Just a smol with big opinions about AFVs and data science. The onlyfans link is a rickroll.

~$|>>> Onlyfans! <<<|$~

  • 0 Posts
  • 132 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
Cake day: October 11th, 2023
  • Warl0k3@lemmy.worldtopolitics @lemmy.world•Democratic Party runs more than 60 military-intelligence candidates for Congress
    101·
    23 days ago

    The CIA Democrats played a significant role in triggering the first impeachment of Trump, over his temporary withholding of military aid to Ukraine after a phone call to President Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump demanded Zelensky help him politically by digging up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden, whom Trump correctly viewed as his likely Democratic opponent in the 2020 election.

    Seven House Democrats with national-security backgrounds issued a joint letter in September 2019 calling for Trump’s impeachment. They included Crow, Slotkin, Spanberger, Sherrill, former Air Force officer Chrissy Houlahan, former Navy commander Elaine Luria and former Navy officer—and later assistant Navy secretary—Gil Cisneros. This was followed shortly by then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi throwing her support behind the impeachment drive.

    The message here is kinda confusing, this is all presented like it’s a bad thing? And a whole bunch of the people are just military, they don’t have ties to the CIA (which yeah, not good, I just don’t see how the label fits at all). I’m really confused by what they’re trying to say.

  • Warl0k3@lemmy.worldtopolitics @lemmy.world•ICE Admits It Investigated a Critic Based on Constitutionally Protected Speech
    21·
    2 months ago

    Yes, I sure was! Because, while both describe different avenues for protected speech to be investigated, both are the result of protected speech being investigated. There is no functional legal difference between either example of speech - both are constitutionally protected, and unless you were violating other laws (say something super legit, like ‘disturbing the peace’, anti-harassment orders, the list is long) it would be illegal for the police to prevent you from saying it.

    That is what protected speech entails - it does not absolve you of potential consequences of that speech (the classic example is “shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater”, but my above examples of confessing to a murder/crime apply as well), it just means you cannot be prevented from speaking it

    And the intimidation is not hard to prove.

    Are you sure about that? It’s really quite a high standard of evidence in a biased court system to demonstrate police harassment or intimidation or what have you at the federal level. There are far harder things to prove sure, but it’s solidly not on the “Easy” end of the spectrum.

  • Warl0k3@lemmy.worldtopolitics @lemmy.world•ICE Admits It Investigated a Critic Based on Constitutionally Protected Speech
    2·
    2 months ago

    They can unintrusively investigate anything that is publically available to them to find suspicious activity that may indicate a crime has occurred or may occur.

    Say, perhaps like… something you’ve posted on facebook? Is that the kind of unobtrusive investigation of publicly available information you mean?

    (Everything else broadly seems to be restating what I’ve already said, so I’m not super sure what your goal is in bringing this up was. Yes, what we know of the investigation likely was not a violation of the 4th amendment (or any other statute) except in that it was clearly done to intimidate - something that is unfortunately fairly difficult to prove.)

  • Warl0k3@lemmy.worldtopolitics @lemmy.world•ICE Admits It Investigated a Critic Based on Constitutionally Protected Speech
    131·
    2 months ago

    While the actions of ICE are predictably henious, the article is missing the point in favor of the more shocking headline.

    Seeking dismissal of Streever’s lawsuit, the government’s lawyers concede his email to Lyons “put words to his disagreements with a current administration official.” In other words, they admit he was investigated because of speech protected by the First Amendment.

    Almost everything you say is protected speech. “I did it, I stabbed him, it was me, muahahaha” is absolutely protected by the 1st amendment and you can shout it all you want, but when you’re shouting it outside a daycare it’s also a totally valid justification for someone taking a quick peek at what you’ve got stashed in your freezer. Or the less hyperbolic example of someone bragging about their crimes on facebook - totally 100% protected speech, the cops can’t prevent you from saying that, but the cops can use it as a reason to investigate you.

    The issue isn’t that he was investigated for 1st amendment protected speech, the issue is that they made crystal clear that they considered the investigation spurious and it was intended only to intimidate him by dropping it after they encountered the slightest difficulty. Unfortunately, that might be very difficult for him to prove. But hopefully he has even a middling decent lawyer as these chucklefucks haven’t got what I’d call a “great” track record of successfully defending themselves in court, so fingers crossed.

  • Warl0k3@lemmy.worldtoPolitical Memes@lemmy.ca•Is this...?
    13·
    5 months ago

    Lucky fans and some season-ticket holders got final tickets at face value or a discount. They told WRAL that their tickets were between $170 and $500, but they’re reselling at much, much more.

    So it seems like this is due to scalpers - who are ruining absolutely everything unfortunately. Fucking dickheads…