Bwaaahahaha. Too late. He might have been dismissed had it been brought up before deliberation started, but not now, it's over. Chauvin is convicted. You don't get a mistrial after a verdict, and a mistrial isn't exoneration, he would be tried again, with more witnesses and evidence. Even your video only claims it might help an appeal, not a mistrial. That cracker jack box law license isn't working, Bobby.

Chauvin's attorney is barely more competent than Giuliani. He put experts on the stand that hadn't examined the facts or evidence but came to conclusions anyway. His gawdawful defense is a MUCH better case for an appeal than a jurist that once wore a t shirt.

He may have a point that it's not proper to mislead on a questionnaire (although you support it, remember. Lying under oath is the smart thing to do if it helps your cause, according to you when Trump lied under oath in his depositions), but attending one MLK March doesn't disqualify a person from being a jurist, just like having a nice interaction with police or a decent estimation of them doesn't.

Edit: sounds like the jury question was had they participated in a blm protest, the rally he was filmed at was an MLK get out the vote rally Floyd's family happened to speak at, so he didn't lie.

It's a nothing burger brought up too late. He will appeal, and will bring this up, but it is far from meeting the standards to grant a new trial at this point. Even if he gets an appeal on other grounds, the evidence is overwhelming, he will simply be convicted again, possibly of harsher charges.

If he's not for some unfathomable reason, he will wish he was, because he will have a target on him and those with him for life. Prison is the safest place for him, and the only chance of safety his family has.

Sorry Charlie.

Edit: Funny how you are on the side of the murdering white cop and not the black murder victim here....and you still claim you aren't racist....but when a cop hurts a white woman or a violent white power MAGA moron you can suddenly see they're going too far.

"What on earth are you talking about?"
-newt

The rules for property and income when one or both parties decide they no longer want to be in the relationship.




"not having a marriage means you almost certainly will pay for them for 18+ years but won't have many rights to be in their lives"
-newt

Incorrect. If you are on birth certificate, you have the same rights and obligations.
The only pitfalls are that :
- Child support is calculated from the income of the parent with less custody (rather than from the true cost of raising a child).
- Women almost always get custody if the choice is between two parents (like when they live far apart and child can only be at one or the other).



"and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first"
-newt

Negative. Co-parenting does not conflate property.

Shared assets when not married are divided either by percentage of purchase price contribution, or by percentage stated in a contract.




"My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas"
-newt

"My brother won."
-newt

Won by your own definition. Hence I congratulate.




"You assume women take off time to raise the kids"
-newt

No assumptions. Although afaik they still do it more often.




"You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. "
-newt

Top result from a zero effort google of "men working hours vs women working hours"

https://towardsdatascience.com/is-the-difference-in-work-hours-the-real-reason-for-the-gender-wage-gap-interactive-infographic-6051dff3a041




"Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that"
-newt

I admit that women [as a group] under 35 out earn men under 35 because of preferential admittance (such as to higher education) and preferential hiring (such as to managerial positions).

I did not say that women earn more in the same position for the same hours worked. Young men are simply getting shut out of opportunities, so their incomes are lower. As by design.

It does however highlight how affirmative action is being poorly controlled.
The target statistic is based on overall population at all ages.
The adjustment is skewed to younger ages (school admission is typically for younger people).
So the system is trying to balance out incomes of older men by trimming up incomes of younger women, with no accounting for the effects on younger men or consequences of older men retiring.
The situation is doomed to overshoot with time.

A natural result is the popularity of people like Jordan Peterson, with messages like : "Young men, nobody will help you, stop waiting for someone to help you, stop lamenting your situation, you gotta pull yourself up by your boot straps. Start by cleaning your room, then go make something of yourself".






"Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk[etc]" -scheherazade "
-newt

Straw man argument.

You know I stated that those marriageability criteria exist specifically due to risk of consequences of divorce.

I never stated that I have personal issues with those attributes.
I have dated women on that list. I didn't /marry/ them.

My only criteria for a relationship that I am happy being in is :
- We are mutually attracted
- We like each other
- We are nice to each other
I don't care what your religion is, your politics, your family status, whatever. It's all just noise to me.





" And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are?"
-newt

Prenups can be negated by these simple words :

"I did not understand what I was signing"
or
"My lawyer was not present".

Poof. Prenup thrown out.




"their husbands are more likely to break their vows first"
-newt

A woman to cheat needs a willing man (easy)
A man to cheat needs a willing woman (hard)

Times have changed. Online dating made chatting someone up in person and make an impression uncommon, and even considered creepy/unusual. Now people are picked on their online profile based on looks/height/social-media-game.

Dating apps and sites publish their statistics. Nowadays, around 20% of men match with around 80% of women.
Most men aren't having sex. Most men can't find a match to cheat with if they wanted to.

The tall cute photogenic guys are cleaning up.
The 20% of men that match the bulk of women are going through women like a mill. They will smash whatever bored housewife crosses their path.

A 2 second google result :
https://usustatesman.com/economics-of-dating-2-the-brutal-reality-of-dating-apps/




"Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches"
-newt

Agreed.

Fortunately, I never say that about women.






" you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks"
-newt

False equivalence.

Cohabitation and Partnership are mutually independent.
Meaning both can exist at the same time.


-scheherazade

The whole point of the Section 230 debate is that Youtube has no liability, just like Videosift is not liable for any of our comments. Youtube would have been sued out of existence long ago if that wasn't the case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

Just like driving and interacting on the internet.

Over 500 videos taken as rioters stormed the Capitol building have been arranged in chronological order and can be scrolled through by users.

ProPublica published the interactive timeline using videos sourced from Parler, the social network favoured by supporters of the president, which was also gathering users’ GPS data.
- The Independent

Videos can be viewed chronologically here..
https://projects.propublica.org/parler-capitol-videos/

What's up your ass? Nazi facebook got shunned and grandpa hitler wannabe got kicked off social media?

Hey, look,




I'm sorry you got duped.
But that doesn't give anyone the right to do what they did.
LETS BE CLEAR
People forced their way into the capitol building through violence. They hung up a noose https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/noose-hung-outside-capitol/ and when inside the building they were chanting 'FIGHT FOR TRUMP FIGHT FOR TRUMP FIGHT FOR TRUMP' until the president tweeted about Mike Pence's disloyalty, then they started with "WHERE IS PENCE, WHERE IS PENCE?

If you know anyone who was at the rally and stormed the capitol, please contact the FBI
https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/washingtondc/news/press-releases/fbi-seeking-information-related-to-violent-activity-at-the-us-capitol-bu
ilding
https://preview.tinyurl.com/yyq8xcba (link is too long)

They are wanted as person's of interest, suspected of terrorism.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/capitol-rioters-prison-trump-executive-order-federal (link is too long) copy+paste

$50k for anyone associated with the pipe bombs https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates/2021/01/08/954845870/u-s-capitol-flag-will-fly-at-half-staff-fbi-issues-rew
ard-over-pipe-bombs


------------##########------------
------------##########------------
Look, I believe that you believe what you're saying, okay?

Let me make one last red rover talk with you, maybe you'll come on back to reality.
------------##########------------
------------##########------------


Here's the argument for Georgia, laid out in point by point sections


1.--------------------------------
Do you know any Trump supporters who don't trust the election?

From 2018 so before the current bullshit; though it's worth pointing out that Trump also claims that the 2016 election that he fucking won was a fraud.

"Results from a new Grinnell College National Poll give insights into which citizens lack confidence in the November 2018 election. As it turns out, white conservatives, despite accusations of election fraud from President Trump and several outspoken conservative leaders, are neither the only groups concerned about the accuracy of the 2018 vote count nor the groups most concerned. The poll’s results also uncover how a lack of confidence in the vote count is linked with voter turnout "
https://bit.ly/2VooAMS

I would argue that's contributed to a suppression of turnout. See also # 10 on my list here.


2.--------------------------------

https://apps.npr.org/elections20-interactive/#/house

The democrats lost a chunk of seats in the house of reps.
Flip flip flip flip flip flip
All that, all the Democrat plot to steal the election? That's some 7d chess right there. Secret dem plot = elect republicans. (it's the same ticket as the presidential vote) Can't trust people who voted Republican? Is that it? Throw those votes out?


3.-------------------------------
Arguing a that a technicality should disqualify votes doesn't mean that Americans' vote count is inaccurate. And if those votes' certification is invalid, why did Republican senators and Congress people from those states take their offices on Jan 2nd?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>They are voted in on the same ballot that the vote for president is cast on. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
If they genuinely think and believe it was a scam, why did they show up to Washington and take office on the basis of so-called fraudulent ballots? If those ballots are frauds, what are those Republicans doing seated in those congressional seats?

Also, if that rule change is so bad, and absentee ballots are so fraudulent and can't be trusted, why did the Republican party in that state send a absentee ballot to every Republican who voted in the last election? You'd have to throw out ~700,000 republican votes as well. Don't their votes count?


4.-------------------------------

Mitt Romney is an absolute asshole and he supports policy i strongly disagree with, but at least he's honest and seems to speak with an appeal to integrity. I think I saw his outrage at his own party spilling out of his head during the objection hearing.

But he's been an R his whole life? Cant be trusted?

Mitch McConnel is like a RPG character that someone dumped all the skill points into "fuck these rules, I'm getting my way" He will do anything, cast off nearly any rule to advance republican politics. He is against this. No one, only one man can be trusted ???

Mike pence is the most republican motherfucker around, and he does not endorse this, which party are you with?



5.------------------------------

The senators objecting were right the cases didn't progress to a hearing, and were all "without standing" or were unable to even make a claim, with Rudy going into court and when the judge flatly asks him if he's suing for fraud,
'is this a fraud case ? '

>>>>>>>>>>>>>RUDY - "NO"
"No we do not"
( O_O) ?

The judge explains that maybe he did allege fraud at some point, but not in the paper work he filed currently in front of the judge. (EVEN JUDGE JUDY DON'T ALLOW THAT SHIT)

WOULD YOU LIKE THE AUDIO OF THAT?
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4925496/user-clip-alleging-fraud

Finally, after some linguistic dancing, the judge revisits the topic, bookending that clip. ”Does the Amended complaint include fraud with particularity ?"

>>>>>>>>>>>>RUDY - "NO YOUR HONOR"



6.-------------------------------------------

So all of my
X Y Z cant be trusted?
Add McConnel and Pence



7.------------------------------------------

Maybe you are taking trump literally, not seriously? You're supposed to do "seriously, not literally" i've heard. Maybe he seriously won the election...
...but not literally, actually, or in-fact.



8.------------------------------------------

So only one man can be trusted? Only one man with the power? He used to hint at not conceding, now he's hinting at no more elections.

is that the way of a democracy or a republic? NO MORE ELECTIONS, THEY CANT BE TRUSTED UNLESS I WIN
???What good are elections? Why would we need those? They're all stolen anyway right ?



9.------------------------------------------

The states that made a difference and flipped from red to blue. Red, they were already red. Red as in Republicans won previous elections there and we're in charge of the local government and election boards in each case.
REPUBLICANS CERTIFIED EACH OF THOSE STATES.
HENCE THE FLIPPING,
THEY CERTIFIED IN DECEMBER,
BEFORE THEIR REPLACEMENTS ARRIVED.


10.-----------------------------------------

Democrats have been doing the work of flipping Georgia for 30 years, for democrats, that's how they flipped the state.

[The Daily] The Georgia Runoffs, Part 1: ‘We Are Black Diamonds.’ #theDaily
https://podcastaddict.com/episode/117319937 via @PodcastAddict

They interview Stacy Abraham's here^ and she speaks at length about the decades long process to flip Georgia, and all the fundraising they did during that time

There is also a sister episode where republican campaign officials are interviewed and they discuss how they are not prepared in Georgia because they thought that state was a lock, still they could have pulled it off, but voter turnout was being suppressed because people were being told it was a fraud. There is a telling moment where the two R senators up for election in Georgia are on stage but the crowd just keeps chanting TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP to the point that they are unable to speak to the crowd
[The Daily] The Georgia Runoffs, Part 2: ‘I Have Zero Confidence in My Vote’ #theDaily
https://podcastaddict.com/episode/117362059 via @PodcastAddict

>>>>>>>>>>>Notable,
the interviewer tries and tries but can't find a republican who will say they have confidence in their vote at the Georgia rally.


>>>>>>>>>Finally<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>Finally<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>Finally<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>Finally<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>Finally<<<<<<<<<
"To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th."

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 8, 2021

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Come on.

Stop.

It's over.

You're defending people who planted pipe bombs in the capitol building of the United States of America.

It doesn't matter how you cut it, that!

THAT!

Is NOT right.








Edit: And we're actually a mixture of both a republic and a democracy. There are regular instances on the people voting on laws directly.

Whatever happens, I hope Republicans keep doing what they're doing, because they are losing every election since trump and then some ...shithead.

Judges...makes me wonder. Has Amy Coney Barrett--do you think she has had "the talk" with her two adopted black children about how they should respond to, approach, expect to interact with police?

It's amazing what the assumption of privilege provides as armor for someone in interacting with someone armed with a gun...

If only those who interact with police obey their orders and not pull weapons or fight the cops they would be alive.

Teach your sons and daughters to respect the police, don't have drugs and weapons on you or your car.

It happened, it was halted, it's happening again. As long as lower education is so disparate between mostly white and mostly black schools, it's proper. Revamp the education system so all high school graduates have the same educational opportunities, I would support removing it again, but we are moving the opposite direction. No link required, I explained....but from the link you provided....
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/upshot/some-colleges-have-more-students-from-the-top-1-percent-than-the-bottom-60.html

Did you read the link you provided about the one place supporting a day of absence? Evergreen? Their "day of absence" was 100% voluntary, not enforceable and not enforced, contrary to your claim.

The reporter chased out wasn't chased out, he was confronted, and he had left the media area to interrupt the event by "interviewing" people who didn't want to be interviewed in the middle of the event. Trump's campaign has adopted this tactic and added violence, and often physically assaulted reporters even when they comply and stay in the media area. This particular event was akin to a reporter jumping on stage and insisting the speaker let him interview him then and there, disrupting the sanctioned event.

Um....this was a discussion of why people would vote for Trump, not what's happening in Canada. That said, you can't expect a university to give a platform to a person who would use it to degrade and denigrate the university and it's policies. I wouldn't expect a religious school to host atheistic pro-life lectures, and I wouldn't expect publicly funded universities to host anti inclusion lectures.

Duh...your alleged "whiteness" class was not defining whiteness as inherently negative, it was this....
CSRE 136: White Identity Politics (AFRICAAM 136B, ANTHRO 136B)
Pundits proclaim that the 2016 Presidential election marks the rise of white identity politics in the United States. Drawing from the field of whiteness studies and from contemporary writings that push whiteness studies in new directions, this upper-level seminar asks, does white identity politics exist? How is a concept like white identity to be understood in relation to white nationalism, white supremacy, white privilege, and whiteness? We will survey the field of whiteness studies, scholarship on the intersection of race, class, and geography, and writings on whiteness in the United States by contemporary public thinkers, to critically interrogate the terms used to describe whiteness and white identities. Students will consider the perils and possibilities of different political practices, including abolishing whiteness or coming to terms with white identity. What is the future of whiteness? n*Enrolled students will be contacted regarding the location of the course. And it was cancelled in 2016-17. Don't be dishonest, it will change my responses.

Not sure why you made up this falsely alleged definition of racism that appears nowhere in the definitions or class descriptions you linked, but you did. Calling bullshit....Again.

Critical Race Theory (7016): This course will consider one of the newest intellectual currents within American Legal Theory -- Critical Race Theory. Emerging during the 1980s, critical race scholars made many controversial claims about law and legal education -- among them that race and racial inequality suffused American law and society, that structural racial subordination remained endemic, and that both liberal and critical legal theories marginalized the voices of racial minorities. Course readings will be taken from both classic works of Critical Race Theory and newer interventions in the field, as well as scholarship criticizing or otherwise engaging with Critical Race Theory from outside or at the margins of the field. Meeting dates: The class will meet 7:15PM to 9:15PM on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday (January 7, 8, and 9), and the following Monday and Tuesday (January 13 and 14). Elements used in grading: Class Participation, Written Assignments.

Not anti white/pro minority/white=evil....but an examination of how laws as written and enforced may (or may not) be an example of racial injustice codified in law, whether by accident or intent. Again, you misrepresent the facts to pretend a class that examines the roll of race in law is a racist class teaching whites are bad and blacks are good.

If everyone BUT Asains do poorly because they aren't offered the same opportunities to excell, then yes, we need to step in to UPGRADE the opportunities of everyone else, that doesn't translate into downgrading the opportunities Asains are offered. Derp. This bullshit is the same racist trope the anti equality side has used for years, it's just bullshit. Asians aren't penalized for being competent at math nor for being Asian....neither were whites, which was V 1.0 of that same argument.

Identity politics are on both sides, played hard by the right too, to the detriment of society.

Affirmative action got national pushback from the racist right the day it was described as a plan, and constantly since.

It seems you may be confused by morons who would tell you racism is dead, reverse racism is out of control. When white women start being lynched by black mobs and blacks get a free pass for breaking the law, come back and try again. Until then, you sound like a bully whining about getting a time out for punching a smaller kid because they're a different race and proclaiming the whole system is unfair to white kids because you had a minor consequence forced on you.

Perspectives on Rittenhouse seem to track perspectives on where one imagines one would be found in that situation.

Do you imagine being a looter or rioter?
Rittenhouse is bad.

Do you imagine being a resident of the street in question?
Rittenhouse is good.

The protest angle is moot, since Rittenhouse didn't go there to interact with protesters.

I personally wouldn't go attack property that doesn't belong to any of the people that ostensibly inspired the protest (the police officers responsible for the shooting). So I am more likely to imagine myself being a simple resident.

If it were the homes of the police officers being looted, then at least the looting would have some logical reason behind it.
I'm actually surprised, that after all these protests, and all the looting, and all the destruction, that nobody has bothered to actually target the people that are responsible. Brings into question sincerity.




Side note, I actually think that police were way in the wrong to shoot, or even bother, Jacob Blake. The man only stopped to break up a fight. Cops (responding to a call, ostensibly about that very fight) just showed up and went after him, without taking any time to assess what was going on. Absolutely reckless cowboy behavior with little regard for the state.

-scheherazade

Bobby, Bobby, Bobby.
You know your black on black crime rates are nothing but made up propaganda, it's no where near 99%. That's white power propaganda you accepted without question...that's a form of racism itself....it's often referred to as "soft" racism of lowered expectations.

This fake news projection again, eh? You watch Fox and OAN, both entertainment/opinion posing as news...the definition of fake news...but want to call the daily videos of racist dicks being racist dicks on tape "fake". Do you believe CNN has a studio out back where they stage these events?
" There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death." -Asimov

Let's compare relevant and real numbers, police kill 25-26 black men for every cop killed. Let's not pretend you can do statistics even with honest data....but there's no question you can't using the data you repeat, because it's not data, it's racist propaganda that's thoroughly debunked but you just keep repeating.
You know you said there are 5000 racist murders for every black on black murder, right?

How many per day, Bob? How many racist murders per day do you need?
How many unprovoked violent racist attacks by blacks against whites per day would you need to see before you can admit there's a problem, because I'm sure if races were reversed that number would be 1/365....one video per year, that's what I think it would take for you to label a black run system racist against white people. Without racial norms being reversed, two a day isn't enough.

The big issue today is cops, the government, killing unarmed black people....If cops and their superiors were mostly minorities who killed >90% whites and arrested whites for non-infractions, putting only those publicly proven racists on vacation duty and protecting any accused without video proof, you would be frothing with rage at the out of control racist cops.

Edit:so answer the question...how many per day before you see racism is still problematic? A number
How many instances per day of government sanctioned racism before you see it's systemic. A number
Note, the word systemic does not mean that every interaction must be a racist violation. I know your paper tiger/straw man methods.

There's no such thing as a casual conversation with a racist pig. Only conversation designed to catch you in what they say is some admission or claim you slurred your words so they can violate you more.
Never answer questions. None. You have no obligation to help them investigate you, and that's what questions are. You have a constitutional right to remain silent, use it.

Another good cop? As good as they get now, only blatantly racist by his actions. There's no such thing as a good cop. They're a myth.
Note after seeing this video they aren't a bit convinced there's something wrong with him giving a written warning for not speeding and before they'll even consider looking at his actions they need an official complaint with his name, address, place of work, car model and color, license, and any other identifying information attached....for ID purposes not retaliation. His entire department backs him in this harassment. I'll bet $20 if he went to the precinct to make an official complaint they'll first spend hours dismissively trying to talk him out of it before claiming they're out of forms, come back next week and try again.

A warning for 5 mph under the limit. Yeah....I'm sure he pulls over every little old white lady he sees driving and arrests them, they go 20+mph under 70. What utter bullshit.

These aren't police, not civil servants, and they aren't there to help or keep the peace, they're violent, power tripping thugs, racists, liars, and are all severely lead deficient. The last two weeks have proven it conclusively.

Perry, please make that official formal complaint, and please record that interaction in full. This was not a valid traffic stop, it was an abuse of power by a disrespectful racist asshole who wanted to harass a black man.

*promote

Same or at least similar.
https://www.amazon.com/Talking-Hamster-Interactive-Birthday-Learning/dp/B074VZXMX1

I support the police and lean very heavily to giving them the benefit of the doubt in the absence of other evidence.

From someone with that point of view, you're comment is providing cover for the racists and monsters infecting the police.

If you watch this video and all you can see is someone not following police commands with adequate speed and accuracy then you are blind.

Can you not see the guy has his hands up from the start, and can you not hear him shouting how he is scared? Did you not see his Grandma struggling with her walking cane to make it out to try and protect him?

You have a portion of your community that is terrified of police interactions, and the bad behavior that has led to that fear has not come from the community, but the racist and dirty cops on the force that need weeding out.

Seconding newtboy's yes. Equally you must avoid any interaction with the fanbase