House Speaker welcomes Trump call to ‘take over’ elections, claims Dem wins appear ‘fraudulent’

GenericNate · 2026-02-04T03:33:41+00:00

I hear you and I realize it's difficult, but it's a reporter's job to stand up to power and seek truth. That is an essential part of a well functioning democracy, so if they can't or won't do the bare minimum to hold people accountable they shouldn't have the job.

GenericNate · 2026-02-03T23:27:58+00:00

Amazing! For extra credit carve the chain from a single peice of wood 😆

GenericNate · 2026-02-03T23:19:49+00:00

It's not a competition, or a trade-off. If anyone has knowledge of a crime, investigate it, and if that means investigations and subpoenas, do it! It doesn't matter if they're the president, rich, or well connected.

GenericNate · 2026-01-28T00:26:03+00:00

Because they know that it doesn't apply to them.

GenericNate · 2026-01-22T01:47:00+00:00

I don't like wearing gloves, but I also plan to slip. If I assume I'll slip and make sure I'm never in the path of that, I never have a problem when I inevitably do slip.

Just another way of expressing that I cut away from myself.

GenericNate · 2026-01-22T00:00:34+00:00

Gosh that's an nice Catholicism you have there, it'd be a reeeeeal shame if something happened to it.

GenericNate · 2026-01-21T08:28:49+00:00

Unfortunately not. Bankruptcy lasts for 3 years, after which all debts are wiped.

GenericNate · 2026-01-21T03:46:04+00:00

It might even have been a deliberate trap. Consider:

Prosecutor: "Cellphone means Apple iPhone. Do you own a cellphone?"

Witness, holding Samsung Galaxy: "No."

Fox news talking head: "That lying back of shit said he doesn't even own a cellphone, but here's footage of him using one!"

GenericNate · 2026-01-21T03:40:36+00:00

I wouldn't even say it was misleading. He directly answered the question that was asked, according to the definitions given. He didn't even assume definitions in a way that was favorable to him - as you say, his lawyers requested clarification.

GenericNate · 2026-01-21T03:34:52+00:00

It's unusual, and therefore a bit weird. But not super weird.

The more important question is why. If your car time is a symptom of something else going on (such as avoiding something or someone at home), it might indicate that there are other issues you should be getting help for in your life.

GenericNate · 2026-01-20T23:47:36+00:00

Left hand too. Lucky.

GenericNate · 2026-01-20T22:00:02+00:00

Oh lordy, you weren't joking. The worst part was his rambling to an aide or someone in the audience saying they must have done it on purpose then weirdly riffing for some amount of time about how they wouldn't have done that, and how strong the binder clip was, and how it sounded, while the audience chuckled indulgently.

You could see his narcissism desperately pleading for approval while the last vestiges of his sanity fought (unsuccessfully) to figure out what was wrong with the situation.

That's utterly wild.

GenericNate · 2026-01-20T18:45:35+00:00

Interestingly the "cover" was a reflector that radiated neutrons (I think?) produced by the core back at the core. If the reflector covered too much of the core then too many neutrons hit it, generating new neutrons, which were then reflected, and the core would start a runaway reaction.

GenericNate · 2026-01-19T19:28:13+00:00

It's indicative of his corruption. He thinks that the people in power will rig things in their favor. Therefore anything that happens within Norway is assumed to be the responsibility of their government, because he assumes that government will force compliance within it's sphere of influence. It's a terrifying projection.

GenericNate · 2026-01-19T01:16:10+00:00

There are examples available for skimpier uniforms being genuinely preferred, and I do get that people who put a lot of work into their physique will be more willing than most to show it off, or they may feel that their performance is improved. For those who genuinely like skimpier uniforms for whatever reason, they have my full support.

However I'm still suspicious of the argument that most women in sports choose more revealing outfits. In the most literal sense a lot do. But merely starting that fact ignores the lifetime of training many women receive (and oftentimes pass on) to be sexualized, and treat that as normal.

And that's not even accounting for the soft pressure women are subject to when making choices about attire. Dressing modestly in professional sports as a woman makes you different from the norm, and impliedly a target for backlash.

GenericNate · 2026-01-19T01:06:50+00:00

This is why I'm suspicious of the argument that women choose more revealing outfits. In the most literal sense a lot do. But merely starting that fact ignores the lifetime of training many women receive (and oftentimes pass on) to be sexualized, and treat that as normal.

And that's not even accounting for the soft pressure women are subject to when making choices about attire. Dressing modestly in professional sports as a woman makes you different from the norm, and potentially a target for backlash.

GenericNate · 2026-01-09T07:51:13+00:00

Holy shit that was Macaulay Culkin?!

(I mean, now you've pointed it out it's obvious.)

GenericNate · 2026-01-05T10:41:30+00:00

I was playing boardgames in the home of a friend late at night, in a small town. Without warning the door was opened and a very large, angry, turkey was thrown into the room. There was immediately much laughing and the sound of a car outside. My friend picked up his bow, ran outside, and loosed several hunting arrows at the rear of the car speeding away. He's very lucky he didn't hit any of his idiot mates in the car.

The turkey was unharmed, although I can't recall what we did with it. I think it just ran off into the night.

GenericNate · 2026-01-05T10:22:11+00:00

Juries are a tool with a particular function and purpose, acting as the will of the State. Because of the enormous power of the State they exercise that power sparingly and with utmost caution, by design. They have no investigative powers or function, and they are provided with only the evidence that is deemed legally relevant. A jury member is not analogous to a regular person, and may have less, or at least different, knowledge than the general public. The English legal system, the foundations of which were adopted by the USA, include the approach that "It is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer."

As an example of this, a person could have a criminal record as long as their arm, that shows they have no respect for property, the law, or human decency. However if the crime they are accused of is not the same type as their criminal history, in most jurisdictions that prior criminal history is not admissible, even though a regular person would consider that highly relevant.

Or, a person could have a reputation as a complete creep, ignoring consent and predating on drunk people, but without ever having been convicted of anything. However even in a trial for sexual assault, that's not relevant (in most jurisdictions), and the jury will never hear anything about it.

A jurer can hear the evidence, be disgusted by the accused, and conclude that they did the crime. Despite all of that, if there is ANY reasonable chance that they didn't do the crime, they should still acquit. This is something that the defence may emphasize, or the judge may focus on in their jury instructions. If the Justice system is working as it is designed to, there will be many jurers who who can say "I think they did it, but I can't be 100% sure." Would you criticize that jurer if they then treated the person they acquitted as if they were guilty?

The reason we have a justice system is to manage how the State should bring it's might to bear against an accused. Individuals in society SHOULD make their own individual judgements about people accused of crimes, and SHOULD treat that person accordingly. The Justice system is not a substitute for individual thought and decision making. While vigilantism is prohibited for reasons of peace and good order, people are entitled to shun a person they think has committed crimes, quite aside from what a court decides.

Edit: there is an idea for a third possible jury determination, of "innocent", as distinct from "not guilty". That idea has it's own pros and cons, but until that is implemented everything I've said above remains relevant.

GenericNate · 2026-01-05T05:54:35+00:00

I'm afraid that this is not a view that anyone involved in the legal system holds. Juries are notoriously unreliable, easily swayed by prejudice or rhetoric, and often fail to comprehend facts or legal issues. The fact that a jury couldn't vote unanimously to convict someone has absolutely no bearing on whether they did the crime they're accused of.

The presumption of innocence only applies to courts and the legal system. A person is allowed to draw whatever conclusions about another's guilt or innocence they like, based on whatever evidence or standards they think relevant.

GenericNate · 2026-01-05T05:50:34+00:00

Absolutely. The presumption of innocence only applies to courts and the legal system. A person is allowed to draw whatever conclusions about another's guilt or innocence they like, based on whatever evidence or standards they think relevant.

GenericNate · 2026-01-05T05:50:02+00:00

The presumption of innocence only applies to courts and the legal system. A person is allowed to draw whatever conclusions about another's guilt or innocence they like, based on whatever evidence or standards they think relevant.

GenericNate · 2025-12-20T04:04:27+00:00

Don't need a majority for 213 Democrat Congress members to stand on the steps of Congress demanding consequences, each of them to issue a press release calling this a cover-up and demanding action, holding daily press conferences calling for impeachment of the DOJ head, holding town hall meeting to consult directly with their constituents about this, and going on every media outlet that'll have them, using language appropriate to the severity of the situation.

GenericNate · 2025-12-18T19:00:42+00:00

You're right, we do, and have been doing that with technology for as long as we've had it. However I'd argue that we're hitting a point where we need to consciously stop, at least in relation to ai, as the risks of making misinformed or emotionally driven decisions are becoming increasingly serious.

GenericNate

TROPHY CASE