In all honesty it could help loosen regulations on workers rights. Flipping burgers and the boss is on some shady shit trying to schedule you a ton of hours? Fuck it. You can quit and still survive, and possibly thrive.
Not that I’d advocate loosening those regulations. Just that UBI itself could alleviate some current issues.
The way he fired off those shots was practiced.
Jury nullification isn’t some secret third option. The jurors individually can only choose guilty or not guilty. If they are unanimous, that is the decision. If they are not unanimous, it’s a hung jury effectively voiding the entire court process up to that point. The government then needs to decide if they want to re-file and try again.
Jury nullification is when evidence is presented establishing clear guilt and the jury still renders a not guilty verdict. 5th amendment prohibits double jeopardy so they cannot be retried.
My tinfoil hat says they used illegal means to track him down. That’s what they’re trying to hide.
Instead of one manifesto, have dozens or hundreds even. Start passing those out to make your motives clear and prevent the media from burying it.
If he’s put even a single toe out of line in the past, it’ll be dissected in the media.
He was fairly prepared. If it wasn’t fully melted down, it’s likely in multiple spots. Stripped all the way down and damage or mar anything identifiable.
This is worded funny, implying there are some who said less hours did not improve work life balance. I can’t really figure that.
That’s not what that’s implying. It explicitly states “most employees said…”. This implies others either said something else or just did not say something specifically with regard to work life balance.
Sounds like what they mean is that they don’t want the topic of jury nullification to factor into a decision to commit a crime. If the crime is already committed, the topic can not affect that decision since it was already made. Before a crime, they take the discussion to be an incentive to commit a crime. Essentially, “don’t be too worried about being prosecuted, the jury can just find you effectively innocent.” It can come off as encouraging crime.
Bold of you to assume she had much of a choice. That type of thinking generally stems from hyper-religious upbringing. Those types also don’t let women have a ton of autonomy.
Hypothetical: he picked his target at random. Researched. Finds out he was an insurance CEO. Devises this plan to throw investigators off the scent.
Ted Cruz’s kids hate him. There’s some good videos of them doing it at functions in public.
To be fair, until that unholy grift of trump media going public, trump was only a billionaire on paper due to wildly and illegally overvalued properties.
Haha. Yes. We all make funny jokes! We’re just joking right guys?
No. If it’s done “legally” then it’s OK. That’s why cops can murder people and it’s OK. As long as you can buy a politician or two to legalize the suffering you cause, you’re doing just fine.
No. They’re still bitching about 2020. They say 2024 is proof 2020 was rigged. They say the difference in dem votes was all faked.
We all need to fight fascism globally in any way we can. It doesn’t have to be anything huge. Even if it is only one simple act or word.
That’s why I support low grade sabotage. In a customer service/support position and could help a customer out to the detriment of the company and perhaps against policy? If you won’t get caught, do it.
Many years ago I was ringing a customer up when he questioned the price of an item. Manager happened to be nearby. Customer said he had even called ahead of time to verify the price. Manager just blatantly days “oh yeah. I think I actually took that call. Sorry about that. Well the price is what it is.” And just walked off. Customer was just dumbfounded. I put the rest of his items in the bag without ringing them up.
And this is how you get a completely sociopathic system held up by seemingly “moral” or “good” people.
In a general sense it’s hard to argue against unnecessary care. After all it’s right in the name. It’s unnecessary. And it’s hard to argue against managing personnel based on performance. Trying to audit every decision could be time consuming and expensive. Just put in a KPI (Key Performance Indicator) with respect to cost to company. If you approve $X amount of claims and your coworker approved $Y, when they need to downsize or trim the fat, you just look at X and Y and let go the one that approved more claims.
Each step can be kinda argued and supported in a vacuum. And that’s where these CEOs wilfully sit. They don’t explicit tell employees to deny more claims. They just make it more lucrative at every step to do so.