"The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation."

Document here: http://mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/27-CR-20-12646-complaint.pdf


Edit History

2020-27-Fr 10:27:05 pm

"The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation."

loading...

Here's a thought experiment for UBI:

Let's say, rather than an arbitrary value such as $1,000, instead we collect 1% from the salary of every worker in America. If you earn $30,000 a year, you would pitch in $300. If you earn $60,000 a year, then $600. We take all this money, from everyone from fast food cashiers to silicon valley billionaires, and put it in a big pool, and then divide it up equally among every American. Anyone making more than the average would pay into the system, and everyone making less than the average would gain money out of it.

That seems fair enough, right? It also makes a sort of intuitive sense: Rather than having to pass new laws to change that $1,000 with inflation, it would naturally follow what people are actually getting paid. Whenever a CEO got a big raise, the UBI payouts would increase slightly as a result.

Now, take a guess how much this fund would pay out, distributed equally and fairly among all Americans, if done today...

$20 a month. And that's not even accounting for any overheard in collecting the money, or mailing out checks. All of that money would be just $20 a month when divided up.

So how could we make that the $1,000 a month that people desperately need? Well, the math is surprisingly simple! Instead of each person contributing 1% of their paycheck, they would just have to contribute 50% of their paycheck to the pool. If you earn $30,000 a year, you would pitch in $15,000, and get $12,000 back. If you earn $60,000 a year, then $30,000, and get $12,000 back. It's just that easy! We can make UBI happen!

loading...

And in today's news... The news is once again fake news.

loading...

Three months ago, Tim would say that he'd vote for Trump if he ended the war in Afghanistan.

A month ago, Trump administration signed an interim peace deal with the Taliban. And suddenly, ending the war in Afghanistan was no longer good enough to earn a vote, Trump had to do better than that.

Tim, you don't have TDS, but you're still falling victim to the ideas of ideological purity. Trump is never going to a perfect candidate, but what can he do when you keep moving the goalposts?

Criticize him all you want. Tell him he needs to do better. But when election day comes, you should still vote for the person who's going to do the better job for all Americans.

loading...

Trump does have a financial interest. It's called 'the economy'. He benefits from keeping Americans alive.

loading...

Here's a thought experiment for UBI:

Let's say, rather than an arbitrary value such as $1,000, instead we collect 1% from the salary of every worker in America. If you earn $60,000 a year, you would pitch in $600. If you earn $120,000 a year, then $1,200. We take all this money, from everyone from fast food cashiers to silicon valley billionaires, and put it in a big pool, and then divide it up equally among every American. Anyone making more than the average would pay into the system, and everyone making less than the average would gain money out of it.

That seems fair enough, right? It also makes a sort of intuitive sense: Rather than having to pass new laws to change that $1,000 with inflation, it would naturally follow what people are actually getting paid. Whenever a CEO got a big raise, the UBI payouts would increase slightly as a result.

Now, take a guess how much this fund would pay out, distributed equally and fairly among all Americans, if done today...

$20 a month. And that's not even accounting for any overheard in collecting the money, or mailing out checks. All of that money would be just $20 a month when divided up.

So how could we make that the $1,000 a month that people desperately need? Well, the math is surprisingly simple! Instead of each person contributing 1% of their paycheck, they would just have to contribute 50% of their paycheck to the pool. If you earn $60,000 a year, you would pitch in $30,000, and get $12,000 back. If you earn $120,000 a year, then $60,000, and get $12,000 back. And just like that, we can make UBI happen!

loading...

"No one is above the law! Crime doesn't pay!"

(Unless you're an illegal immigrant, then we'll literally pay you money because you committed a crime.)

loading...

"I guess their thinking is 'Instead of arguing against why their ideas are bad, I'll just argue that they are bad, and then no one will hear their ideas.' which, to me, is kind of evil, but it's literally what they do."

If there's one lesson I wish I could teach to the world, it's this one. This happens far too often, not just in the news, but all over social media. We would be so much better off if more people would just discuss ideas rather than immediately jumping to Ad hominem attacks.

loading...

Passport: Gender: Q

"Greetings Xir, you identify as Quoigender, is that correct?"

"What? Err, I mean, Of course. As it says."

sigh "...I am legally prohibited from questioning your statement on your gender, so you are granted entry. Glory to Arstotzka."

loading...

That's the problem with campaigning on the promise to help people directly. You have to keep them in need of help, otherwise you'll lose your carefully cultivated demographic.

Obviously it would be necessary to stop anyone who would actually help them, so you can keep them perpetually desperate for your help.


If you'd like to take a look for yourself, here is the original, bi-partisan Senate bill: https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s3548/BILLS-116s3548is.pdf

And here is the house Democrat response bill: https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/COVIDSUPP3_xml.pdf


Edit History

2020-06-Tu 03:06:01 pm

That's the problem with campaigning on the promise to help people directly. You have to keep them in need of help, otherwise you'll lose your carefully cultivated demographic.

Obviously it would be necessary to stop anyone who would actually help them, so you can keep perpetually desperate for your help.

2020-55-Tu 04:55:20 pm

That's the problem with campaigning on the promise to help people directly. You have to keep them in need of help, otherwise you'll lose your carefully cultivated demographic.

Obviously it would be necessary to stop anyone who would actually help them, so you can keep perpetually desperate for your help.


If you'd like to take a look for yourself, here is the original, bi-partisan Senate bill: https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s3548/BILLS-116s3548is.pdf

And here is the house Democrat response bill: https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/COVIDSUPP3_xml.pdf

loading...
Dissenter
connecting...