This is literally just wrong dude

No lol your second statement is literally just wrong. The only way to do anything like this would be through an Amendment, which equated to literally changing the rules bc the current rules do not allow for it.

What are you trying to say?

I didn’t know about that as I’ve never played Bloodborne, but even that seems kinda not a big deal.

What are you even talking about, like actually, I’m genuinely asking

Tbh I have over 250 hours in elden ring and I didn’t even know what you’re talking about.

I wasn’t commenting on that, just that the new york post means nothing. Regardless, I frankly don’t give a shit what the police say; they’re not exactly known for telling the truth.

Just fyi, the new york post is as dogshit as fox news. If you’re looking to get actual information, you’re better off looking elsewhere.

Not sure about here but yeah they definitely execute a lot of people for being gay: https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2024/02/yemen-will-publicly-stone-crucify-10-gay-men-in-gruesome-public-spectacles/

I have 0 sympathy for barbaric ideas like executing people for being queer. I cannot imagine they ever act in any measure of good faith, regardless of the scenario.

Source?

Edit: genuinely asking, I can’t find anything saying that.

The first page is pretty much all you need for the context of the conversation. Basically, according to the paper, Black people in the US are significantly more likely to be exonerated of any crime, but especially murder. This inversely means they’re significantly more likely to be found guilty of a crime they did not commit.

The reasoning, I assume, for the person to link you that article is because of your statement about crime rates. I believe the other commenter is trying to say that crime rates are not actually equal once you normalize for poverty because of the high rate of false convictions.

Tbh, I’m not really sure what else to say about that. I just wanted to comment my thoughts on your question since I saw how rude the person you commented to was.

I’m not making the claim myself, just explaining it is a bit different than engaging in what we colloquially understand to be conspiratorial thinking. I would argue it falls under that category in the most broad, objective sense, but I would also argue that the common belief about conspiratorial thinking is that it is when someone believes demonstrably false information.

The difference is that most conspiratorial thinking is believing something despite overwhelming evidence of the contrary while this situation is believing something despite a lack of conclusive, objective evidence (that being no official statement from Musk or investigation into him about this). There is a lack of overwhelming evidence in support of Musk.

You originally said “at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified”. But fair enough, I suppose. I understand what you mean.

Ehhhh, not really. This is a pretty common belief about the Hyperloop. A couple of years ago, someone released a book claiming they had private interviews with Musk back in the early 2010’s where he admitted to trying to delay HSR. Here’s an article explaining it: https://jalopnik.com/did-musk-propose-hyperloop-to-stop-california-high-spee-1849402460

The reason this is not conspiratorial thinking is that automakers have a long history in the US of dismantling, lobbying against, and even physically preventing railways from being developed. Elon Musk, especially at that time, was an automaker making claims in order to directly counter proposed high speed rail.

Yes, it was in California, but the intended reasoning is that if it succeeds in California it may be expanded upon elsewhere, meaning there would be less reliance on cars.

Andrew Jackson was president like 20 years before the civil war my guy. Ulysses S. Grant was president when the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. I’m not really sure how you thought otherwise. Regardless, your other point about his reference to himself as an officer is irrelevant anyways because that’s not what determines him to be an officer of the court.

The actual reason is that when the 14th Amendment was being signed, the specific question of “why does it not mention president” was asked nearly verbatim. One of the writers of the Amendment, who I’m forgetting the name of, replied to them by asking them to read over the part where it says “any officer”. We know this because we have the minutes from that day, we have the transcription as it was recorded by hand at the time.

A federal court already determined Trump to have engaged in insurrection. By all accounts, he should be barred from running.

I’m sorry homie but VR is going nowhere. No one outside of a small, niche community even cares about it anymore.

Lmfao. Why? Do you have any reason to distrust NPR?

Okay, that’s fine, but what do you mean? Do you have examples of when she voted against “the people”?

I put the quotation marks because I’m not sure which people you’re referring to.

“But my narrative!”

What are you even trying to say