For a while, I had a partner who lived in Harlem. Their apartment was broken into multiple times by forced entry via the fire escape.
I remember the cops laughing as they took the report, which we only filed to get the insurance claims. Nothing was done other than sending out two officers to spend five minutes taking the report. I’m not saying they need to find every stolen laptop in NYC, though. I’m just saying that they absolutely choose how to investigate and resource complaints.
Unfortunately, that’s not the tradeoff the police department offers. And we do need to distinguish between relative and absolute values. Relative to myself, having a multi-thousand dollar bike loss isn’t all that big of a deal, and I have insurance anyway. For others who depend on their bikes as their primary mode of transportation and who don’t have the ability to just walk into a bike store and slap down a credit card without thinking twice, it’s a much bigger deal. For those people, their lives are impacted as much as a car theft would on someone else.
I do get that we have limited resources and they need to be used for more serious violations, but by that same token book banning isn’t one, and would not have required an officer to physically investigate. This is about purely fascistic thought control and book banning. Honestly, I would have preferred that cop go track down a stolen bike ring.
Anyone who has had their bike stolen or car broken into or otherwise be victim of a crime the police don’t really care about knows this is not the case. You’ll be told to come in and fill out a form, or if you’re lucky you might have someone call you and fill out the form for you. They’re not going to send a cop out for that, and the form doesn’t really get acted on, it’s just for records keeping.
I’m going to be honest here - being surrounded by hummingbirds is terrifying. Not only does the buzzing and needle beaks make you think of the mosquitos in jumanji, but they also teleport from place to place while hovering.
These sorts of decisions can become more understandable when we incorporate the idea that corporate politics and management structure play a huge role in decision making. If the director of the division charged with building the software is close with the CTO or c-suite, they’re going to give that person the job and just make the numbers fit by adjusting the projections.
This is what’s referred to as the “agency problem” - that the people designated to act as the agents of others (whether you consider the others to be shareholders or employees) instead make the decisions based on the benefit to themselves, that’s a conflict of interest based on level of selection.
And in three years when it turns into a disaster, the director will have moved on to a new role or new company.
Not quite. The law is that the secretary cannot allow someone onto the primary ballot who is, in their opinion, disqualified. The ruling is that CO has the right to use that law to keep Trump off of the primary ballot.
I don’t know whether that law also applies to the general election ballot, but the fact that the republicans think that they can pull it out of the state’s hands and do a run around with a caucus makes me think it’s about the primaries. I don’t think they can legally switch to a caucus mid race for other reasons, but if they do they think it’s a path.
Yes exactly. That’s the argument that has already been discarded in this case. Were Trump to be found guilty of insurrection, he would be legally ineligible under the constitution. What team Trump is hoping to do is to win on the insurrection case or to delay trial until after he wins the presidency, after which he has any number of ways to escape prosecution.
However, if he is found guilty before the general ballots are set (or after, I suppose - I really don’t know that part) he would be ineligible but that would be based on a federal court ruling and not on the judgement of the secretary, I believe.
I haven’t seen a law stating that the secretary can keep a candidate legally nominated by the party off of the ballot. There may be such a law, but I haven’t seen it mentioned. The only law I’ve seen is the one allowing them to design the primary ballot based on their own determination of eligibility. I’d be happy to read anything you have about the same type of law applying to the general.
It looks like the cursed love child of SpongeBob and a minion.
I get that you’re saying that it doesn’t feel fair to you, but that’s not how the law works. We might want the law to meet our sense of fair play, but there’s a ton of questions about balancing interests and precedent and so on.
The constitution itself places limitations on who can run for president. Is it fair that Arnold Schwarzenegger can’t run for office even if people want to vote for him? Maybe, but it’s illegal. Of a genius and charismatic 29 year old entrances the country with her brilliant rhetoric and would clear 90% of the popular vote and unite the nation, she also cannot become president. Is that fair to the electorate or our young genius? Maybe, maybe not. But it’s constitutional, and it’s the law.
CO law states that primary candidates must be people eligible for election to the office as judged by the state. This law has already been used to keep someone off the ballot. In a decision decided by Gorsuch himself, it was held that states have the right to make those calls.
In addition, the feds have almost always defaulted to allowing the states to decide how to conduct their elections and have stated that the feds have no constitutional authority to dictate how they conduct elections. This was how Bush v Gore was decided, along with the Boting Rights Act and other cases. Except in the case of violating something like equal protection, the feds stay out of it. Sitting members of the current court decided those cases.
So the Foinding Fathers didn’t think that just anyone should be allowed to run and the people should decide. Case law backs the idea that states can set their own rules. Trump is disqualified in the opinion of Colorado by virtue of having engaged in insurrection, and even the previous ruling, which would allow Trump on the ballot, did not challenge that finding. They just said that the law doesn’t apply to the president of the United States. It was a bad, bad ruling.
The sc can’t even grant a stay without overruling CO election law, which I believe says the ballots must be set by Jan 5, and the self-imposed stay already runs through the 4th.
The republicans literally can’t put him on the ballot. They don’t print the ballots.
I have to confess that I don’t remember. I carry riders on my other policy for high value items like my camera gear and bike. It all goes into a lump sum that just gets auto paid annually.
But you’re right - they’re fairly inexpensive to insure.