O-Trap

Latest Activity

On May 20, 2019:

  • O-Trap replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 02:35 pm
  • posted by QuakerOats

     

    41% of college students believe hate speech not protected under First Amendment... 

    I'm honestly not sure if I believe that metric.

    Not that there might not have been some study, but I'm betting clear definitions of the term "hate speech" were not outlined.

    My guess is that someone might think protecting hate speech under A1 would give rise to the legality of Person A ordering Person B to kill someone.

    Of course, that could be shored up with a discussion on the differences between declarative and imperative statements, but I'm betting that's an elementary school lesson most of these kids only remembered long enough to take the test.

  • O-Trap replied to "What's outraging you today?" at 01:32 pm
  • posted by justincredible

    LOL @ OTrap for negging you for it not being a meme in the wrong thread.

    Motherfucker.

    Can you tell I only got 3 hours of sleep?  lol

    Removing the negs, but not going to try to explain this away.  Might bring the lulz.

On May 17, 2019:

  • O-Trap replied to "Darlie Routier murder case" at 10:49 pm
  • posted by justincredible

    The fact that they have refused to check the fingerprint is painfully frustrating. I can understand people questioning the video of her at the birthday celebration, but I also understand that people grieve in different ways. Also, every other family member there was also happy and smiling and laughing. I can't imagine every single member of her family wasn't upset the kids were dead. Add in the fact that the prosecution failed to show the earlier video of the family prayer service because they likely acquired it illegally, makes that bit of evidence even more frustrating.

    Yep, which means it shouldn't be a part of trial, but again, that doesn't mean we can't use it in the court of public opinion.

    While I agree that the other family members also seemed to be in positive spirits, it's a unique position for her.  Not only is she the mother, which seems to result in a strong bond fairly often, but according to her statement, she was a victim of the attack.  There should have been, I think, more trouble dealing with it than that, particularly when you do see her struggling to cope with it later, mostly when the cameras are on and it seems in her best interest.

    Another thing that seemed odd was the change in attack between the kids and her.  Dude stabs the kids with enough force to go through their torsos but only slashes the wife and doesn't even apply enough pressure to her throat to kill her? I mean, it's circumstantial, but that seems awfully odd.

    Just as well, what would the motive have been for some rando coming in and killing the kids?  My only thought would be a tweaker looking to grab something to sell, but I doubt that would result in the competence necessary to kill the two kids quietly and get away that cleanly, all while having to fight off a hysterical woman without killing her?

    Nah.  The sum total of that with the other stuff, I don't buy it.  Too much circumstance for me.

    Again, that's all speculative, so it shouldn't ever be used as part of the proceedings.

  • O-Trap replied to "What's outraging you today?" at 04:42 pm
  • posted by gut

    I predict this whole abortion thing is going to end with the courts affirming Roe v. Wade.  Unfortunately, that probably won't end it as a political issue.

    As long as it buys votes, it'll be around.

  • O-Trap replied to "Darlie Routier murder case" at 04:29 pm
  • posted by justincredible

    What lead you to believe she did it? There was certainly enough reasonable doubt that she should not have been convicted, I'm glad to see you come to that conclusion. Though, you're a reasonable person so that's not a big surprise. 

    The big thing was the overall sentiment and demeanor during the 'birthday party'.  That seemed too light-hearted and carefree for a grieving mother so close to the death of her murdered son, but in fairness, that's subjective and circumstantial, so it shouldn't be used against her in court.  Still, because of it, I don't buy that she's that upset that the kids are gone.  The only reason I could think of that she wouldn't be were if she didn't actually want them around as much as she made it appear.

    The sock is a pretty strong piece to cast reasonable doubt, but contrary to some of her defenders, if it were planted, I think the location makes sense.  It's far enough from the house to make it seem unlikely that she just chucked it out a back window, but it's close enough that any murder investigation's sweep is going to catch it (assuming competence).

    Couple that with the fact that she picked up the knife and worried about her fingerprints on in during the call to 9-1-1 (which seems like a ridiculous thing for which to pause from worrying about your children), if one forensic countermeasure was intentional, it's pretty reasonable to believe that both might have been.

    Still, alternative theories about what "could" have happened aren't evidence, and neither is a mother being unusually good-spirited at her son's freshly-buried graveside, so I definitely don't think they meet the burden of proof.

    Certainly, if they ever get around to checking the bloody fingerprint, and it's not hers, I'd have to re-evaluate my position.

  • O-Trap replied to "Darlie Routier murder case" at 01:27 pm

  • I saw this too.  I couldn't believe it.

    For the record, I think she did it, but there's too much subjectivity in the case against her.  I don't think she should have been convicted.

  • O-Trap replied to "What's outraging you today?" at 10:54 am
  • posted by geeblock

    https://twitter.com/TomiLahren/status/1129094589267173376

     

    Never thought I would ever agree with Tammy on an issue

    She's actually been openly pro-choice for several years now.  She gets lambasted by Republicans practically any time she talks about it.

    However, her tweet's metrics look good, so it seems like the response to it is generally positive.

  • O-Trap replied to "What's outraging you today?" at 12:20 am
  • posted by gut

    But why stop there?  Why not just keep printing until everyone is rich?

    You obviously know why that's impossible, but it reminds me of Hillary Clinton saying that schools shouldn't stay open if they're not doing a 'better-than-average' job.

On May 16, 2019:

  • O-Trap replied to "What's outraging you today?" at 02:44 pm
  • posted by like_that

    Affordability, universality, and high quality. 

    Most people don't realize all 3 are impossible.  They foolishly believe single payer will bring us all three.

    So long as quality requires expertise, it's true.

  • O-Trap replied to "What's outraging you today?" at 02:16 pm
  • posted by gut
    I'll remind you of this when single-payer eventually comes to the US.

    Single-payer is going to be like watching a trainwreck.  It's going to completely bifurcate the healthcare industry in the US.  People will say it already is, but that's not exactly true.  Currently, if you have decent coverage you can generally get the best treatment available.

    What will happen with single-payer is private supplementary coverage, in some form, will emerge.  It won't be cheap, and very few employers [outside of lucrative professional service firms] will offer it.  Which means you'll have to go deep into your pocket for the best doctors, and most people won't be able to afford that.

    The way it works now, most doctors only take so many medicare/medicaid patients.  Single-payer means more of that.  So it will be a lottery for the best doctors, or even keeping your own doctor, unless you have the cash to get to the front of the line.

    It's also true when you pay doctors less, they have to treat more patients to pay the bills.  With a fixed number of hours in the day, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how that plays out.

    There's this awful myth fueling demand for single-payer that drugs and insurance are what's driving healthcare cost.  That's not even 20% of it.  Most people don't understand single-payer means paying doctors and hospitals a lot less.  A lot less for research.  If this debate was honest, people would want a different solution.

    I just threw that one out there as an example of why "If you don't like what's happening, you can just leave" isn't actually that helpful.  I'm vehemently opposed to single-payer personally.

  • O-Trap replied to "What's outraging you today?" at 01:52 pm
  • posted by cbus4life

    Curious where you land on law enforcement's use of facial recognition technology, i.e. the NYPD, vs. San Francisco's recent ban on the use of such technology.

    Not as extreme as what the UK is doing in that tweet but I've always been very uneasy with law enforcement's use of facial recognition here in the US, NYC being a prime example. I don't think they use that technology for reasonable law enforcement purposes all the time and its use here is pushing us towards an oppressive surveillance state like the UK. 

    Folks asking for us not to be like Europe should I guess be cheering Sam Francisco's decision, which isn't always the case for those folks.

    I don't mind video recording.  That's public observation.

    I do, however, mind recording actual biometric data.  That's the sort of thing that isn't just observed by you being in public.

     

     

    posted by Spock

    What's great about the US is that if you dont like what is going on somewhere......just dont move there

    I'll remind you of this when single-payer eventually comes to the US.