I propose a new law. If the victim of a murder is someone who owns a fortune more than 1000x the median household income, then someone on trial for the murder can make an affirmative defense that it was ok, simply because, “he needed killin.'”

Literally, if you can convince the jury that the guy had it coming, you get off Scott free. Anyone who wants to avoid potentially being killed and having their killer escape unpunished can avoid this fate by simply not hoarding wealth over the critical threshold. Those who hoard such fortunes will just have to live with enough kindness that no one could ever convince a jury that they deserved to die. We’ll end up with no billionaires or every billionaire becoming like Fred Rogers. I’ll take either outcome.

I’m sure it will be built by a contracting company incorporated just for this purpose. And after this, it will be dissolved. They’ll have no reputation to defend.

In the spirit of inclusive leftism, I say it stands for both!

Polls have been pretty accurate. Some of the polls involving elections Trump specifically runs in have been less accurate, but even the polling of his race in 2024 was pretty accurate.

Generally true politically. But these are questions that need to be asked.

Yes, it’s tempting to say, “a human life is priceless, no price to save a life is too high.” But there are an infinite number of ways dollars can be spent to save lives. And by making cars more expensive, that puts less money in people’s pockets to pay for healthcare, quality nutrition, etc.

What if someone invented a miraculous but expensive safety device? Imagine if someone invented a device that decreased traffic deaths by 95%, but at the cost of $250k per vehicle. We would make vehicles incredibly safe, but at the cost of completely shutting working people out from vehicle ownership. Would it still be worth it? There isn’t always be some point where safety just isn’t worth the cost. Not because we don’t care about human life, but simply because there are many potential ways for us to spend money to enhance human safety and well-being.

No.

Found the Republican.

How does one determine if the killer killed the woman because he hated her and not just for fun?

What have you read on the legal basis of hate crime laws? What have you done yourself in order to answer your own questions?

No. You are just susceptible to right wing issue framing.

It does. Laws like this are always written gender neutral. Same thing with laws banning discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. It’s just as illegal to fire someone for being straight as it is to fire them for being gay.

These laws are always written to protect everyone. But conservatives such as yourself will read a headline and then whine about minority groups receiving “special treatment.”

These laws already are gender neutral, just like all anti discrimination laws.

I’ll come burn a cross on your lawn and then insist I can’t be charged with anything other than violating local fire ordinances…

Murder’s murder, in the eyes of many

You’re right! That’s why we should prosecute all traffic deaths as first degree murder. Someone drunkenly stumbles into the road, into your path, causing you to run them over and kill them? Mandatory minimum life sentence for you. After all, death is death, killing is killing. We don’t give a shit about people’s motives.

You know, now that I think of it, there must have been some decent number of men that had a Hitler moustache before Hitler ruined it. Imagine being the guy in 1941 who is stubbornly refusing to shave it saying, “hey, it’s not my fault he’s a jackass. I’m not changing my life due to him!”

Ah yes, I remember reading in history class about that time Stalin and Hitler signed a secret treaty to divide up the territory of the Portland metropolitan area. :D

Foreign terrorist groups can be prosecuted, and the president has a much freer hand constitutionally going after foreign than domestic groups. There is no actual federal law to designate and go after domestic terrorist groups. But there is for foreign.

Here is the plan:

1. Designate a handful of foreign branches of antifa as terrorist groups.

2. If anyone in the US is a member of an antifa group, arrest them for being member of a foreign terrorist group, even if the group they are a part of is completely unconnected to the European groups.

3. Make the defendants spend thousands of dollars and years of their lives fighting anti-terrorism charges, and get “arrested for terrorism” as part of their criminal records.

No you are confused. You can prosecute born US citizens for being a member of a foreign terrorist group.

Who said anything about foreign action? I just told you exactly what the purpose of this rule is. It’s to maliciously prosecute domestic peaceful protesters. This isn’t some farce or distraction. It’s the core purpose of the thing.

The point isn’t to actually go after these specific tiny foreign groups. The goal is to brand any organization that’s labeled “Antifa” as a foreign terrorist group. There could be some non violent antifa group in Portland, with no ties to any foreign organization whatsoever. The DOJ can go in, arrest all members, and charge them with terrorism for being members of a foreign terrorist group. Would these charges actually stick in court? No. After years and tens of thousands in attorneys fees, the charges will be dropped. But the process is the punishment.

You know what. Maybe it should be!

I have an idea for a bold new law. Let’s help desperate people, add more whimsy to the world, and maybe help some folks discover something about themselves.

New Law:
You can legally claim your dead relative’s social welfare benefits for up to five years after their death…but you have to dress up and present as them full time!