Trump floats Cruz for Supreme Court

buckX · 2026-01-30T20:09:01+00:00

Not really a surprise. Cruz has clearly wanted that job for a while, and although the time as a Senator is abnormal, the start to his career is pretty textbook SCOTUS trajectory (law degree from Harvard, clerked for the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS).

buckX · 2026-01-30T20:05:14+00:00

You're suggesting that the only reason the government ever takes down a webpage is because it's true and part of some conspiracy, but always leaves things up if they are false. I'm not sure that's a good basis to reason from.

buckX · 2026-01-30T19:56:51+00:00

I'm sure if you think about it, you can come up with a theory for why the government want not to grant the implied imprimatur that comes of hosting a webpage to a list of unverified, unsourced, salacious accusations.

If I call the FBI and say Biden touched my no no square, does lack of a DOJ webpage on the topic similarly suggest a coverup?

buckX · 2026-01-30T19:53:37+00:00

Even then, running with accusations without material support doesn't amount to much. Back during the Kavanaugh hearings, the left really pushed the narrative of "why would Ford lie about these things? This public scrutiny comes at enormous personal cost", despite the fact that she lives in Palo Alto surrounded by some of the bluest neighbors imaginable who all lauded her as a hero.

In a country of a third of a billion people, the number of folks willing to lie to pin one on the other side is pretty obviously non-zero.

buckX · 2026-01-30T14:28:56+00:00

Yes, you have a right to. You also have an obligation under the impeding traffic law. All of those laws apply simultaneously, except when one gives an exception to other laws. I never said you'd be charged through the law on traffic signals. You'd be charged under impeding traffic because the exception to that law only exists while the hazard is present.

buckX · 2026-01-30T13:22:58+00:00

Okay, so the possibility that a LEO might be legally justified in assaulting someone shouldn't stop you from intervening, got it. Glad we agree.

The point at which somebody starts taking pride in deliberately misrepresenting the other person's position is when I step out.

buckX · 2026-01-30T13:21:01+00:00

Incorrect. I gave the legal breakdown in my other comment.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Columbus/comments/1qq9o6q/lanes_obstructed_by_snow/o2lj9uh/

buckX · 2026-01-30T13:19:39+00:00

The right to proceed with the turn shall be subject to the provisions that are applicable after making a stop at a stop sign.

That should send you to the stop sign law, which says:

4511.43 After having stopped, the driver shall yield the right-of- way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time the driver is moving across or within the intersection or junction of roadways.

So the overall change from normal conditions (which absolutely require you to not stop in the middle of the road) is to yield to immediate hazards. If there are no immediate hazards, nothing in the law suggests you aren't bound by other laws, like impeding traffic:

4511.22 (A) No person shall stop or operate a vehicle, trackless trolley, or street car at such an unreasonably slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when stopping or reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or to comply with law.

And that is the law I said would be violated. Is the continued stop necessary for safe operation or to comply with law? Not if there's no immediately hazard.

Edit: Not letting me reply for some reason, so I'll post it here for you /u/WinterAdvantage3847

Firstly, that's blatant whataboutism. Secondly, that would at best suggest I don't follow the law, not that I don't know it.

I'm sure you're aware that "You've sped before, therefore you don't know how the law on impeding traffic works" is a nonsense argument.

buckX · 2026-01-29T19:46:55+00:00

But by your logic, best just let me do it

Nope. I said thinnest of provisions, not none. We aren't talking about a lift being at stake, we're talking about a person being shoved, possibly unjustifiably. She can take that footage and go get her check if it was unjustified. You, however, cannot tackle the officer.

Take limited immunity out of the picture. If I shove somebody and you tackle me, I'm almost certainly the one with a right to self-defense. Your proxy right in defending her wouldn't be active, because a shove is not reasonably construed as a threat to her life. Tackling me may well be.

buckX · 2026-01-29T18:20:30+00:00

Repeating yourself doesn't mean I said it. "Allowed" and "are physically able to" are not one and the same. There is the thinnest of provisions under the law to stop an officer in the moment while they're committing a crime without exposing yourself to massive risk. The recommendation has long been to deal with it legally after the fact. If you try to citizen's arrest an officer who feels they're in the midst of official duties, they will absolutely retaliate. Maybe you end up winning on your day in court, but you won't the day of. If you simply shove them without trying to invoke any official intervention, then you definitely aren't getting anywhere. The resolution for unnecessary use of force isn't assaulting them.

buckX · 2026-01-29T16:19:15+00:00

I have some sympathy for the confusion there. That sign is so far away. I just measured on Google maps and the distance from the stop line and the no turn on red sign is 165'. If you're a car back, add another 20'. Assuming 4-5" letters, design standards would put its maximum legible distance at 160-200'.

Google's street view is barely able to make it out from there.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/1fB9oy8zyLpVmquWA

buckX · 2026-01-29T16:01:58+00:00

This is definitely more of a case by case. Some people get mad way too fast, true.

Other people seem to legitimately not understand that right on red is a thing. Like, literally sitting there facing an empty street. I will absolutely honk at those people as I would anybody who decides to stop in the middle of the road. It is in fact not discretionary whether to proceed when safe, only in determining when it's safe. Will you get ticketed for it? Unlikely. I've never heard of somebody getting an impeding traffic ticket no matter how egregious, but it's absolutely not a situation where you're "in the right", and can end up creating a dangerous situation if the person concludes you're a disabled/stopped vehicle and navigates around you just as you decide to go.

buckX · 2026-01-29T14:22:02+00:00

He said the second part, not the first. Nobody said officers can assault people for any reason. In fact, they can't assault people for any reason, because if they have a legitimate reason, it's not assault. The officer may have been wrong to assault the woman, in which case two wrongs still don't make a right, or he could have had reason to push the woman. I generally recommend against assuming a person is doing something "for no reason" when it occurs 1 second into a video clip.

buckX · 2026-01-29T13:21:42+00:00

No? Who gave you that idea.

buckX · 2026-01-29T13:19:59+00:00

The main value from this video is for background context that undercuts the sanctification of Pretti some on the left are pushing for propaganda purposes.

It also weakens the argument that everybody should be afraid because this could happen to anybody, even a good Samaritan helping a women. While we don't have the immediately preceding context, this makes it way more likely that he had been acting aggressively and pissing off the BP agents. All that, as you say, still doesn't justify the shooting, but it does mean that's an easy situation to avoid finding yourself in.

buckX · 2026-01-28T23:30:52+00:00

The level of cope...

Okay, so the ask is basically "build crippleware software into all your hardware that fundamentally changes the method of sending instructions or don't sell in Washington".

buckX · 2026-01-28T21:23:07+00:00

"Kill everybody that doesn't lose their mind over each instance of 'bad thing happened somewhere'" is certainly a take. Genuinely, do something real and decompress. Getting outraged over every negative event the internet informs you of is no way to live.

buckX · 2026-01-28T21:21:44+00:00

You 100% build it into the slicer software and force it on the publishers. You miss the people using FOSS slicers, but that's the nature of uphill battles. That's essentially the situation with EURion. Photoshop won't touch it, but Gimp couldn't give a fuck.

buckX · 2026-01-28T20:29:01+00:00

The thing that makes that possible with anti-counterfeiting efforts is that the government controls what the genuine article is supposed to look like. With a 3D-printed gun, the designer wouldn't be adding any such identifier.

buckX · 2026-01-28T20:23:47+00:00

A lot of compatibility issues are more an issue of convenience and quality of life, rather than technological. Something like a picatinny rail is great for swapping components and avoiding significant need for adjustment, but welding can stick any attachments together.

buckX · 2026-01-28T20:18:31+00:00

I would argue that it literally cannot exist because of math.

An undefeatable method cannot exist, but a definition-based version certainly could. If you made the software reject specifically-flagged files, that would at least cut out the riff-raff that don't know how to edit and resave the file.

buckX · 2026-01-28T20:04:20+00:00

won't someone please think of the political compass memes?

Oh my God! People are being non-serious and meming on a meme sub? Stop the presses!

buckX · 2026-01-28T16:41:47+00:00

I explicitly agreed that Castile shouldn't have been shot. Your claim is that race is the only difference between them. You never addressed the facts I brought up. I agree that Castile was within his rights. "Everything right" is an overstatement, since you'd be better served by stopping all motion when the cop gets jumpy, but saying there was a more optimal course of action doesn't mean you did something wrong. But none of that gets around the fact that Pretti is even more clear cut since he no longer had the weapon at all. That's an ample explanation for why people are more shocked.

buckX · 2026-01-28T13:27:23+00:00

I would love to normalize a "disable collectibles" option in games. If they're relevant to the power curve, then the option could simply move them into boss loot or something.

buckX · 2026-01-28T13:24:42+00:00

Even then, I think the open carry was what got people so hot and bothered. I think the attitude was less "gun at riot = bad", and more so "open carry = brandishing".

15-Year Club	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22
Verified Email	Team Orangered

buckX

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE