Yeesh friend, kinda jumped down OP’s throat here, no? Seems pretty uncharitable to go from their posted meme to “this cartoonish fantasy world of yours”, and then take that even further.
Uhm, are we looking at the same comic? Because it most definitely is making an assessment of the impact of the shooter's actions. What's the thing being impacted? I would say world. Charitable interpretation seems to me to point in the opposite direction of what you're saying.
I wonder if they are referring to this, or to an EU equivalent of it:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has ruled that police officers can compel a suspect to unlock their phone using a fingerprint without violating the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination.
Sorry but nothing was taken out of context. Your brother's unjust experience being thrown in jail is terrible, but it doesn't make it more right for Hunter Biden to have to go to jail. That's eye-for-an-eye. If what you really mean is Hunter being frivolously prosecuted was miscarriage of justice, you could say that.
But it sounds like you're specifically mad about the act of pardoning but you were 100% fine with him being jailed. You're welcome to edit your original comment to clarify that you support the pardon, if that's what you really meant this whole time.
Also it's funny you mention the Daily Show here, because I did watch that episode. That clip said (1) Biden said he wouldn't pardon originally, (2) in the news cycle context of Trump nominees, Dems could have lost moral high ground on law and order and (3) made fun of the 11 years timeline. It didn't recount any specifics on crimes, real or imagined, extensive or otherwise.
I think it's to neutralize arguments that this is specifically precedent setting. It's actually working within the margins of established precedent, which is the opposite of what everyone is saying, and it's why Trump is relevant here.
That was to stop investigations writ large, it was not specific to Ukraine.
You might as well say Joe Biden pardoned his son for any crimes he commited on the moon. Or for being one of the definitely-real 2000 Mules, or for helping manufacture Covid in Wuhan.
He's pardoned from all of those too. Which means he did them all, right? Biden is promoting all those conspiracies too!
it was also the minimum they could convict him with in hopes to stop the investigations before they implicated the president
Literally what are you talking about. This wouldn't have stopped future investigations, and unless you're suggesting Biden held Hunter Biden's hand and helped him grasp the pen that checked that box, there's no sense in which he was implicated.
That's not something I see on masto but maybe I'm missing something
This is completely insane revisionist history. The TPP was in fact ripe for ratification, with full support of American ratification from its international partners, but was logjammed in the United States due to a Republican Senate.
The reformed TPP is similar to the original one and only exists to work around the loss of U.S. as a participant. And the U.S. never rejoined. There's a grain of truth to the thing about farmers, at least, but good gravy, this is otherwise pretty nuts.
VLC I would say
The CEO is like slightly more than 1% of their annual revenue.
What things that matter have insufficient engineering resources at the moment?
On re-reading that other guys comments, they just make no sense. You are right to draw your distinction, because this thread is being strangely vague on details and trying to encourage conspiratorial thinking without specifics.
That said, I think the core concern can be rephrased in a way that gets at the essence, and to me there's still a live issue that's not relieved simply by noting that this requires probable cause.
What's necessary to establish probable cause in the United States has been dramatically watered down to the point that it's a real time, discretionary judgment of a police officer, so in that respect it is not particularly reassuring. It can be challenged after the fact in court, but it's nevertheless dramatically watered down as a protection. And secondly, I don't think any of this hinges on probable cause to begin with, because this is about the slow creep normalization of surveillance which involves changes to what's encompassed within probable cause itself. The fact that probable cause now encompasses this new capability to compel biometric login is chilling even when you account for probable cause.
And moreover, I think there's a bigger thematic point here about a slow encroach of surveillance in special cases that eventually become ubiquitous (the manhunt for the midtown shooter revealed that practically anyone in NYC is likely to have their face scanned, and it was a slow-creep process that got to that point), or allow the mixing and matching of capabilities in ways that clearly seem to violate privacy.
Another related point, or perhaps different way of saying the same thing above, is that this should be understood as an escalation due to the precedent setting nature of it, which sets the stage for considering new contexts where, by analogy to this one, compelled biometric login can be regarded as precedented and extensions of the power are considered acceptable. Whatever the next context is where compelled biometric login is considered, it will at that point no longer be a new idea without precedent.