Schadrach

This is in no way new. 20 years ago I used to refer to some job postings as H1Bait because they’d have requirements that were physically impossible (like having 5 years experience with a piece of software <2 years old) specifically so they could claim they couldn’t find anyone qualified (because anyone claiming to be qualified was definitely lying) to justify an H1B for which they would be suddenly way less thorough about checking qualifications.

I mean yeah. That said, if the GOP seems to start shining that turd a bit later than this time next year, know that the plan is for Trump to learn the meaning of planned obsolescence.

You only asked about rape/SA, so it was the only topic I responded to. According to FBI stats, the 8-10% is actually pretty typical for many other crimes too, but falsely accusing someone of most other crimes aside from something like murder is going to have consequences that are either shorter term or less severe (reputational consequences of being falsely accused of beating someone up are smaller than being falsely accused of rape, for example). Also, rape/SA often has the accusation itself as the primary or occasionally only evidence against the accused, and sometimes that is enough especially in older cases where any physical evidence would be long gone.

inconvenienced

“Inconvenienced” to several months in jail, or 5 years in prison and five of probation and registered as a sex offender until they were exonerated, and several of the ones in the Innocence Project archives are worse than that.

The 2006 Duke Lacrosse kids were “inconvenienced”, and even that involved threats, harassment and vandalism for a case where every piece of evidence except her claims worked against her claims - she also finally admitted to making it up, in 2024.

false accusations are a tiny fraction of accusations

In the 8-10% range by most studies, with some outliers going as low as 2% or as high as 40%.

The distinction between rape and sex is consent. Whether a given sex act is consensual or not exists only in the minds of those involved in it (consent is a mental state, not something directly observable from outside), unless communicated and when communicated only the communication exists which is likely not in any fixed form.

How bad does the damage from the false accusation need to be?

One I’m fond of pointing to as evidence that they happen is Tracy West accusing her ex Louis Gonzales. He spent three months in jail while it was being investigated, and only got out because he happened to have a very heavily corroborated alibi for the day that left only a 6 minute window during which he would have had to travel a total of 2 miles, obtain a duffel bag full of forensic countermeasures, subdue and rape the victim, dispose of said duffel bag in a manner it would never be recovered and return. And that 6 minute window was not when she originally said it happened, until they allowed her to revise her statement which became much fuzzier about when it happened. Also there was evidence that she was researching the way she was tied up in the days leading up to her being tied up exactly that way. By all appearances this case was about a custody dispute over their kid, and despite the case being dropped because it was physically impossible for him to have done it she still got to use it against him because fucking family courts. He eventually got a finding of factual innocence from CA courts and had the entire thing expunged from his record - to be clear, this essentially requires proving beyond a reasonable doubt that you could not have committed the crime. When he was interviewed by an LA paper about the case, he’d developed an obsession with being as publicly visible with as much paper trail as possible at all time, just in case because of how lucky he was with his alibi from this case (if he’d eaten before he left to get the kid, his alibi wouldn’t exist and that alibi is the reason he only spent 3 months in jail).

How about Brian Banks? Kid with a real chance of going into professional football, Falsely accused, threatened with 41 years, plead to 5 years + 5 probation + registering as a sex offender on advice of his lawyer. The accuser sues the school and wins $1.5M. 9 years later, his accuser contacts him on Facebook and they speak. He secretly records the conversation, in which she admits to having lied but refuses to tell authorities that because she was afraid that they might make her pay back the money. The video gets released publicly and the Innocence Project gets involved. He goes on to briefly join the UFL and then NFL after not having meaningfully played for 11 years (time that would have been the prime of his career if not for the accusation).

Speaking of the Innocence Project, what’s your opinion of them? It tends to vary for left leaning folks - either they like it because a lot of the people exonerated are POC or they hate it because a significant majority of people exonerated by it were imprisoned for some flavor of sexual assault. Go look at their list of cases: https://innocenceproject.org/all-cases/ According to the site when filtered for sex crimes 184 of the “more than 250” people were imprisoned wrongly for a sex crime. 124/184 of those exonerated by the Innocence Project that were imprisoned for a sex crime were misidentified by an eyewitness. For sex crimes, that eyewitness is very often the alleged victim.

They want him to make it to Jan 21, 2027, then he can keel over. That way Vance can still qualify for two full terms afterward.

SA is hard to get a conviction in.

Yeah. It turns out that something that usually has no witnesses beyond the accused and accuser, often has little or no evidence other than the accusation itself and the sole difference between it and an otherwise common and legal act exists solely in the mind of the accuser is difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

It’s not “fine”, but it’s also not him acting outside his authority. Fuck, who was the last president that didn’t bomb anywhere without Congress declaring war? Who was the last president to even get Congressional approval before all bombings? I’ll give you a hint, it wasn’t in the last 25 years.

“Trump does thing that other presidents, both Democrat and Republican have done without issue in the past” is poor grounds for an impeachment.

The fourth is catnip. Always the 'nip.

Once my mom asked me to clear out a planter box that had become overgrown because she wanted to plant tomatoes. I pulled up this 3ft tall stalk plant with little purplish flowers, and as soon as I shoved it in the trash bag, the cat came running from the other side of the house and dove face first in the bag. After a minute or so, it was backing out of the bag with the stalk between his teeth dragging it out of the bag and once it was out of the bag started nibbling on it and rolling around on the plant. Looked up what the plant was and apparently I had just pulled up his catnip grow operation. When he came down, he was mad at me for a few days.

Half of the ways people were getting around guardrails in the early chatgpt models was berating the AI into doing what they wanted

I thought the process of getting around guardrails was an increasingly complicated series of ways of getting it to pretend to be someone else that doesn’t have guardrails and then answering as though it’s that character.

Qrpff says hello. Or, rather, decrypts DVD movies in 472 bytes of code, 531 if you want the fast version that can do it in real time. The Wikipedia article on it includes the full source code of both.

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Qrpff

You say that like 3rd parties being created and taking federal offices happens all the time.

They aren’t, and that’s kinda the point. People grossly underestimate how hard it is to do this (pretending it’s some great unknown and not something that’s been tried and failed literally dozens of times), and what game theory regarding FPTP elections means for the rise of one.

We haven’t had a serious 3rd party, let alone one that takes federal office, for well over 100 years.

We had a few elected to Congress in the last hundred years, even if you don’t count ones who changed party at some point. Mostly Farmer-Labor Party between the late 20s and end of WW2. We also had a Conservative Party of New York candidate in Congress in the 70s. And a Libertarian if you do count people who convert while in office. Hell, Trump once tried to run for POTUS as a third party candidate in 2000 for the Reform Party, but failed miserably and didn’t win a single state during the primaries.

Don’t pretend you know what it takes, because we haven’t even fucking tried. It’s uncharted water!

How many parties do you think we have that are large enough they operate in multiple states and have ballot access right now? The answer is a dozen. All of which have hopes of eventually getting someone in federal office, you know aside from the Dems and GOP who already do that. Of those twelve, 9 ran a presidential candidate in 2024. You’ve probably only even heard of 4 of those at most (Harris, Trump, Stein and maybe Chase Oliver [Libertarian]).

What it takes at a minimum is getting a majority of a state or House district on board with you and willing to vote for you rather than a major party, knowing that if enough other people don’t buy in it’s going to let the candidate farthest from them win instead. If you’re pushing for POTUS, then it means getting about 78M people on board in the same way, distributed across most of the country.

Third parties running for federal office isn’t untested water, it’s just extremely difficult to succeed at. Again, that’s why the Tea Party operated as a reform movement within the GOP rather than being an actual third party - it let them hijack the political machinery of the party from within, instead of having to fight against it in a battle that would at most likely cause both to lose if it did anything at all. Literally, had the Tea Party been an actual third party then instead of gaining massive influence they would have at their most powerful caused Democrats to win by splitting the GOP vote.

Did you literally wake up from a coma the day Biden’s cancer diagnosis was announced or something? Or are you the rare person who isn’t part of Trump’s cult but also only watches right wing news sources?

“President Trump shits on Constitution in novel way!” could paraphrase a headline from literally any week this year after 1/20. And only after 1/20 because before then he was merely President-Elect Trump.

Beyond that, the news cycle is pretty short - for example, unless we have revelations about Trump sexually assaulting a woman we didn’t already know about or some movement in an existing court case, it’s not going to continue to be litigated in the news media because there’s nothing new to say.

That’s why I never believed in the rhetoric of “it’s too late to consider 3rd party!” before the elections. Here it is just 6 months later and “we don’t have time for that”. Is it disingenuous then to just say there will never be time for that, like it is being implied here?

It takes years to get a new party off the ground and in a meaningful position to take federal offices at any significant rate. During that time, you are mostly helping your farthest opposition of the main parties win by splitting the vote.

This is literally why the Tea Party operated by internal change of the GOP and not by starting a third party. And love them or hate them, they were effective at shifting the GOP.

It usually requires a competent and well-known politician storming out of their party for ideological differences, but being locally popular enough to win their seat as an independent or new party.

It also usually causes the party they broke off from to lose higher offices a few times because the two sides of the schism don’t have enough power individually to win the bigger contests. Until one of them swallows the other.

The right avoided this by doing their “reform” from within, aka the Tea Party.

Fuck it, align=‘center’. That’ll center it horizontally relative to some context and if that’s not good enough then you should have been more precise in your request.

You’re not wrong. There’s nothing that requires the two parties be Dems and GOP. But you’re not going to overturn one or the other in a single election, and that means losing to the farthest big party from you, likely a few in a row, while that gets resolved. Especially if you try to do it top down instead of building support from local/county offices up.

Basically, if you could get enough third party support, you could either supplant one of the existing parties or force them to shift to stay competitive. The argument is that trying to do so with the office of president when doing so promotes a fast track to outright fascism is a painfully bad tactic.

What exactly does “should” mean in this context?

I think the implication is that it’s essentially being prevented from collapse because it’s so ingrained in international trade that if it were to collapse it would hurt you and your allies too much, so you don’t allow it to collapse when it otherwise might.

Another reminder that blueMAGA don’t see Palestinians as human.

Every option with any real chance of being elected supported Israel. Unfortunately your choices are essentially Dem, GOP, or one of several people who is definitely going to lose unless you can round up another 60 million or so voters to back them.