Wasn’t attempting to get anyone to change their mind. Simply pointing out the misstatement in the article.

No phones on in classrooms during class. What parent would not be on board?

“Even if Trump is indicted in one of his legal battles, the polling suggests he could still defeat Biden.”

He’s already been indicted. 4 times.

But also my understanding is there’s nothing in the law requiring criminal conviction for sedition or insurrection or whatever the proper term is. I’m not sure who is supposed to be the determiner of fact. I think that’s why several of the states took it upon themselves. Hence why SCOTUS is almost certainly going to have to determine some of these issues. But I also could be talking out my ass.

If Biden committed the acts and, as of now alleged crimes Trump has been accused of, then Biden would need to be barred too. That’s the difference with Trump supporters, the rest of us want the laws applied no matter which “team” the politician represents. It’s people over party and not the other way around.

Why?

The difference is the issue being discussed. Being discussed is a state seceding from the US. What you are interjecting is a comment on the US’s foreign policy.

If there wasn’t a minimum mandatory sentence, then this is in the judge as well as the prosecutor, both of whom have discretion.

If? It’s already in progress.

I love shitting on Texas and Florida and, well every southern state, and most of the Midwest, and quite a few states out west, but as someone who lives in one of these areas I like to remind everyone that’s there’s a lot of decent people living in those states. That is all.

This is reddit copypasta. Change the name of the famous person and insert whomever.

Thank you for providing some direct language from the proposed statute. I do not know Kentucky state law but I’d be willing to bet a few dollars that there are already laws on the books that deal with all situations this proposed law purports to handle. Trespassing, vagrancy, camping, stand your ground/castle doctrines, assault/battery, etc. Can anyone more familiar confirm or negate my admittedly unstudied guess?

Such a difficult societal ill to solve. (Or maybe not?) On the one hand nobody wants, nor should be forced to deal with a homeless encampment in their backyard. On the other, where is one supposed to go? To the woods to survive off the land? Can’t as it’s mostly private property and it’s illegal to camp, or stay longer than 2 weeks in any one spot on all government owned land (of which I am aware, including all those millions of acres of BLM land). So, we need an alternative and as you suggested, our priorities as a society seem to be askew. Then what about those who we simply can’t house and feed and stabilize for myriad reasons (mental health being a big, if not the biggest one)? Some people will say we can’t just continue “throwing money at xyz unsolvable problem.” And I see validity in this. Others may perhaps argue that a professional sports stadium brings in revenue to the city beyond what is paid out of the tax coffers. (I’d like to see the math if stadiums ever end up providing a return on investment for a city–I have significant doubts.) Anyone out there have some legitimate ideas on solving the problem besides sending people to the woods to die or be arrested vs building huge encampments that I foresee quickly becoming superfund sites? Is there a model out there that could be applied to the US?

I’m not commenting on the particulars of this proposed bill one way or the other, but I was going to say that I wish these articles would at least link to the actual language of the proposed statute so I can decide whether I agree with the article writer’s interpretation or if it’s clickbait. (The same with court opinions. And heck, quotes are taken out of context all the time as well. Link me the original source in case I don’t want trust the spoon feeding.)

Agreed. And if I can just add as to point out the fluid dynamics of modern post-constructionalism as seen through the lens of and espoused by such pioneering women as Marjorie Jacqueline Bouvier-Simpson.

It looks like both of the people referred to moderate but as to your point about modern, I wonder if there has been that much of a change in the last 20-30 (or 50 or 100) years as much as perhaps modern technology providing a louder megaphone, and as a result greater “reward” for being more and more–outlandish–to put it politely?

I reckon most of them do believe their vitriol. Some number of them may be pure opportunists who seize on the culture war nonsense for personal gain but are not true believers; however, in my opinion the vast majority are not just putting on an act.

I too would not trust it worth one fart. That said, seems reasonable you and I should drink some (many) beers, eat some (many) nachos and wings, and try to definitively determine the worth of a fart–so we’re all on the same page when we use the fart as a measurement of worth. So, call me maybe?

The lack of self awareness is always stupefying to me. I read the comments in the hope of perhaps seeing some room for agreement or to enlighten my understanding of other’s views. There’s never room and it’s never enlightening.

Here’s what one state’s texting law says about a stop for texting and driving: A law enforcement officer who stops a motor vehicle for a violation of paragraph (a) must inform the motor vehicle operator of his or her right to decline a search of his or her wireless communications device and may not: 1. Access the wireless communications device without a warrant. 2. Confiscate the wireless communications device while awaiting issuance of a warrant to access such device. 3. Obtain consent from the motor vehicle operator to search his or her wireless communications device through coercion or other improper method. Consent to search a motor vehicle operator’s wireless communications device must be voluntary and unequivocal.