I like the idea that Fuentes saw a coincidence, decided to play it up, by cosplaying as a dude with a crossbow who was actually in his neighborhood, standing threateningly on his own porch, to play a victim because he didn’t get to be one in real life.
Even if it didn’t transpire that way, it’s funny how it totally fits.
if Pablo Escobar was still alive, he’d probably have been appointed head of the DEA
Andrew Conru, founder of AdultFriendFinder, apparently.
Not well known, but good to name and shame anyway.
I mean some states have odd year elections for local issues, etc. After the precious election, they should do their diligence to find anyone who should no longer be registered, like people who they believe have died, or shouldn’t have been eligible to register. Anyone purged should get a courtesy notice via email or mail just in case.
Recounts happen sometimes, etc, so anytime between mid November and early January seems perfectly reasonable to me.
American here: their goal is clearly factual reporting, and I don’t see too often where they’ve missed the mark. Nobody’s free of bias, but they’re pretty good at balancing theirs out.
I think the justification is that people will be more honest/rational when betting their own money.
It’s probably less irrational than stock markets, since there’s a very clear time horizon people are betting on, and data like polls can be pretty good. But since they’re looking at essentially the same data as pundits, it’s unsurprising they tend to do about as well.
There’s a lot of time, a lot can happen, but this just justified a lot of the nonsense narratives the right wing has been trying to push.
I really hope you’re wrong, but it certainly helps him.
Even if he didn’t directly participate, did he witness it? Turn a blind eye? I hope future reporting is clear what it is and is not evidence of, but I also hope people ask the very reasonable questions that follow from what we do know now.
A noun, a verb, and 9/11
Diplomatic immunity is the inability for someone visiting as a diplomat, which would include a US president visiting another country, to be held to a crime or civil penalty, with countries welcome to expel them for abusing this. I don’t think that applies.
But a US president who is also a felon could technically be denied correctly by immigration officials, but could reach out to the prime minister to get this fixed, probably in advance.
The system isn’t quite designed to do what many of us think it should do, but at times, it can get close.
Unfortunately, there’s a good chance you’re right, and this isn’t one of those times.
IANAL, but If I’m understanding this correctly, because he was found guilty of class E felonies, there is technically a minimum of 1 year in prison, but if the court:
is of the opinion that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary but that it would be unduly harsh to impose an indeterminate or determinate sentence, the court may impose a definite sentence of imprisonment and fix a term of one year or less.
Which seems like an alternative minimum. It seems like there will be additional evaluations as part of sentencing, which may or may not be postponed by appeals. He may get up to 4 years per count (which I’m assuming would be concurrent), maybe 1, maybe less if the court finds that it would be harsh to do so.
And sometimes people have a name commonly associated with a different gender. A guy named Hilary, or a woman named Max or Justin are likely to get misgendered in written communications without including pronouns. Or anybody named Alex stands a chance of it.
I certainly hope they’re talking to a lawyer about the school’s discriminatory conduct, about whether they might win, and if it’s worth fighting.
Whether the first amendment applies or not is a question worth asking them, I’m not sure it’s quite so simple. If a state told a Muslim employee they couldn’t pray while on the clock, I would very much expect a first amendment claim. I don’t think this is so clear, but a public university telling an employee they can’t include relevant information like their pronouns for discriminatory reasons seems plausible.
But it’s a tactic, right? They could still make money, if a bit less, by operating in Minneapolis. But they can put pressure on residents to try and get it repealed by stopping, and try to send a message to other cities.
Not every CVS receipt, mind you. But at least one of them
You only need 4-5k steps a day for it to be more money, which is pretty doable for most people. Of course, that would make getting your 10k steps in per day worth about $300k excess, which is a pretty compelling incentive
You call it the External Revenue Service despite the fact that American consumers are obviously going to pay for it?