Rhapsodize Eclectically

What is an emotionally abusive relation-ship?

What is "Jealous of your love (not tonight, Lake Placid)"?

Yes, I've read about Jowers. I do believe everything boils down to who you believe on that one. If you find Jowers and his statements compelling, it's a conspiracy ... but either way I wouldn't say that case has "hard" evidence.

Is there a claim Sirhan Sirhan wasn't in L.A. for the RFK shooting?

Do you mind sharing where the Ray not it Memphis has been stated before? I've been aware of the Jowers/Clark/mafia story, but that specific fact of him not being in Memphis I've never heard before, and a quick Googling didn't find a mention of it either.

6 died, 3 were ruled a suicide, 2 were ruled a homicide, 1 was ruled an overdose.

From what I know 1 of the suicides is suspicious (the one with the hanging from the tree). Beyond that, I don't really have much of an opinion one way or the other.

It's not a conspiracy that most nationally elected Democratic officials and the DNC are politically aligned differently than most Democratic primary voters. It's flat out there, easy to see, and part of the structure of the national Democratic party and election laws the 2 parties have passed.

He's more talking about "conspiracies without hard evidence". Right or wrong, Epstein and many of the other things aren't really part of what he's saying, because there have been so much actual evidence that those did happen.

Feds killing MLK, there's little to zero hard evidence, just "logic".

I think their point wasn't that conspiracies aren't real. It's poorly written, but it's more about "there will be people giving first-hand accounts how it actually did happen, or will come out within a reasonable amount of time, if the conspiracy actual exists."

If time flies when you're having fun, then time drags when you're stuck in a nightmare.

God, that feels like a helluva lot longer than 10 years ago.

And basically the reason why is Dems and Repubs banded together in almost every state to have laws on how to get on the ballot to be extremely prohibitive. It's inconsistent, and some states it's more achievable, but overall, it's both parties doing everything they can to maintain a 2-party system.

We can get anti-establishment politicians in office, but when they have tons of notice that they aren't running against an incumbent. When an incumbent drops out late, like Walz, it's almost impossible to gain ballot access, start up from scratch, and win a state-wide primary and general campaign.

The only way she doesn't win is if some left-leaning hundred-millionaire who lives in Minnesota decides they want to spend tens of millions of their own money to try to defeat her. The MN version of J.B. Pritzker. Who doesn't exist.

She's a shoo-in.

She's one of the two Democrats who have said they are running at the moment. There won't be any other establishment Dems running; the DNC pretty much freezes out anyone in the party who runs against their own when there's a lead candidate.

The other's a pastor who describes himself as centrist.

No, he was not found innocent of murder. The federal judge tossed the federal charge of murder before he went to trial. Those are two completely different things. The federal government did not even get an attempt to get to a trial to find him guilty or innocent (because it's a state crime).

True, but there was a way to succinctly report this in a headline that wouldn't have had everyone on social media thinking it was something else. There's a difference between incomplete and misleading (possibly intentionally misleading for clickbait).

All cases in America go in front of a jury unless both sides waive the right. I can't imagine Luigi's lawyers would ever want anything except a jury trial.

And no, they aren't saying the lack of a murder charge means there wasn't murder. It's just a state crime, not a federal one.

Interstate stalking with intent to kill.

www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/...

When it's in-state, stalking, and intent to kill, those guys theoretically can go to jail for a long time. But yeah, they're trying to throw the book at Luigi.

Interstate stalking with intent to kill.

www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/...

It's breaking news, and so I understand the challenges with getting things out there and making it clear in the first hour.

But some of the headlines seem almost intentionally deceiving. Reuters isn't usually like that, but here, IDK, trust is low with journalism at the moment.

He is going to be tried by the federal government for the crimes they do have jurisdiction for (still facing a life sentence).

And after that, he is going to be tried by the New York AG for murder, even while he's locked in federal prison for the first set of crimes (stalking, etc.).

People are reading this headline thinking it means he's not going to be jailed for life due to murdering the CEO.

It's only that the federal government can't try him for murder, because his crime doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

This ruling was just the federal government didn't have jurisdiction to try him for murder.

He had the federal murder charge dismissed.

He can still be sentenced to life in prison for federal charges of stalking.

And he can still be tried for murder the more typical way, by the state government rather than the federal government.

Humanity in general enjoys putting one group of people that they are in ahead of another group of people that they are not in.

On the left, it tends to be behavior based.

On the right, it tends to be demographically based. Which, if you're a bad behavior person, you really want to be true.

I will say it is perfectly acceptable to listen to some right-wing shit for opposition research, and to really realize how insane one-third of the country is at the moment. If you can handle it.

From an "expand your mind" perspective though, your suggestion is absolutely correct.

So, someone taller. Ok.

What is "Phillips Fill-ups"?

Certain things you would think are shared assumptions (things like "everybody deserves due process", "laws protect everyone in America, not just the people who are 'good American citizens', and "it's not legal to do criminal acts to people who believe are bad people") are literally just not shared.

What is the motherclucking plant in this motherclucking garden?