VakAttack

Can confirm. At the State level here in FL ( I don't work in federal court currently), prison sentences are able to be reduced to about 85% of the original sentence (you would serve 8.5 years on a 10 year sentence) outside of sex offenses or minimum mandatory sentences. County jail sentences, everyone gets 1 day off their sentence per month for good behavior, and can earn an additional 5 days per month off by working as a trustee (custodial/maintenance/food service).

You: *makes completely contradictory statements* Also you: I could not have been more clear.

30 counts. Classic prosecutor technique that I effing hate.

You just claimed some wild stuff and were immediately contradicted by evidence, and then just doubled down with this nothing sandwich. Then you also did this: And followed it up with this: All that again without evidence.

As currently constituted, Desantis is going to get smoked. He's basically set himself up as a Xerox Trump, rather than anything that sets him as his own man. He even started using the same hand movements (well-worn discussion, I know). He's a weaker version of Trump, and there's a big swath of the party that responds to public displays of strength, no matter how inert or ineffectual, and Trump is just better at that, plus under his Presidency, they took control of the Supreme Court, something he gets a lot of credit for with the base.

The thread title is a comment. You asked a question, and I responded. I'm only allowed to respond to you if I respond to every question you asked? And just to be clear, now you're not saying that I'm trying to change the conversation, I'm just "pick[ing] out one sentence and respond[ing]" and I'm talking about "what I want to talk about" which...sure, fine? It's my thread? I'm sorry my answer didn't comport with your requirements for a response, but I'm glad we can acknowledge that I responded directly to one of your questions, in my own thread, and did not shift the conversation to some unrelated issue.

Again, Disney will not be ruined. I'm not going to debate with you about whatever your personal experience with trans issues might be (I have no idea, I'm not you nor living your life) nor the existence of trans people (they exist, I am not one of them and so have very little understanding of what their lived experience is). My experience with the couple of trans people I have personally met is that they, like most people, just want to be left alone to live their lives.

Disney will not be ruined. ^^^The actual subject.

You asked if there would be a thread about this if it was a different company. I, as the poster who started this thread, told you that yes, I would, and gave you my reasons. And you have now accused me of changing the subject.

Adorable.

Huh? You asked if there would be a thread about this if the company were different. I said I would be commenting regardless if the facts were the same, just with different names, because of the free speech issues along with governmental retribution/hilarous legal wranglings, which were the reasons I posted this thread originally. I'm not twisting anything.

There are so many funniest parts, but that may, in fact, be the best. As someone who lives about 1 hour away from the area...hooboy is it getting a lot of coverage, lol.

Potentially! Fortunately we have the below, which I thought the "small government" types that Republicans purport to be would love!

I promise you, if the government in any place changes the law in response (or as retribution) to a corporation or person exercising free political speech and I'm aware of it, I will be making a comment. And when that attempt to subvert speech is defeated hilariously with very, very basic legal maneuvering, I will, in fact, laugh. Just like I laughed at pretty much every legal filing post election by His Orangeness.

Really impressive young man tough decision to have to make.

Nobody has said this.

https://abovethelaw.com/2023/03/disneys-lawyers-are-better-than-ron-desantiss-lawyers/

Dude, you literally put it that way.

So doing something unprecedented (McConnell) = ok. Doing something precedented (court expansion) = not ok, changing the rules. But I'm the one who wants it both ways.

So...to be clear...Congress can change the number of Justices...and has done so before multiple times, including literally in the Act you cite...and I am advocating that Congress should change the number of Justices....but that's changing the rules...even though the rules explicitly tell you that Congress can set the number of Justices....so....why is following the rules also changing the rules?

Constant outages, confusion about the identity of users, terrible PR stunts with disabled employees, mass firings, and then there's this: https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-offers-new-equity-grants-to-staff-938ee7f8 Turns out taking over somebody else's social media company is not the same as taking over somebody else's electric car company!

Where is this rule written down?

What is the rule they are changing?

Four non-champs above Alirez*