OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
No bio...
User ID: 359
I'm not too sure, I think Catholicism is doing pretty well in the United States and the Church is holding to her teaching.
One chart I saw recently was at here, pulling together data from The Nones have Hit a Ceiling. It looks as though Catholics are either A) getting lots of converts, B) Better able to retain young people than Protestants, or C) Immigration of more young people than old people from Catholic countries. It might very well be C, but I don't think Catholicism is going to disappear from the US anytime soon.
One thing that helps keep Catholicism on the straight and narrow is that the Church's authority derives from its Conservatism. If it actually tried to change teaching, in such a way that it clearly contradicted past dogmatic teachings, it loses its authority instantly. It's whole shtick is that "We have the Truth, the Truth can't change, we have perfect Divine Authority to tell you the Truth and no one else has this Authority."
Now Europe, Europe is going secular fast. US Catholics joke that we will need to evangelize Pagan Europe all over again.
Around six in ten Gen Z adults (62%) oppose allowing a small business to refuse to provide goods or services to LGBTQ people, if doing so goes against their religious beliefs
I would be hard pressed to answer this survey, because I believe that the Masterpiece Cakeshop lawsuits were determined correctly, but also that no business has a right to turn away an LGBT person from receiving the same service as everyone else.
I am pretty anti-LGBT, as that goes today. I don't believe that two members of the same sex can be married in the same sense of the word "marriage" as I use when I say my marriage, my parents', grandparents', or great grandparents' marriage. Homosexual marriage is just talking about a completely different thing that can't even accidentally turn into the referent I mean.
If I was a wedding photographer and someone wanted me to photograph a gay wedding, I would want the right to refuse based on I don't believe the two events are even similar. It would be the equivalent of if I were a professional photographer that specialized in Christian First Communions, Confirmations, and Baptisms, then refused to be hired to photograph a Satanic Mass desecrating those things. "But the government says they are both equivalent religious expressions!" I don't care.
I'm pretty pro-LGBT, as far as that would have gone in the 80s or earlier. People deserve healthcare, non-discrimination in the necessities of daily life, security in their homes and jobs. I believe homosexuality is largely due to forces outside people's control. Having those attractions is not a moral failure. All of these would have been radical a hundred years ago, now they are the bare minimum of decency that only the smallest, most fringe groups would deny. The LGBT movement won there. Can they accept that victory and move on?
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
5mo ago
The direct comparison to J6 I can think of is in 2017, when there was a "DisruptJ20" movement, where the stated goal was:
We are planning to shut down the inauguration, that's the short of it ... We're pretty literal about that, we are trying to create citywide paralysis on a level that I don't think has been seen in D.C. before.
And
There has been a lot of talk of peaceful transition of power as being a core element in a democracy and we want to reject that entirely and really undermine the peaceful transition
Undermine the peaceful transition of power? Doesn't that sound like Insurrection? What happened to these hardened insurrectionists?
In late November 2017, six people charged with rioting went on trial. Prosecutors alleged that these six people were taking part in DisruptJ20 protests and vandalism.[37] A jury trial found the six defendants not guilty on all counts in December 2017.[38] On January 18, 2018, the U.S. Justice Department dropped charges against 129 people, leaving 59 defendants to face charges related to the DisruptJ20 protest.[39] By early July 2018, federal prosecutors had dropped all charges against all defendants in the case.[40]
Ah, so nothing serious. But hey, at least they didn't storm the Capitol Building!
In 2020, protestors surrounded the White House and tried to break down the barriers. Trump and his family had to hide in a bunker:
Thousands of protesters demonstrated peacefully near the White House during the day, but by nightfall, with hundreds still in the streets, the scene turned more volatile as crowds surged forward against lines of riot police with plastic shields as the two sides vied for control of Lafayette Square across from the White House. Protesters threw water bottles, set off fireworks and burned a pile of wood and at least one car.
At least they didn't succeed? Is that the metric we're going to use? Because then the J6 protestors should be off the hook, because they ultimately failed to do anything significant. I guess they just had the wrong amount of success, just enough to break down a barricade, not enough to break down America.
And that's leaving out all the other protests that have happened on Capital hill, some violent, some peaceful. Kids crowding congressional offices to protest Climate Change, the Kaunavaugh confirmation protests, etc. And even that is leaving out all the protests inside various state's Capitol Buildings.
Do Democrat leaders support violent action against federal buildings, such as the Oregon courthouse siege? Yes they do! Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler was among the rioters laying siege and Nancy Pelosi tweeted in support of the protestors (and against the government officials trying to resist them). If you don't remember much of what happened there, or maybe your news sources weren't reporting on it, Winston Marshall has a good 15 minute video here: https://youtube.com/watch?v=jNoxpP5Jhvo
I'm not a fan of what happened on Jan 6th. I posted in the motte that week something to the effect of, "I'm a conservative and I'm glad that Ashley Babbit was killed." But I would place it in the same realm of the riots and protests of the above, not some unique evil that members of the Republican Party have perpetrated.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
5mo ago
I've seen people claiming Biden is old and senile for the last six years, when they weren't claiming he died and was replaced by a surgically altered body double. They have pointed to weird speech gaffes, reading teleprompter cues out loud, and Biden falling off his bike.
I have mostly ignored these examples.
Lately it actually seems like he's as senile as people have been trying to make it seem.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
5mo ago
I've seen this video making rounds as well. The thing with Biden is he seems frozen in a smile, uninvolved with what is happening. He seems tuned out, unaware and unresponsive. I don't necessarily think he should have been dancing around, his hips probably hurt! But his frozen, immobile body and face is unnerving.
I think there has been a very noticeable change in just the last two months. He just looks checked out.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
5mo ago
For example, he said that there is no such thing as a Canadian identity and that he views Canada is the world’s first “postnational state.”
I've been trying to put into words why I'm against open borders and I think this is the piece I needed to understand my inherent distrust. A post-national state does not have a people, it has a territory. Other - real - nations can exploit that territory without regard for the people. The government of a nation is elected by the people to put their common good first.
Trudeau sees himself as some sort of steward of Canada's natural resources and land. His "postnational state" denies the existence of a category called "Canadian people." There is the land of Canada, and the people currently inhabiting it which he has jurisdiction over. But without having a category of Canadian people to even reference, his decisions are not sourced in what is the well-being of the Canadian people and their decedents.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
5mo ago
For the Gone Girl of Vallejo case, I don't think the problem is that the Police Departmnet didn't have the resources to figure out what was going on. The problem is that they went out of their way to be assholes to potential victims. Putting Aaron Quinn's phone on Airplane mode when he was expecting to receive a call from a potential kidnapper was something that doesn't come down to insufficient resources. It was just plain idiocy.
Jimmy Akin did an episode on the case and he also came to the conclusion that the police were especially incompetent in this case.
That said, I agree in principle that the police should only be equipped to handle 95% of the cases in their jurisdiction, and in the 5% that are more complicated there should be some sort of national team that can deploy when needed with all the resources and skills to solve the weird problems.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
5mo ago
https://www.hybridcalisthenics.com/programs for body weight exercises tailored to what your current level is, from "elderly person recovering from a fall and can barely get off the floor" to "one arm pullups and one leg squats."
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
5mo ago
Biden has signed an Executive Order "that will temporarily shut down asylum requests once the average number of daily encounters tops 2,500." Given that the current number of asylum requests far exceeds this figure, the border is effectively shut down now.
On one level, this vindicated conservative commentators and legislators who argued that Congress didn't need to pass any bills to shut down the border. Biden apparently agrees!
On the other level, does this take away some steam from Republicans seeking re-election? That's probably what the Democrats are hoping. "See? We care about border security too! Ignore our behavior for the last 40 months." But is it actually going to be effective? And will they just turn on the spigot once the election is over?
Going back to the bill, was there anything on the bill that would have been allowed Biden to accomplish this executive order better? Does the DHS and Border Patrol need more funds to enact this Executive Order? Or is this something well within their existing abilities?
It also appears that this Executive Order contains some gaping holes. It does not apply to the obvious categories (US Citizens, lawful immigrants who make appointments ahead of time) as well as:
- Unaccompanied children (UCs);
- Noncitizens who are determined to be victims of severe forms of trafficking;
- Noncitizens who a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer permits to enter, based on the totality of the circumstances, including consideration of significant law enforcement, officer and public safety, urgent humanitarian, and public health interests that warrant permitting the noncitizen to enter; and
- Noncitizens who a CBP officer permits to enter due to operational considerations that warrant permitting the noncitizen to enter.
Does this render this toothless and just good PR? Or are Border Patrol Agents likely to be very restrictive in their interpretation of the order?
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
5mo ago
Consider a situation where you respond to someone in depth, with some insightful first-hand knowledge and research. You spend an afternoon crafting the perfect response, to explain why the person you are responding to is just simply wrong. After submitting, no one responds to it.
Without upvotes, you don't know if no one read your response. Maybe it was too long. Maybe your writing style needs improvement.
But if you see that this response received unanimous upvotes, then it tells a different story. Maybe your argumentation was so impeccable that everyone who read it had to agree with you.
Upvotes can be the difference between a comment that is extremely well-written or an utter failure.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
5mo ago
Insider trading can easily be compared to betting on a fixed match, something George Washington would recognize as wrong.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
5mo ago
When your political enemy does it.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
5mo ago
Sure, I'm comfortable theorizing Justice William Henry Pauley III didn't like Trump and that was a motive for accepting the plea bargain. He was a Clinton Appointee, which means he probably leans more blue than red, and most of the blue tribe was looking for anything that would open the door on getting Trump out of office.
Another possible motive would be liking Cohen and wanting him to get a slap on the wrist in exchange for immunity to other crimes he was accused of. But that doesn't seem to be the case because he said of Cohen:
Mr. Cohen’s cooperation with prosecutors did not “wipe the slate clean,” and that by breaking campaign finance laws, evading taxes and lying to Congress, he was guilty of a “veritable smorgasbord of fraudulent conduct.” He added, “Each of the crimes involved deception and each appears to have been motivated by personal greed and ambition.”
Those crimes represent “a far more insidious harm to our democratic institutions,” the judge said. “Somewhere along the way Mr. Cohen appears to have lost his moral compass.”
The other motive is just wanting to get Cohen on something and wanting it to be done with the least resources possible. That is the most common reason for a judge going along with a plea deal and what I think is most likely here.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
5mo ago
I think you're arguing that it violates Corpus delicti?
Corpus delicti (Latin for "body of the crime"; plural: corpora delicti), in Western law, is the principle that a crime must be proved to have occurred before a person can be convicted of committing that crime
I'm looking and I can't find anything that demonstrates the federal criminal practice requires corpus delicti for a plea bargain.
If the Judge, the attorney, and Cohen all liked the deal, who would appeal that the facts presented didn't align with a crime?
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
5mo ago
The second case is literally not a campaign contribution. "That’s why another part of the statute defines “personal use” as any expenditure “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.” These may not be paid with campaign funds, even though the candidate might benefit from the expenditure. Not every expense that might benefit a candidate is an obligation that exists solely because the person is a candidate."
Clothing does not count as a campaign contribution. Clothing is personal use. Humans have an obligation to be clothed even if they are not campaigning. And public figures have a commitment to hush up their affairs even if they are not campaigning.
Let's imagine the reverse world:
Suppose Trump had used campaign funds to pay off these women. Does anyone much doubt that many of the same people now after Trump for using corporate funds, and not reporting them as campaign expenditures, would then be claiming that Trump had illegally diverted campaign funds to “personal use”? Or that federal prosecutors would not have sought a guilty plea from Cohen on that count?
There is, at the least, reasonable doubt that this action was illegal, and the standard for convicting someone of a felony is beyond a reasonable doubt.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
5mo ago
I'm surprised at your surprise. That's just what a plea deal is. "I will plea to this lesser charge that does not accurately depict reality so that I don't risk jail for a greater charge and you don't have to go through the trouble of a jury trial."
In the 9th episode of series 15 of "Law and Order: SVU", a serial rapist offers to plead guilty to a rape which he did not commit, while refusing to plead guilty to a series of rapes which he actually did commit (the reasons for this are complex and irrelevant to the question). The prosecutor and police seriously consider accepting his offer, even though they know he didn't commit the crime he wants to confess to, because they don't think they can prove the crimes he actually did commit. This doesn't sound to me like something which would be legal. Could a prosecutor really agree to a plea bargain deal which would involve the defendant confessing to something which the prosecutor knows they didn't do?
Answer:
Such things are in fact legal in some US jurisdictions, as part of plea bargains. In fact such pleas are not uncommon. More usual is the case where a person pleads guilty to a lesser crime, so as to qualify for a lower sentence, when all involved know that the lesser crime was not committed by anyone. It is simply a device to get a compromise sentence and avoid a trial.
In some jurisdictions the Judge, in the course of accepting a guilty plea, requires that the accused admit specific facts that form a minimal legal basis for conviction of the crime pled to. In others no such admission is made. But even where such an admission is made, the truth of such an admission is not usually checked. The Judge will generally make sure that the accused understands the effect of a guilty plea, the rights given up by such a plea, and the possible range of sentences that will result. If the Judge believes that the plea constitutes a miscarriage of justice, for example that a totally innocent person is yielding to improper pressure from the prosecutor, the Judge can refuse the plea, but this is very rare in practice.
There aren't limits to plea bargaining than what each side accepts based on their risk tolerance.
Cohen plead guilty to a campaign finance violation. A campaign finance violation is indeed a crime it is possible to commit. No one in the process, however, had to double check that what Cohen did actually counted as a campaign finance violation.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
5mo ago
It doesn't matter. Let's say Cohen bought Trump a new suit. They went back and forth talking about how this suit would make Trump look more like an every-man, this other suit made him look more powerful, this one made him look healthier, and how those different impressions would impact the different demographics of voters.
It still would not make the purchase of a suit a campaign contribution. The motive being related to the campaign does not make it a campaign contribution.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
5mo ago
He confessed to a crime in the sense that there is a law on the books that he confessed to break. That doesn't mean that he actually violated that crime. For example, let's say I wanted to murder a bank teller because of a personal beef. After my crime, I plead to attempted bank robbery and un-premeditated murder so that I can avoid being tried for pre-meditated murder. Bank robbery is a crime, but I never actually tried to commit it. I just plead to it because it keeps me from the electric chair.
Michael Cohen confessed to a crime he didn't commit given the facts at hand. People do this to avoid long sentences for possibly other crimes they committed. Michael Cohen is a convicted perjurer and was trying to avoid going to trial for tax fraud:
Cohen was facing multiple tax and fraud charges that could have landed him in jail for the rest of his life, even if he beat the campaign finance allegations. By pleading guilty, he limits his jail time to just a few years.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
5mo ago
That is how you see it. I read it as Trump had his New York business correctly state that he was paying Cohen for legal expenses.
Opposition research clearly wouldn't happen except in the context of a campaign, and thus is a campaign expense. Paying someone to sign an NDA to keep their mouth shut about an affair is not a campaign expense. As former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith wrote:
It is true that “contribution” and “expenditure” are defined in the Federal Election Campaign Act as anything “for the purpose of influencing any election,” and it may have been intended and hoped that paying hush money would serve that end. The problem is that almost anything a candidate does can be interpreted as intended to “influence an election,” from buying a good watch to make sure he gets to places on time, to getting a massage so that he feels fit for the campaign trail, to buying a new suit so that he looks good on a debate stage. Yet having campaign donors pay for personal luxuries — such as expensive watches, massages and Brooks Brothers suits — seems more like bribery than funding campaign speech.
That’s why another part of the statute defines “personal use” as any expenditure “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.” These may not be paid with campaign funds, even though the candidate might benefit from the expenditure. Not every expense that might benefit a candidate is an obligation that exists solely because the person is a candidate.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
5mo ago
He pleaded to it as part of a deal to avoid being prosecuted for other things. Read my link, it is directly related to that question.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
5mo ago
Consider also in Camp: this is terrible:
Trump did not do anything that was technically illegal. There is nothing illegal about paying someone to sign an NDA. A former chairman of the FEC is on the record as saying this expenditure does not count as a campaign expenditure. Smith also commented:
Suppose Trump had used campaign funds to pay off these women. Does anyone much doubt that many of the same people now after Trump for using corporate funds, and not reporting them as campaign expenditures, would then be claiming that Trump had illegally diverted campaign funds to “personal use”? Or that federal prosecutors would not have sought a guilty plea from Cohen on that count?
There is, at the least, reasonable doubt that this action was illegal, and the standard for convicting someone of a felony is beyond a reasonable doubt.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
5mo ago
Yes, a fine is the typical response to misclassifying campaign expenses, not a felony.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
5mo ago
Literal answer to your question: Trump is accused of falsifying the checks he wrote to his lawyer when he wrote on the checks that they were for legal expenses. He is also accused of falsifying his accounting books for his business when he recorded that the checks paid to his lawyer were for legal expenses.
Edit: sorry, above I said "accused" but the more factual thing now would be to say "convicted." My mind's having a hard time downloading the latest update.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
5mo ago
NY Governor Hochul could pardon Trump.
I don't know if you've heard, but +Vigano (if I still get to use the + for him) has been officially excommunicated and summoned to Rome.
More options
Context Copy link