The gift isn’t the crime.
Telling people you’re holding a sweepstakes, collecting their information based on that statement, and then not holding the sweepstakes and instead giving the supposed prize to someone of your choice is the crime
It’s called fraud
You assume their goal is to get him off entirely and not to simply shift the crime to a lesser offense
None of the resources detailed in this post provide any form of immediate assistance to resolve an ongoing threat to your ability to cast your vote.
They will not help you find a lawyer. They will not help pay for that lawyer. They will not contact law enforcement and apply pressure to have them respond in a timely manner.
These should NOT be your first call. They should be who you report to after the fact to pursue long term remediation.
If you are a Democrat, call a left-leaning political org with sufficient funding and an army of lawyers.
If you are a Republican, call a right-leaning political org with sufficient funding and an army of lawyers.
THEN call the folks in the OP
If your ballot is never cast, it can’t be fixed later. The best the folks in the OP can do is punish the people who committed the crime. They can’t get your vote counted. The political orgs are specifically set up to help in real-time to make sure you and everyone else at your polling place gets to vote NOW!
Except it is a violation of the law, just a different law. They defrauded the public by collecting something of material value (registrant information) under false pretenses. It’s textbook fraud
Which is why allowing the right to use the label “pro-life” was a cardinal sin of the Democrats’ strategy
I’m literally pro-life: I support saving lives whenever and wherever it’s reasonable to do so
But I’m pro-choice, because I don’t think I should be the one to decide for everyone else which situation is reasonable and which isn’t. Also, women deserve basic fucking rights and bodily autonomy is, like, the number one most fundamental right
We really ought to change the nature of the conversation: it’s not “pro-life”. It’s pro-enslavement, pro-religious-tyranny, and pro-absolutism
Sense & Sensibility 🤓
Get it? Because it’s a period piece?
I’ll see myself out
I appreciate your capacity to recognize a valid argument even when it conflicts with your initial position ❤️ It’s more than I expect from the average internet commenter
It was a minor aside. It was very obviously not the primary point of my reply. You chose to fixate on it. And you continue to do so. Seriously done with you now, chief. 👋
It’s a charicature. I’m not laughing because I think it’s real (which would be kind of mean, anyway, since I’d just be laughing at someone screwing up). I’m laughing because it’s relatable to real experiences many people have had, and because of the added commentary about software development.
Your hyperfocus on reality in media, and failure to see the comedy for what it truly is, is far more cringe than the video 😉
EDIT: it’s like asking why people laugh at the obviously fake stories stand-up comedians tell because they’re made up. Like, yeah, no shit, that’s not the point.
I see that you won’t even bother trying to address the initial point of my reply so I’m done here. I’m not trying to debate the merits of a case that never even went to trial, when the whole point of my reply was to simply point out that you were being outrageously hyperbolic
Address the actual complaint or gtfo.
Honestly, at this point, I don’t even care, because the main point I was trying to make stands either way: this is not, by an stretch of the imagination, as crooked as they come. Seriously. You must see that at this point. Like, the fact that we’re even having this discussion over the nuances of the case is itself proof that it’s not the worst form of crooked.
Do I really need to start listing off the people throughout history who have been far more crooked? Or can you just admit you were being hyperbolic and exaggerating for effect?
Can you read? Did you read the article? Unambiguous my ass. There is literally witness testimony that says it was the other assailant that stabbed the victim. Seriously, read the article that was linked so you don’t sound quite so willfully ignorant
Also calling Nunez a crony of Schwarzenegger is hilarious given their history.
I’m not gonna pretend the clemency was an ethical move - though there is a lot to question about that plea agreement - I will say that if you think this is “as crooked as they come” you are woefully sheltered.
Cutting the sentence in half of a political-rival-turned-ally’s son is messed up but the hyperbole of calling it “the most crooked you can be” is absurd
This is not surprising, but funny because it’s so on brand as to make you go “of course that’s his wallpaper. Of course.”
No thanks. I’m done trying to explain it. I’m curious if others are having as much trouble understanding or if you’re being intentionally obtuse, but there is no other way to say what I’m trying to say. It’s complex and nuanced. There is no simple or concise way to say it. So I’m done here. Have a good one 👋
And your ability to be concerned about such things is your privilege
It is obvious that you are generally comfortable with little risk to your daily life riding on this election
Talk to me again when you’re sacrificing your own immediate safety instead of the immediate safety of others to uphold your high-minded values
Sure.
The important starting point is:
Your perspective is not the only perspective. Every other person has a complex life, just as complex as yours with its own perspectives
And no one perspective is objectively right or wrong. There is only the opinions we bring to the table, what we each choose to do, how that impacts the world, and who we successfully bring to our cause
And most importantly, the policies I believe are morally and ethically the best path forward are often not widely popular without intense, direct conversation on the nuance of a subject, or until after the policy yields long term success that won’t become apparent until after the next one or more rounds of elections
With that said, acquiring votes often involves identifying what resonates with others and pursuing their support rather than enacting the ideal policies you want to pursue
Actual governing means negotiating to enforce a collective will, agreed upon through genuine discourse and collaboration motivated by improving society and humanity
But you can still enact meaningful policy that has nothing to do with those goals and ideals, but rather seeks to generate support through various means.
Through a history of electioneering, the political machine in the US has produced an environment where administrations have a limited amount of time in which they can feasibly prioritize idealistic goals (if they even want or bother to) while still having enough time and political capital to recover any lost support. And the more disregard your opponent has for selflessness and mutual aid, the more risky it becomes to pursue unpopular positions.
You and I may know that it’s good policy. That doesn’t make it popular. And “it’ll be popular when it works” is not a viable strategy when the opposition has become so good at obstruction, deconstruction, consolidation of power, and manipulation of public perception
I hope that clarifies
The fact that you interpret fear of persecution and resistance to authoritarianism as a selfish act tells me everything I need to know about how you view the world. And I choose not to engage in this conversation with you. 👋
Recounts do not include submitting new votes.
And either way, good luck getting a partisan controlled office to institute a recount or re-vote in the current political climate.
You are gambling on the hope that the problem gets fixed later. This is a terrible idea.
And local election offices - often under partisan control - have no obligation to assist individuals in getting their ballot cast.
You are either being extremely naive to the realities on the ground, or intentionally disingenuous.