Discovery is a two-way street. This could get really ugly for the DNC.
I think it's mostly ugly in the sense that 1) there's a massive fed crim investigation going on racking up bodies anyway—this is jumping the gun, and 2) they have no hope of success here and they are politicizing the successful investigation going on in the process.
I find it odd that the complaint considers the reduction in donations a remediable damage. If the material released to the public had been false, then I could see it being more probable, but that's not what's being alleged in the complaint; they're alleging that the impliedly true information made prospective donees decide not to donate. There's a lot of hoops and independent acts between the acts alleged and the damage e.g. information stolen --> distributed by reporting entities --> interpreted by individuals --> some individuals deciding this was reason to not donate. I don't think that the defendants have mind control of prospective donees here, which is a causality problem.
Yeah. There's definitely a lot off the rails here (IMO). Which makes me not really certain what the ambition is here.
Hi mbertaut, your post has been removed because:
You have not provided adequate proof within a reasonable amount of time. Please see the /r/IAmA sidebar for posting guidelines. Thank you!
Please contact the mods if you need further assistance
What's the biggest hardship these communities face?
What's something unique that most people might not know about them that you learned in the course of your reporting?
Community to community those hardships are different, right? So everyone is dealing with rising anti-Muslim hostility and the problem with their faith being maligned by fringe extremists on one side and an anti-Muslim demonization campaign on the other. But every community is different, for example an African American Imam in South LA told me that anti-Muslim prejudice is not at the top of his list of traumas as a faith leader there. He's prioritizing "poverty, mass incarceration, self-esteem," things like that that affect kids in the neighborhood where he runs a school, mosque and community center. And I think that gets to the uniqueness and the incredible racial, ethnic and socioeconomic diversity of Muslims in the U.S. there are people who brought Islam here from more than 75 countries since the 1800s and that colors and informs their practice here in the U.S., on top of that you have black Muslims who call themselves "indigenous Muslims," because they forged their faith traditions right here in the U.S. and it was seen as a reasserting of an identity and faith stolen under the brutalities of slavery. Some 15 percent of slaves were Muslim. And then you have the children and grandchildren of immigrants who are forging their identity as American muslims right now with a combination of what their parents taught them but also their experiences as Muslims in the U.S. So it's really diverse and that's maybe what's hardest about being Muslim in America, a lot of people want to put everyone in the same Muslim box and there isn't one Muslim box. These are individuals with different life experiences, different traumas, different formative experiences and religious interpretations.
Thanks for such a great answer!
I can see what you are saying but that really isn't a compelling enough argument for me to be for illegal immigrants.
Being in favor of the ability of those people to contact police, give witness statements, call for help, etc. isn't automatically tied to being pro-illegal immigration. You can oppose illegal immigration and still be in favor of good community participation.
It's a hard problem, and it's a capitalist problem. We demand cheap labor, immigrants are cheap labor. There are nuanced policy solutions to it. Amplifying human suffering for everyone across the board to make everything less hospitable isn't on a list of great solutions to a complex problem.
We demand cheap labor, immigrants are cheap labor.
Noooo... I do not demand cheap labor as a capitalist.
For example. I would hire a plumber that is $50/hour that could finish a job in 2 hours rather than hire a plumber that is $20/hour that could finish a job in 4 hours.
Why? Because quality is better than quantity. I will take an efficient plumber over a under paid and over worked plumber. Not only is a long term warranty more rewarding but so is the security that a well paid plumber brings to our economy.
That example doesn't debunk supply & demand curves.
Good luck changing OB into your little homogenized yuppie-friendly community. Most of the native San Diegan diehards don't frequent the new hipster establishments in the area. The community also doesn't attract near the amount of tourists to prop up the more family-friendly options. OB always and will be a grittier, seedier beach community and that is 100% its main appeal. It's the old, weird San Diego before all the people like yourself, tech bros, and yuppie soccer Moms moved in. Does it have some problems? Of course it does. But you are lying to yourself if you think it will be the next Mission Beach or PB. You people are like a fucking cancer to the character and identity of a city. Out with the old, in with the with new. Reclaimed wood paneled restaurants, water carafes, and mason jars with lavender on every table. So boring, and so fucking predictable. If it was up to people like you every city in the fucking country would look and feel the same. You already ruined places like Austin. You aren't ruining OB.
That is one high sodium diet you have there.
Unpopular opinion - OB is gentrifying into more of a hipster/yuppie neighborhood and I'm glad for it. It can't happen soon enough. The trailer trash that live here can get fucked.
I lived there. I loved it. But there's a localism that exists in such a way that it diminishes the quality of life for the people that do live there. I'd rather everyone be happy cruising around on bikes and scooters than screaming over parking spots. Getting rid of the bikes just makes everyone miserable.
I moved to North Park. North Park is pretty great and seeing everyone playing on those scooters and bikes makes my day. I don't even give a damn if someone is rude and parks one in the middle of the sidewalk. I'll just move it out of the way.
Why? A third party's concern for their confidential information is exactly the same. Arguably even higher since it will end up "more public".
The only thing that makes this sort of unusual is that nobody really believes that Trump isn't the primary "suspect" here.
From what I remember from Crim Pro (forever ago), Trump wouldn't be the aggrieved party to the search warrant. Only Cohen is. If you have some case law that illustrates what you're proposing I'd love to learn something new though.
Well, if there was an attorney-client privilege somewhere in there, Sean just shot it in the face.
Did he? Do you waive the privilege by denying the relationship exists in public?
There are a few factors that get weighed but in the event Hannity might have been a putative client, having a reasonable belief an A-C relationship was formed is a factor and denying it ever existed would strongly weigh in favor of no relationship.
I honestly don't know if Cohen is stretching the truth about his relationship to Hannity for some reason or Hannity used Cohen for something heinous no other attorney would touch.
I'm not sure what you expected here. People here are treating the POTUS tweet like they would any other statement from a crazy pro se litigant. There's just not a lot to go through outside of "yeah, that's nuts."
But, I bid you adieu and hope you enjoy the rest of Reddit.
did you go through the dmca process or what?
You don't seem to understand what constitutes an argument or a premise. Nothing is premised on there being a 2nd cold war. You can remove the term "cold war 2.0" from my post and the entire argument is left intact.
Here, I'll help:
Economics is fine. But you seem to be arguing to keep troops in Syria in order to counter Russian interests in some sort of geopolitical chess match.
The more we keep troops and violence out of it, the better. (This is the Premise -->) Syria isn't about Russia. It's about Syrians, Iraqis, Turks, and Kurds. Syria is Russias ally. We should definitely let this be handled by them and not keep troops there just to play tit for tat
in cold war 2.0.
You just lined through the thrust of your argument about US interest in the region.
How can the thrust of an argument be a single term on the tail end of a sentence that bears no weight on the logic of the moving parts of the argument.
Premise 1: Violence is bad.
Premise 2: Syria is not about Russia.
Conclusion: We should not counter Russian interests there.
Conclusion2: I am arguing with a sophist.
I disagree with the new premise that Syria is not about Russia.
Called him up on the number he left on Craigslist
We agreed on an ounce of weed for the bike
My friends and I met him at a park
We asked for the bike back nicely saying it was stolen and it was my bike
We had an altercation
We took the bike from him
I took off the grips and found the paint of my bike
The rest of it was painted over and the seat was replaced with a shitty one
It ended the best it could have
If that guy had a knife or a gun it could have gone a lot worse
Best to call the cops if you are sure it's your bike and you know who has it
My wife's bike got stolen in OB. It's a unique bicycle that no one else could possibly have. I found it at night a few weeks later and told the person who had it that it was stolen. He offered to sell it to me for 50 dollars. I told him I'd rather just call the police. He gave me the bike back.
Pretty sure I was confronting the guy who stole it. When I called the police to let them know that I got it back they were pretty shocked I was able to do it and when I told them who gave me the bike back they were even more shocked that the guy didn't try to hit me. I guess they had a long history with that guy and bicycles.
Before people hang Google for their donations, check out Alphabet's total contributions per election round. They overwhelmingly donate to Dems but still donate a percentage to GOP.
It's perfectly fine to criticize them for making campaign contributions that run counter to constituent interests. It seems particularly hypocritical coming from a company who attempted to pioneer 'don't be evil' as a motto.
I wonder why they felt this is the right move
It's funded by Google employee donations. It would be worse for them if they tried to stop employees from donating to specific politicians.