The gift isn’t the crime.

Telling people you’re holding a sweepstakes, collecting their information based on that statement, and then not holding the sweepstakes and instead giving the supposed prize to someone of your choice is the crime

It’s called fraud

You assume their goal is to get him off entirely and not to simply shift the crime to a lesser offense

Except it is a violation of the law, just a different law. They defrauded the public by collecting something of material value (registrant information) under false pretenses. It’s textbook fraud

Which is why allowing the right to use the label “pro-life” was a cardinal sin of the Democrats’ strategy

I’m literally pro-life: I support saving lives whenever and wherever it’s reasonable to do so

But I’m pro-choice, because I don’t think I should be the one to decide for everyone else which situation is reasonable and which isn’t. Also, women deserve basic fucking rights and bodily autonomy is, like, the number one most fundamental right

We really ought to change the nature of the conversation: it’s not “pro-life”. It’s pro-enslavement, pro-religious-tyranny, and pro-absolutism

I appreciate your capacity to recognize a valid argument even when it conflicts with your initial position ❤️ It’s more than I expect from the average internet commenter

It was a minor aside. It was very obviously not the primary point of my reply. You chose to fixate on it. And you continue to do so. Seriously done with you now, chief. 👋

It’s a charicature. I’m not laughing because I think it’s real (which would be kind of mean, anyway, since I’d just be laughing at someone screwing up). I’m laughing because it’s relatable to real experiences many people have had, and because of the added commentary about software development.

Your hyperfocus on reality in media, and failure to see the comedy for what it truly is, is far more cringe than the video 😉

EDIT: it’s like asking why people laugh at the obviously fake stories stand-up comedians tell because they’re made up. Like, yeah, no shit, that’s not the point.

I see that you won’t even bother trying to address the initial point of my reply so I’m done here. I’m not trying to debate the merits of a case that never even went to trial, when the whole point of my reply was to simply point out that you were being outrageously hyperbolic

Address the actual complaint or gtfo.

Honestly, at this point, I don’t even care, because the main point I was trying to make stands either way: this is not, by an stretch of the imagination, as crooked as they come. Seriously. You must see that at this point. Like, the fact that we’re even having this discussion over the nuances of the case is itself proof that it’s not the worst form of crooked.

Do I really need to start listing off the people throughout history who have been far more crooked? Or can you just admit you were being hyperbolic and exaggerating for effect?

Can you read? Did you read the article? Unambiguous my ass. There is literally witness testimony that says it was the other assailant that stabbed the victim. Seriously, read the article that was linked so you don’t sound quite so willfully ignorant

Also calling Nunez a crony of Schwarzenegger is hilarious given their history.

I’m not gonna pretend the clemency was an ethical move - though there is a lot to question about that plea agreement - I will say that if you think this is “as crooked as they come” you are woefully sheltered.

Cutting the sentence in half of a political-rival-turned-ally’s son is messed up but the hyperbole of calling it “the most crooked you can be” is absurd

This is not surprising, but funny because it’s so on brand as to make you go “of course that’s his wallpaper. Of course.”

Technically, I guess the doctor is being given credit for the biological work of a pilot, not a nurse. And nobody likes the pilot.

As the son of a doctor, this is a very funny joke. Good work

Citation as requested: https://www.jillstein2024.com/war_criminals_and_diplomacy

It is important to note that while a FICO score is roughly equivalent to “trustworthiness”, the three credit agency scores (Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian) are NOT meant to reflect your trustworthiness directly. Rather, they are specifically designed to inform lenders of your profitability for them.

It’s an important distinction because having a an outstanding payment history alone won’t improve these scores, if you aren’t utilizing available credit and maintaining some running balance with lenders.

Basically, if you’re just going to borrow money and never pay any interest on the loans, you aren’t actually a source of profit and therefore aren’t a desirable customer for lenders and creditors

Fwiw after that whole thing made news she released a press statement that did call him a war criminal

EDIT: citation - https://www.jillstein2024.com/war_criminals_and_diplomacy

Don’t forget there was also a bunch of government-backed troll farms shut down recently

Because there is value in a large group speaking with a unified voice to say “this is wrong, and you need to know that the rest of us think it’s wrong. Your behavior will affect the relationship you have with us all going forward”. Direct intervention isn’t the only form of consequence.

Is it the best solution to the problem? No. Is it still worth doing? Yes.

I don’t give a shit about David Hasselhoff, but Knight Rider without Mr Feeney as KITT wouldn’t be the same