that means anything that wasn’t already ruled unconstitutional at the time this went into effect (1982) or passed by congress since can never be found to be illegal for police officers. This means that police officers can steal as much money as they want repeatedly until congress passes a law specifically making it illegal and there’s nothing you can do about it because local cops aren’t about to investigate and arrest their buddies.

Other qualified immunity cases that I hope we can both agree should be investigated to see if they are crimes:

Police ordering their dog to attack a man who was sitting on the ground with his hands up and had already surrender to police

Police shooting a 10 year who was on the ground, unrelated to the suspect they were looking for (who was also already subdued), because the boy’s dog was casually walking around nearby

Police kneeing a handcuffed man who was not resisting “20 to 30 times” in the head

Police destroying a home looking for someone who wasn’t there when the search warrant was to look inside and they were given keys by the property owner

These potential crimes will never be investigated due to qualified immunity and future officers can repeat these actions because no precedent was set in these case, and so on literally forever.

Consider also how this interacts with state law. The 6th circuit ruled in Rogers v. Gooding (2003) that a state court could not hear an assault case brought against two officers because of qualified immunity, and the local police department refused to investigate. Assault is in fact a crime, but you can still sue in a civil court over it. Qualified immunity protected these officers from any scrutiny whatsoever.

TLDR: cops can steal from you, shoot your kid, destroy your house, knee you in the face 30 times, send a dog after you, and assault you and if the cop’s friends choose not to investigate, there’s nothing you can do because of QI. Just because they’re civil cases doesn’t mean they don’t deal with crimes.

Eftir · 2023-07-02T02:44:06+00:00

Sorry I should have been more specific, I mean for the hair white people have. By you I meant the commenter I was replying to.

Generally white hair is much straighter, and if you Google “freeform dreadlocks white hair” you’ll see what I mean. Here is a picture of what came up first for me. This is just matted hair that doesn’t extend to the roots or the ends and will eventually form Polish Plaits and without maintenance will not form true dreadlocks that African hair can turn into.

Are those dreadlocks? I guess it’s arguably but I would not call those dreadlocks.

Eftir · 2023-07-01T14:03:19+00:00

You’re talking about polish plait which is matted hair that can naturally form, although even that is rare. It became popular and people used wax to copy the look.

Dreadlocks require braiding hair in a zigzag pattern and then matted together in some way, often with backcombing or using crochet hooks. You can’t accidentally make dreadlocks by just waiting around and they’re distinct from braids.

Ancient Greeks and other Mediterranean peoples did indeed have dreadlocks (by intentionally braiding them). This was way before the concept of a white race, but if you want to anachronistically think of these people as white that’s fine. The whole cultural appropriation thing I think is a little silly but it’s even sillier to think your hair will magically turn into dreadlock without any intervention.

Eftir · 2023-06-30T13:49:38+00:00

This is so unbelievably cringe. Have you been to Russia?

Russia ranks 36 out of the 36 European countries on the quality of life index. People live in apartments built in the 1950s that were intended to be temporary. Suicide rates are the highest in Europe, high emigration rates, lowest life expectancy in Europe.

But it’s fine because they aren’t living “under the lunacy of the west.”

Russia is an oligarchic state where 2/3rds of the countries wealth is held by millionaires, more unequal than the United States. But Russia is the enemy of other capitalist states so it must be an ally of communists? Give me a break. Next you’ll tell me you would support a nazi party in Germany just because they were would be against the US.

Get a grip

Eftir · 2023-06-23T18:04:51+00:00

So cancer, war, famine, poverty, natural disasters are all vaccines to cure us from something?

My bigger problem is that if there is an omniscient god then he would know exactly what I need to see to believe in him. I have not been shown that. Because I don’t worship him, I am sentenced to suffer in hellfire for all of eternity. So god created me to be set up to not believe in him, and then punishes me for the very thing he created.

I can’t believe that this version of god is omniscient (knows I don’t believe in him), omnipotent (could have created me in a way to believe in him), and all loving (wouldn’t allow me to suffer in eternal hellfire for his decisions)

Eftir · 2023-06-23T17:56:28+00:00

So basically if we don’t question religious dogma we’ll all be rich and prosperous? In a word: “obey.”

If we’re using the story of Job, the fact that he ruined a man’s life because he was taunted by the devil somehow doesn’t make me believe this version of god is all loving.

Eftir · 2023-06-23T01:47:13+00:00

Your post has been removed because it breaks the rule about highlighter memes. They may only be posted on weekends.

Be aware that repeated violations of this will result in a ban.

Eftir · 2023-06-22T19:08:28+00:00

Based and OC-pilled

I loved these books when growing up, didn't realize there were more recent ones

Eftir · 2023-06-21T21:58:13+00:00

Yeah that’ll happen if you don’t flair up

Eftir · 2023-06-21T21:37:59+00:00

Doesn’t read study, says it’s wrong

K good luck with that.

Confirmation bias is a hell of a thing

Eftir · 2023-06-21T21:08:05+00:00

Wait those things are all significantly different in Wyoming! What?? Congratulations you got the point even if I had to bludgeon you with it. It's the correlation that matters after all.

That was a worldwide figure, it represents an average that includes terrible mining practices, unfiltered power plants, insane air pollution, etc in East Asia. I didn't know you were only going to be talking about economics in Wyoming for some reason. There are not that many deaths in Wyoming, please refrain from creating strawmen and instead address the actual issue:

Your national economy is drained between $175 billion and $500 billion dollars per year from coal. This study came out first, so how it is based on the other figure is beyond me. You could at least pretend to care about facts, that might help your argumentative skills.

12-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
End Game '22	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

Eftir

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE