While I'm a gun owner, I'm not a gun enthusiast, so I don't really have plans to do anything firearm related. I hope these laws don't become prevalent, because a good way to get me interested in something to tell me that the tools capable of doing it are prohibited, and I'd much rather work on more constructive things.
Ultimately I think a lot of these communities (by which I mean 3d printing itself) need to run far far away from centrally hosted jank like Github et al, which is the only real nexus California has when trying to police technical speech like slicers. Just take the hit, move to self-hosted servers on onion sites, and have automation that copies out the relevant products to the centralized watering holes to attract noobs.
Luckily the California bill seems to only apply to additive manufacturing processes.
It's both sad and amusing to think of the thousands of legacy machines that will become legally untransferrable because their controllers are incapable of supporting the mandated controls.
> If you're talking about the liquidator then the goods were held by the franchise so if it went through bankruptcy those goods would be under consideration by the steward - I think they'd usually find that the original owner should be entitled to the goods since they're relatively non-fungible.
IANAA, but I'd say the situation is that while the goods are possessed by the franchise, but they are not owned by the franchise. Ownership title doesn't change until they're sold by the franchise to a buyer.
I could see a scenario in which the franchise contract says that BAM can automatically liquidate the franchise (and how else did BAM get immediate control of the store?), and BAM then says they've executed on that consignment contract (at perhaps not reasonable prices). But without a very well-documented paper trail that this is what they did, including actually paying the consignor the (low) proceeds of the sales, it would seem that the only other possibility here is some kind of criminal conversion.
Which points back to all of the discussion about consignment dynamics really being a red herring. The problem is a criminal conspiracy including by the police themselves, for whatever reasons that might be.
Do we really need to embrace these companies' attempts to distance themselves from their toxic brands? The way I see it they're still Google and Faceboot.
Let's try some 4-D chess. What is the overall plan here? Open up multiple wars-of-choice to settle decades old vendettas held by aging boomers, deplete the United States' stockpile of weapons, close up the suitcase operation when the People finally get wise to the treachery, and then abscond to China where they already call Trump the "Nation Builder" ? Meanwhile Big Tech is hoping their panopticon and AI drones will be complete enough that they can keep the People under control as what remains of the sidelined government continues burning, ushering in their desired corpo-authoritarian society?
Everything I have seen seems like Trump was really expecting Iran to be a “3 day special operation” so the humiliating boondoggle and stand-off/interceptor etc depletion wasn’t part of the 4D chess. They probably expected Cuba would already be “done” at this point.
Someone formerly in intelligence told me that the plan in Iran seemingly was to coordinate the protests with strikes on vital government and military installations as a "humanitarian intervention", but the timing went off badly because they didn't expect the protests to get crushed so quickly and lose steam. But they decided to go ahead in the boondoggle anyways, on Israeli insistence.
If the US is mired in its own domestic unrest and military misadventures in the Americas, it will be unable to intervene effectively in conflicts in Europe or Asia.
Along these lines, it seems too much hope for... but we need a president that can respectfully dialogue with people on the other side of the aisle and empathize with people and their views gained from lived experience. These days the status quo is to treat any opposition to their point of view as sign of idiocy or moral corruption.
I'm a Chinese, from what I learned, you probably don't see the situation clearly.
The problem is influence. America wants to solve the Cuba (and Iran) problem since very long ago, and right now, while China is busy patching up their economic slop/mismanagement and Russia is trapped in Ukraine, is simply the best time to do so.
With Cuba is cleared out, the Americas continent will be cleared of major (and loud) threats against America. That alone is beneficial.
It's the same but opposite reason why America is supporting Japan, Taiwan and Europe etc, to control the influence of their competitors like China, Russia, India, Brazil etc (a.k.a Global South). It also allow Americans to keep a tap on Japan, Taiwan and Europe (etc) so they remains in American control.
That's probably the 4-D chess you talked about.
Also, the "Trump the 'Nation Builder'" part: In China, "Nation Builder" was a popular forename, it means "someone who contributes to their own country/nation". In the Trump context, it means that Trump's policies is benefiting China's goal. That is, when compare to Biden's policy which is much sophisticated and on point (while Trump's is blunt and wasteful).
But I don't think American's soft gesture towards China will last after Cuba and Iran is dealt with (if) in a American victory though. Unlike what the "New World Order" conspiracy suggests, I don't think this world is stupid enough to not to pursue the maximums goal when possible. That's probably why Americans are working towards the maximums goal inches by inches.
Taiwan. That’s the reason these little low value wars and erosion of soft power are ill timed, ill considered and ultimately supremely destructive to our relevance and influence in the world.
How many cuban ex-pats do you know? I would say “not many”.
Every cuban ex-pat I know (and thats quite a lot because I live in FL) will tell you there is a Cuba problem. They all still have family suffering under that regime.
Let me rephrase. The is no "Cuba problem" that the US needs to deal with any differently than it deals with/has dealt with the many other countries in the Americas that have/had people suffering under their regimes who had family in the US.
As far as Cuba in particular goes, the suffering there would be a lot less if the US would drop its 65+ year old embargo and let them trade like all the other repressive regimes it is indifferent to.
Most of them don't have a history of direct hostility towards the US and specifically having the willingness to allow a US foe to use their proximity to plant tactical weapons to threaten the US.
I think they expect a repeat of Venezuela, which was a tidy operation for what it was (and something I highly disapprove of). But even though these operations are done in the name of "regime change", it's just about giving Trump the opportunity to cosplay as a warrior and to further distract from the dumpster fire of his administration.
It was a coup, not an "operation". We provided assistance to a domestic takeover. The only Venezuelan forces acting in opposition were the ones who didn't get the orders to stand down in time.
Potato, potato. The administration said words about stuff it did and the reasons for it, and then there's the stuff that happenend for the reasons they happened.
It was about scratching an itch, not "spreading democracy".
Considering the US history of meddling south of the border, it was pretty low key. Fucked up, but low key.
The administration 100% did not say what happened, not correctly. The position of the Trump administration is that the US invaded and conquered the country and now runs it and is extracting its resources for our profit. None of that is remotely true. It's run by the same bureaucracy with a junta at the head of it that happens to be aligned with Trump geopolitically.
My only point was that the admin did whatever they did and, at least from the outside, appears to have been an "in and out" one-shot that worked in their favor.
And the only reason I mentioned that, is because invading a sovereign nation is a significant event and it would be safe to assume that they are emboldened by the success of their prior effort and think that Cuba may be a cookie-cutter repeat of that.
tl;dr -- Venezuela was easy peasy, so how hard can Cuba be?
The legality, morality, and value of this are separate matters (but I bet you can guess where I sand on them).
Venezuela was literally the only thing Trump has done that made me sick with a feeling of "this is going to be well received by most people". (Distinct from the feeling that something should be poorly received, but then seeing the useful idiots lap it up anyway. The instances of this have been unenumerable)
Hopefully if they do attack Cuba, it will play a little differently with one huge quagmire (or loss, depending on perspective) already on the table.
I don’t know how invading Cuba would be received. I feel like the biggest source of consternation about Iran is the effect on gas prices. That’s not at issue in Cuba.
It might not run afoul of yours, but I assume that deploying domestic terrorists to attack American cities impinges upon most people's sense of morality in a way that attacking foreign countries (unfortunately) does not. This puts it in the second category I mentioned.
I was actually surprised about that in the other direction. Police consistently poll in the top 3 most trusted organizations in the country. I would have thought ICE would get the benefit of that sentiment. But in the Harvard-Harris polling above, police are +39 net favorability, while ICE is -6.
The lower polling on ICE is odd because, as a policy issue, deporting all illegal immigrants (not just ones who have committed crimes) is polling at 55-45. What other way do people think there is to deport 20+ million people?
Immigrants pulling up the ladder after themselves is a time-honored American tradition.
It's a complicated subject and has been weaponized by the Right, artfully so.
If you actually cared about the law being followed you would be consistent in that -- meaning that the immigrants who were/are here who have been completely legal in that should have been protected by the law, but weren't.
Likewise, you'd care that officers of the law themselves followed the law, and the courts have found egregious cases of that not happening.
And if it was about being fair in allowing immigrants in (specifically from south of the border, versus, say, whites from South Africa), the subject of fairness would have to examine the actions of the United States amongst it's southern neighbors and what impact it's had to cause those people to flee. AKA, "you break it, you bought it".
Now I'm not arguing for wide open gates either, but we had a system in place and the biggest problems with it were that it was poorly funded and staffed. After all, if you want them to be legal about it, there needs to be legal people to make that happen.
> Police consistently poll in the top 3 most trusted organizations in the country
And what about the demographics of such a poll? I recognize the need for some sort of law enforcement but if you had a family member having a mental health crisis would you call the cops? Do you think that the police are properly held accountable for their actions?
Man, the Federalist Society sure is good at their job.
> Immigrants pulling up the ladder after themselves is a time-honored American tradition.
Because it's rational. If you're from a dysfunctional country--sorry, I mean a "vibrant" and "rich" country--you don't want that following behind you.
> what impact it's had to cause those people to flee. AKA, "you break it, you bought it".
You assume those countries are worth fleeing because of exogenous factors that cannot follow immigration flows rather than endogenous factors that can.
> If you actually cared about the law being followed you would be consistent in that
Like with any law, immigration law is not an end in itself, but a means to an end, i.e. limiting the flow of immigrants and the effects thereof. It's like fishing licenses. You could stop illegal fishing just by mailing everyone a license, but the piece of paper is not the point.
> Because it's rational. If you're from a dysfunctional country--sorry, I mean a "vibrant" and "rich" country--you don't want that following behind you.
That makes zero logical sense on a couple levels.
1. There's no real difference between the immigrants in Wave A vs Wave B, except Wave A happened first. Same shithole country, just an ordering issue. "I've got mine, Jack!" is not a compelling claim.
2. People bring their experiences with them but doesn't mean that they then apply their history to the present of their new home. America is the shaper, culture brings some flavor.
The other thing you missed was the tribalism of my statement about the latter being pulled up. It really goes like this:
1. Immigrants from Shithole A come as a wave to America and are met with hostility and oppression but persevere and a generation later are established communities; Americans.
2. Immigrants from Shithole B come as a wave to American and are met with hostility and oppression from current population, including the A Shitholers, because it' now their country.
> Like with any law, immigration law is not an end in itself, but a means to an end, i.e. limiting the flow of immigrants and the effects thereof. It's like fishing licenses. You could stop illegal fishing just by mailing everyone a license, but the piece of paper is not the point.
You mean like the laws that we already have? Not perfect but they are there and there was was bipartisan legislation address issues and enhance border security. It was spiked so that it could become a partisan political football.
Again, immigration is broken, but could be fixed if the powers that be wanted it. Look at where most of those undocumented workers end up and take a guess at the political affiliation of those employers. It's not a coincidence.
I'm going to try something different here. I'm going to respond to one of your points as I believe @rayiner would. Maybe showing him that I actually understand his argument might help him realize that every person arguing with him isn't a coming from some myopic partisan view. Or that it's possible to have read discussion about these topics, analyzed them on their own merits (not merely just rejecting based on progressive dogma), and still walked away not buying into them. Or perhaps even that my criticism of ICE isn't actually rooted in cloaked pro-immigration policy [0]
> 1. There's no real difference between the immigrants in Wave A vs Wave B, except Wave A happened first. Same shithole country, just an ordering issue. "I've got mine, Jack!" is not a compelling claim.
The argument is that the amount of immigration is too high and rate of assimilation is too low, and thus the larger quantity would affect the culture more than the lesser quantity. It is indeed a selfish argument for someone who was in wave A - and while this might invalidate it in your own worldview, that is not universal. So while it's not compelling for you, it is compelling for him (and others).
[0] I'm personally quite ambivalent on most immigration topics. Although I do believe strangling our educational and research institutions is an absolutely bone-headed move. But that has nothing to do with illegal immigration.
Nobody is saying that volume is not an issue -- he's arguing from talking points not facts.
While they have just enough plausible deniability, the current anti-immigration takes it to a more fervent level: they want to export all the immigrants that are not white, and not just that, those that are not Christian.
Everyone of us here is an immigrant or descended from immigrants and, and the failure to recognize that is a literal moral failing.
And of course there remains the unexamined aspect of the US culpability in creating the conditions causing people to flee and seek safe harbor....
Edit: and on cultural assimilation my point stands: first born immigrants (which I believe includes Rayiner himself) assimilate by design because of human tribal needs. Their parents will always be tied to the old world but they're going to do what they can to fit in.
> The lower polling on ICE is odd because, as a policy issue, deporting all illegal immigrants (not just ones who have committed crimes) is polling at 55-45
Deporting illegal immigrants is not the issue with ICE. The issue with ICE is their killing of US Citizens, trying to cover it up until video evidence show they are absolutely lying trigger happy murders only to have the admin shrug and/or defend the agents actions and blaming the victims; also detaining and deporting US Citizens[0] doesn't sit well with other US Citizens.
For starters they mainly don't. The whole reason TV personality leadership is en vogue is because most people don't actually think through the implications of what they're buying into. I sure wish they did!
But also, it's quite straightforward to envision a different ICE carrying out its goal slower, more deliberately, with transparency and legal accountability. There's zero need for them to operate as a masked terror squad that is above the law. For example Renee Good's executioner could be behind bars where criminals belong, while his former coworkers who didn't set up a pretext to execute a woman continue on with their job of deporting illegal immigrants. These things are not inherently in conflict.
(Yes, I am aware the rot in the organization has been brewing well before Trump. But terrible needlessly divisive leadership that aims to maximize cruelty (ie spectacle) has accelerated it, and has made it seem like these things are in conflict)
ICE existed before before Trump and under Obama and Biden was doing the work ICE is intended to do.
But under Trump it's been different in several different ways:
1. Encouraged aggressive and lawless behavior by its agents with a promise of zero accountability for their behavior (or lawlessness)
2. A quota system designed to incentive detaining anybody at any cost for any reason
3. Disregard for due process and the legal system -- arresting and detaining people when they show up for immigration hearings *following the legal process fully*
4. Killing innocent US citizens.
5. Detaining US citizens.
6. Enhanced "you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride" where they take detainees to another state and then release them there
And all of this follows from the president's rallys where the crowds are whipped up to demand the removal of all non whites who are "taking over this country".
Pro tip: any policies that are designed to welcome or even encourage harm to those that it applies to are inherently evil. The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats it's most vulnerable members, and ICE as it exists today is a shameful stain on our country.
After the killings in Minnesota I tried reaching out to a MAGA acquaintance I've tried to engage with to find any sort of common ground (so far without any success). I was ignored, and I'm assuming that he's been taught that those were domestic terrorists and got what they deserved.
It would help if these fundamental disagreements were ever explained rather than just vaguely handwaved. Is this disagreement about whether governments should be subservient to the People, and the idea of Constitutional rights and the rule of law in general? Or is it more philosophical like the people who were killed are now in the afterlife so their deaths aren't really a big deal? Or is it less universal like the people who were killed are of a different tribe so their being killed is right and just? Those are the avenues I can think of. If I am missing one please volunteer it!
For example, if citizens don't like a law enforcement policy, are they entitled to physically confront law enforcement to exercise a "heckler's veto" over the policy? And how should the predictable consequences of such confrontations be weighed against the state's legitimate interest in carrying out the law enforcement priorities of the democratically elected government?
Similarly: Whether you think collateral risk is acceptable depends very heavily on your view of the urgency of the particular law enforcement mission. In a country the size of the U.S., fatalities are inevitable in any large-scale law enforcement operation. Civilians and officers are regularly killed when officers respond to domestic violence incidents. But hardly anybody argues we should stop responding to domestic violence calls because of that. If we had, for example, a large-scale gun confiscation in this country, lots of civilians would get killed. But I suspect many people would resist the argument that a few such deaths would be a reason to abandon the program.
> if citizens don't like a law enforcement policy, are they entitled to physically confront law enforcement to exercise a "heckler's veto" over the policy?
This is still not a strong enough "fundamental disagreement" to explain it. In order for this to be load-bearing, it would have to be something more like whether a law enforcement officer should be able to dole out a punishment of summary execution in response to such actions, which was covered in the first possibility I listed about Constitutional rights.
If you were to openly champion this stance, then we could at least have a conversation! You could lay out your case for why it's time to go against some deep founding principles of this country, and at least we wouldn't be talking past one another! Whereas with weasel words like predictable consequences you're obscuring your fundamental political position.
> the urgency of the particular law enforcement mission
With this we're starting to get into the territory of "alternative facts", and it's disingenuous to call alternative facts a "fundamental disagreement" rather than say "disinformation".
There is no "urgency" here - this is a problem that has been growing for decades. That growth is completely stopped by different mechanisms (border security, visa security, and reforming asylum). Whether it takes two years or ten years to accomplish auditing the entire US population does not matter if there is really a political mandate here.
Narratives about Good's execution that start after her killer had already set up the pretext to execute her (in direct contradiction with ICE's own procedures, even!) fall in this same category.
> Civilians and officers are regularly killed when officers respond to domestic violence incidents. But hardly anybody argues we should stop responding to domestic violence calls because of that
Once again, I have not made an argument that the goal should be abandoned. It seems like you're just trying to go back to conflating the two separate issues rather than staying focused on criticism of the methods. And for what it's worth, clearly many people do criticize the methods of how police respond to calls.
> If we had, for example, a large-scale gun confiscation in this country, lots of civilians would get killed
My initial reaction was that you're trying to precipitate partisan strawmen here. But I would be arguing against the injustice of similar incidents happening under that as well! Also it makes for some quite tortured analogies - under the hypothetical, the pretext for executing Pretti would actually be bona fide illegal.
But on reflection, I think this might be a good way to illustrate the highly anti-American dynamics here. Perhaps not to you, as you were previously a Democrat and I don't think you've since adopted a strong 2A stance (correct me if I'm wrong), but to any actual conservatives who are still holding their nose at what the Republican party has now become. Let's imagine the partisan mirror image here:
Hillary Clinton is elected president, running on a central issue of gun control. She issues executive orders to the ATF/FBI to the effect that the 2A is to be interpreted as applying to only government-chartered militias, and summarily fires anyone who seems like they might resist her mandate. ATF declares that an unobtainable tax stamp is required for every firearm. ATF proceeds to create databases of suspected gun owners, pulling in in data from IRS about businesses, social media surveillance, transfer paperwork that had previously been legally off-limits, etc. Congress is silent, except for pushing through gobs of funding for ATF for its new operations. The Supreme Court is packed with Democrat partisans who might not agree with Clinton's methods, but agree that gun control has been an issue for a long time and are willing to let it ride by sandbagging any substantive cases. As one of their approaches, ATF goes house to house busting down doors in neighborhoods with a high concentration of suspected gun owners. When residents predictably respond by defending themselves in their homes from an unknown intruder, they are summarily executed. There is a whole political movement cheering this on, saying that it's right for those people to have died because they were "interfering with law enforcement".
Would this be at home in a Free society based around individual Liberty and the subservience of the government to the People?
Yes, you can. The county does not appear to be registered land (Torrens title) where the Registry would have some say in whether a transfer is valid. So you can straightforwardly hire a surveyor to draw up a plot plan with many square foot chunks, and then execute and record a different deed for each of them.
My point was that the laws regarding those minimum lot sizes are about buildable lots. Although now that I'm looking into this I think the snag would be trying to record that plot plan, where the Registry would be mechanically looking for a town approval stamp on the plan before they were willing to record it.
But a new avenue has occurred to me that actually saves money on deed costs - nothing prevents multiple corporate entities from jointly owning a piece of real estate on one deed, right? So you could conceivably create one Delaware Series LLC, create an unlimited number of distinct legal entities with that, and then write one deed that lists all of those entities as joint owners of the single piece of real estate. Basically similar to multiple residents living in one house, and each getting a vote (but applied to infinitely scalable corporate entities!)
The fundamental flaw here is the law framing the entity itself as having voting rights (also why this attracts so much attention!), whereas if it were framed such that every beneficial owner with over say 35% of the ownership interest could vote, that would be intrinsically limiting.
This idea is equally wrong for different reasons, but I do have a measure of appreciation for you having abandoned your first intrinsically broken idea upon the first resistance you encountered. Fail fast!
Why would thirty companies that owned a company together get one vote each instead of one thirtieth? The thirty companies would each have one vote in determining how to vote the one parent's vote.
(You are, however, correct to note that you can record absolute gibberish if you want to, so long as you pay the recorder. This does not effectuate a transfer of land, though; it merely serves as constructive notice to the person who is bound to look for such recorded notice, i.e., the beneficial purchaser for value. In a way, you could think of the function of a recorder as preventer of race conditions, not the database).
Well the choice was either accept the likelihood of a common restriction that seems to exist in many places, or dig into the actual specifics of the law in this Delaware county. I don't need to give myself a headache for fun.
Why would thirty companies each get a vote? Because that is what the charter says. There wouldn't be one parent company, rather the real estate would be owned by them all directly as tenants in common.
> 9. A. (2) Non-residents. Every property owner as of March 1 prior to the annual municipal election, whether a natural person or artificial entity, including but not limited to corporations, partnerships, trusts, and limited liability companies, and who is registered to vote, if provided by ordinance, shall have one (1) vote. A natural person shall be a citizen of the United States and age 18 on or before the date of the election. An artificial entity shall be a domestic entity in the State of Delaware.
So they must be Delaware entities. Another thing I'm giving up on is that the Series LLC might not work. While each Series is legally independent from the others, I think they still might not be considered distinct "entities" (once again, not looking to give myself a headache to solidly determine that).
So either do one LLC/corporation per vote, or perhaps trusts might be even cheaper (no idea what filing/recording would be required for trusts, especially to substantiate them enough to register to vote)
I apologize for being dismissive. You have read this a little more closely than I have.
Do you think Section 9A(3), which more or less says these rules would be construed under one person/entity, one vote would break your plan? I believe if you tried to have thirty voters tied to one parcel of land by joint tenancy, that would be how the court stops you. The plaintiff here is arguing vote dilution, but vote dilution gets multiplied by an arbitrary factor in your model.
IANAA. My reading is that "one person/entity one vote" is an extension of the common "one person one vote" where say owning two pieces of real estate or other qualification for an election means you still just get one vote (rather than multiple by having more stake in the outcome). Read the examples around those sections.
There might be an angle where if a given person has the voting POA from two different entities, that person would still only get a single vote, limited by being a natural person? This doesn't seem to be the intent though.
To be [close to] sure you'd have to ask a Delaware attorney, as they should have a good handle on the jurisprudence around this topic.
IANAA, but having looked into it this does very little to actually reduce the liability exposure from small businesses. The minute you do anything yourself, you start to accrue personal liability. The only way to keep the corporate veil intact is to hire other people. So it only works if you're rich enough to hire a management company to do everything (screen tenants, maintenance/inspections, supervise contractors, etc) and you manage it as a purely financial investment. Just like the anonymity aspect doesn't work out in most states unless you're willing to shell out for an attorney to be the manager. In general these laws aren't made to help little people.
It's a low effort partisan comment, but "Republicans" generally represent the naked corporate agenda (bad cop) while the "Democrats" at least try to hide it and throw the People some concessions (good cop).
Don't play coy. We are obviously talking about the overall national political landscape, extrapolating from this one development to its part in a larger trend. The specific politics of Delaware (which team is the incumbent and how the state is openly corporate friendly) don't change that.
I haven't highlighted anything here. I actually characterized the original comment as a "low effort partisan comment".
This development is also not a counter example - Both parties routinely do the bidding of corporate entrenched interests, but they market it in different ways. So an instance of Democrats advancing the corporatist agenda isn't some gotcha like you're making it out to be.
Though perhaps by "undermine" you just mean it's something for other partisans to latch onto to support their own rationalizations rather than coming to terms with that "broader narrative".
While I'm a gun owner, I'm not a gun enthusiast, so I don't really have plans to do anything firearm related. I hope these laws don't become prevalent, because a good way to get me interested in something to tell me that the tools capable of doing it are prohibited, and I'd much rather work on more constructive things.
Ultimately I think a lot of these communities (by which I mean 3d printing itself) need to run far far away from centrally hosted jank like Github et al, which is the only real nexus California has when trying to police technical speech like slicers. Just take the hit, move to self-hosted servers on onion sites, and have automation that copies out the relevant products to the centralized watering holes to attract noobs.
reply