Sure, we can sidestep the kangaroo court (a Biden DOJ prosecutor, a judge who donated to Biden earmarked for "resisting Trump", the fact the FEC commissioner wasn't allowed to testify that there was no campaign finance violation, or the fact the prosecution didn't specify their actual accusation until their closing arguments so the defense couldn't even respond). I agree that that is working backwards, but even a blind monkey on the jury would have to see that Trump was being railroaded with a blatantly political charge.

So, the math. Even if we allow for 10% of Democrats to be neutral, as the monte Carlo simulation showed, for all practical purposes, the prosecution had complete control of the jury. All they have to do is ask basically any questions that reveal bias against Trump, and make sure that all 12 of the jury members have that bias.

They can do this trivially, because even if we only use the 85% of Biden voters "hate" Trump metric, and let's say 90% of Manhattan voted for Biden (which seems roughly correct), and that non-voters probably on average split the same way as people who vote (a fairly safe assumption). That would mean an 85% chance of a single relatively neutral person on the jury initially (and some smaller chance of 2, and 3 and so on). But essentially, every time the defense vetos someone, there's at least a 77% chance that the new person is also very biased against Trump. So for all practical purposes, the prosecution has 4 times as many vetos, and the odds of getting even one single neutral juror through that process is astronomically small.

"Only 85%" as "very unfavorable". And then another 5% as "unfavorable". So I'm off by a small amount, and then a few more percent as "neutral" but still planning to vote for Biden. Trump hater and Democrat have approximately a ~90% overlap, more than enough to virtually guarantee a Trump-hating jury. Which is obviously what we got, since no sane person would have voted guilty for that clownshow.

Ooh, let's see. 99% of Democrats hate Trump. Given the split of Democrats versus Republicans in Manhattan, after jury vetoes, the odds of a Republican or even an independent making it on the jury is something like 1 in 10000. So yes, there's like a 99.99% chance that the jury was exclusively full of Trump haters.

Incredible that you're this lazy. Here's the former FEC chair laying it out simply enough that a child could understand it that there were no campaign finance laws broken. https://x.com/CommishSmith/status/1796795736438272303 

If you want a Hilary source, fucking Google it. Even left-wing rags covered that. Same jurisdiction, exact same crime, except that she was actually guilty and Trump is not. But the prosecutor who literally ran on "I'm going to get Trump by any means necessary" and the judge who donated to Biden earmarked "for resisting Trump" and the jury pool which after vetos had a 99.9% chance of being entirely Democrats aren't exactly going to go after her. If you can't see that, you're so blinded by partisanship that this conversation is not worth having. I won't bother replying again. Have a good one, I hope your delusions clear up someday.

Presumably they could still check voter registration though. The prosecution had such an enormous advantage that they almost certainly could select all registered Democrats.

Hahahaha, Joe Rogan has been a leftist his whole life. Only the Reddit circle jerk would accuse him of being "right wing."

And you are the dumbest person in America! Congrats! 🥳🥳

Post what source? The FEC didn't charge him with anything. They passed on this because they didn't believe there was a case. There's also literally no evidence of a "coverup", certainly not one Trump was involved in - his accountant stated that they weren't sure what else to file it under, so they put legal expense - which it was. Calling it 34 felonies is the most absurd overreach imaginable.

Lol, if you believe Clinton wasn't personally involved in that, I have a bridge to sell you. You must be the dumbest person in America.

And campaign finance violations can definitely be handled while he's president, don't be absurd. Waiting 8 years to charge someone with a misdemeanor is moronic. The FEC chose not to prosecute. The only person willing to was someone who literally ran on a platform of "get Trump". And the judge literally donated to Biden earmarked "to resist Trump". And finally, the jury was 12 angry Democrats (because with the state of the Manhattan jury pool, Trump's vetos on individual jurors meant absolutely nothing).

This should have at worst been a tiny fine. The fact it was contorted to be a felony is the most egregious case of a political hit job since they did the same thing to MLK Jr. in the 60s.

Sounds like you're overthinking things. If he didn't like other things about you, it would be pretty obvious.

Yes...Hilary Clinton falsified legal records to interfere with an election. It's literally exactly the same case in the same jurisdiction, with the difference that the FEC actually thought she did it, whereas they didn't think there was a case against Trump.

It's mind-blowing how blind liberals are about this.

No, Trump's crime was a state level misdemeanor that they jacked up to a felony because of "underlying charges". Feel free to google that campaign finance violations have never been used as an underlying charge before, I'm not your research assistant.

Lol, Hilary literally falsified business records in her campaign in the same election to pay for the Steele report. But instead of felony charge, the FEC just gave her a token fine. However, the FEC thought this case against Trump was so flimsy they didn't even attempt to fine him for it.

This is the first case ever that campaign finance violations have been used as the underlying charges. To do it for the first time against the front-runner political candidate, by a judge who donated to Democrats (literally earmarked his donation "to resist Trump") is absolutely wild.

Science is not monolithic. You're cherry-picking one study, and claiming that is "the best guess". But there's plenty of scientists studying this that don't believe 10b is the "carrying capacity" of the earth. You are using it as propaganda.

You say that, but we wound up with 12 Trump-hating Democrats on the jury and zero Republicans. So evidence would suggest that you're mistaken.

Lol, that "carrying capacity" claim is literally the propaganda we're talking about. It's completely baseless. There is a limit to be sure, but it's way, way higher than 10b.

The number of Republicans who think that is extremely small, but believe whatever propaganda you like.

You're mistaken here.

If on average, 11 of 12 people are anti-trump, when the defense uses a veto, there is an 11 out of 12 chance that the replacement will be anti-Trump. When the prosecution uses a veto, there is similarly an 11/12 chance of getting an anti-trumper.

So the actual odds of an pro-trump jurist getting on the jury is unbelievably small, which matches up with what actually happened.

That's assuming an equal chance of them lying, which I would argue is extraordinarily unlikely. A large number of Democrats believe Trump to be literally Hitler, and thus would be more than happy to lie to get on the jury.

I'm honestly in this exact situation. I'm flabbergasted by how hard it is to throw games. I went mid IO yesterday, fed the enemy team's sniper like 9 kills in the first 15 minutes, and the whole enemy team clumps up for a 5 man chrono. From there, they just fell apart. Wcyd.

You have low reading comprehension. I didn't say that the food controls your weight, but it changes your appetite. If you eat meat, vegetables and fruit and exercise for like half an hour a day, for 99.9% of people, your appetite will self-regulate your weight without needing to count calories.

Counting calories absolutely works, but it is hard. Not eating sugar and ultra-processed foods is also hard, but had the benefit of helping you not just lose weight but improving basically all other aspects of your health as well.

There's no such thing as "natural weight" in the world of the ultra-processed high calorie foods.

People can be lean eating "instinctively" if they avoid all sugar, most baked goods and subsist primarily on meat, vegetables and fruit. But that kind of sucks.

And then the hero has been balanced around it, just like every other hero in the game. What, you want the game to stay static with no hero getting new abilities ever?

People are hating on it just because it's strong right now. But there will be a letter patch soon where it will get nerfed, and people will find a new thing to complain about.

You're describing puck...and qop...and morphling...and ta...and a bunch of other heroes.

Yes, the issue that the government is massively subsidizing them. Trump is not going to ban electric car sales (that's literally fake news), but I hope he stops the idiotic subsidies.