I honestly don't think lawmakers put that level of thought into dismantling education. Votes are the only goal here.

Somewhere along the line, it was Limbaugh for me, conservatives noticed that educated people tend to vote liberal. Well hell, how do we explain this?!

The pundits launched a full-frontal attack on education and those "ivory tower liberals". Who the fuck are these people to tell me how to think when I got the Bible and my gut feelings?!

I watched this unfold. No one talked down on education in the 70s and 80s, nothing like the conservatives do now anyway. Then... Remember Rick Santorum baggin' on Obama for having 2 degrees? While Santorum had 3. FFS, Obama taught Constitutional law at Harvard and the GOP acted like that made him less able to judge Constitutional matters.

Now "education bad" gets votes, that easy. I don't think there was a real plan. As always, the GOP rolls with what works emotionally. (While the Democrats think they can win on logical arguments.)

Friend is heading to the Galapagos Islands for a vacation. He was appalled because none of the young people he talked to had any idea what they were.

Why does EVERYTHING give me new ideas for tv shows that I could create if I were in the entertainment business?

Ok, imagine this show:

A 60 year old man stars as the lead character. He's an overweight confederate flag wearing, racist, who just had his company relocate. Instead of working in Ohio, his factory is moving to Vermont. And so he's going there too.

Now out of his echo chamber, he continues to be himself, the only way he's ever known how. By repeating fox news talking points as his own original ideas. Completely unaware that he's now surrounded by NPR donating listeners who already know the talking points he's going to say for the day, and how to rebutte it before he even opens his mouth.

Faced with a new and challenging world changing around him, he feels he's going crazy, until a conversation on a park bench. He talks with an elderly homeless man feeding the ducks, who shows him the deception he's been led to believe, the brainwashing he's victim to, and the consequences it has for people he's never met. He has his eureka moment, and decides to change.

The show starts with him as the new manager of the factory, as the previous manager was shot and killed in a random public shooting that he had nothing to do with. He was just there. Being that the main character is the only other person to move from Ohio, he's the only one who knows how to run the business. So now he's working with an all new crew. Instead of 97% older whites, it's now a total hodgepodge of races, ages, and backgrounds working the factory floor.

The series follows his progression and growth from being a racist out of touch boomer who's only personality trait can best be described as "fox news", to a more mentally complete well rounded person with compassion and empathy for people who may not be just like him. You see him at times struggle with this. He may not have fox news in his ears anymore, but he did for 30 years previously. So he'll still slip up from time to time, and have to unlearn what his former life instincts would lead him to say and do.

He gets advice everyday from the elderly homeless man in the park. Whom on the last episode pulls his coat hood back, and it was Bernie Sanders all along.

Trump did; it's a matter of public record. He violated court instructions about blabbing to the media ten times, and was held in contempt by the judge twice.

He repeatedly make false and misleading statements about the trial, the judge, the witnesses, and even the jury on social media and to the press in the entrance hall of the court building itself. The idiot just couldn't stop himself.

Had he been a regular citizen instead of a former president, he would have almost certainly done jail time just for his behavior during the trial.

*smelled

That's a good point.

The bugs thing is cause they dont understand synthetic meat. Its based off of an older conspiracy from the 90s though.

Fact is, sustaining an increasing population is going to involve using insects as food.

I was on a jury in Texas in 2019 and we were tasked with both.

First part: Based on the facts you have been presented, do you think defendant did X?

If yes

Second part: You have determined that defendant did X. Now determine the punishment

That second part was by far the more difficult of the two

My understanding is that juries in America dont really deliberate on a verdict or a sentence. Thats up to the judge.

in a jury trial, the judge is there to manage the process and keep it fair. The prosecution presents their case, and the defense tries to poke holes and cause 'reasonable doubt'.

yes, there are controls in place, like instructions on what may and may not be considered during deliberations, and yes, that restricts the jury's decision significantly. For example, they're not allowed to consider that Trump is a lying asshole who stole nuclear secrets when he left office, raped E Jean Carol or tried to lead an insurrection on jan 6 to overturn the government.

None of that really matters to this case. But the 12 jurors were ultimately the ones deciding that guilt or innocence or whatever. And they did so unanimously. The judge didn't make the decision and tell them to come to a guilty verdict. (and the judge can only overrule such a verdict if it's blatantly obvious they fucked it up. usually at that point they start over with a new trial and a new jury.)

Close, but jury instructions are very particular.

"This is the exact law and how it works. Did the defendant run afoul of this law?"

A competent judge and prosecutor forces the whole show to stay exactly in those bounds.

It's... complicated, but sort of yes.

A jury isn't strictly bound by the facts. For example, a jury might feel that a law is unjust, and refuse to find someone guilty (called "jury nullification"). This is good and bad, such as by truly refusing to find guilt under an unjust law, but it has also been used by racist juries to let a white man accused of lynching a black man go free. And even without overwhelming evidence, a jury might find someone guilty, because "everyone knows they did it", or something like that. Or because they did something and they can't exactly prove that or another charge.

And then even after the jury returns their verdict, either the defense or prosecution may move to set aside the verdict. Those motions are rarely granted, but they happen.

I don't think a judge can overturn a jury verdict on their own authority.

Of course, all of this varies by jurisdiction. Federal law and each state's laws have their own quirks, and there are differences in civil and criminal law as well.