I actually had written an answer about the effects of the 12th amendment on the politics StackExchange that details how the original elections worked (or failed) under the old system.

The interesting thing to me about this is that after Washington, there had always been running mates, and the problem wasn’t that the President and Vice President may be political opponents. The problem was the old system was open to gamesmanship that thwarted the will of the voters.

1796 did not end with an Adams-Jefferson administration because Jefferson came in second. If things went as planned, it would have been Adams-Pinckney instead. But Hamilton preferred Pinckney over Adams and tried to sway the electors for Jefferson-Burr to vote Jefferson-Pinckney instead, which would have led to a Pinckney-Adams administration despite Pinckney campaigning with Adams as his presumptive Vice President. However, his plan didn’t work out, and Jefferson ended up getting the second most number of votes. This led to an Adams-Jefferson administration which was not supposed to happen. This was bad, but the shady dealings happened in the dark, and Adams was at least elected President in accordance to the popular vote. The politicians at the time thought that they could just sweep this under the rug as they now had a better understanding of how to manage their electors.

But, that turned out to be false. In 1800, they planned to be smarter with allocating the electors’ votes, but the Democratic-Republicans failed and accidentally cast the same number of votes for both Jefferson and Burr. Under the Constitution, a tie is decided in the House, and the makeup of the House meant that Federalists had the advantage. They preferred Burr over Jefferson, so they tried to subvert the election and appoint a Burr-Jefferson administration rather than Jefferson-Burr. Hamilton ultimately convinced the Federalists to relent and give the election to Jefferson. This was now the second time that Hamilton intervened to orchestrate the results of the election, and this time, it was all out in the open on the House floor. Furthermore, in both of these instances, Hamilton’s actions screwed over Burr, leading to the infamous Hamilton-Burr duel that left Hamilton dead and Burr disgraced. So not only did the election show that this Constitution was failing in the democratic ideals of the revolution, it also led to the untimely downfall of two of the country’s top political leaders.

So yes, the 1796 election exposed a pretty major issue, and the 1800 election showed that that issue could not be ignored. However, if you’re suggesting that the 1796 election led to the 12th Amendment because it showed the problems that arise when the President and Vice President are not politically aligned, I’m not so sure. It’s possible, but I don’t think that was a revelation to them. At the very least, the parties at the time were always trying to fill both offices with specific people, even before the 12th Amendment. The biggest problem they were trying to address was the way that the old system could be gamed by political elites.

Also, sorry for the big wall of text. I just find this to be a very interesting topic.

It’s not so much that as that the coalitions and eventual parties wanted to hold both seats, so they ran multiple candidates with the assumption that one would be president and the other vice president. The electors would then structure their votes to ensure that the correct person was elected to each position. However, with the difficulties in long-distance communication at the time, this was prone to error. In 1800, this almost led to the candidate for vice president being elected as president.

After that, they realized that it didn’t make sense to use one slate if candidates for both positions, so they separated out the ballot into president and vice president. That’s essentially how the elections had been running up to that point (particularly because they always had two votes to cast), but it was to easy to make a mistake. Both before and after the amendment, there was a presidential candidate with a running mate vying for the vice presidency.

deleted by creator

He was a 19 year old man in the Netherlands talking to a 12 year old child in the United Kingdom on Facebook. He traveled to see her in the UK, got her drunk, raped her, and then attempted to get a hotel room with her. They couldn’t, so they slept under a stairwell and he raped her twice the next day. She had told him at one point that he was hurting her, but that didn’t stop him. After that, he flew back to the Netherlands and told her to go to a clinic for contraception.

So they were essentially strangers to each other with a significant age gap. I don’t know what her exact intentions were when speaking with him, but she was 12. Even if she were thinking about sex, it would not have been with an understanding of what that actually meant. She wasn’t just under age, she was well under the legal age of consent. There’s a reason that children cannot legally consent to sex.

Also, he’s never really shown any remorse for his actions. At best, he’s said that it was the biggest mistake of his life, but his overall stance seems to be that he regrets getting caught rather than raping a child. He’s much more angry at people calling him a pedophile than he is at himself for doing wrong. So your final points may be true, but they aren’t really relevant to his case because it doesn’t appear that he could be considered rehabilitated. He’s merely completed a prison sentence which was made lighter by Dutch law not classifying his actions as rape at the time.

“Jones” is an American slang word meaning to be addicted to something, so “jonesing” for something means to crave something very strongly, and generally very vocally.

“Breve” is a coffee drink that is commonly made with half-and-half, which is a product that is equal parts cream and milk. I assume that people have taken to using the term to refer to half-and-half itself, but I’ve not personally heard that.

So the sentence is saying that their cat was addicted to half-and-half and would act like a junkie doing anything to get their next fix.

In case you missed the joke, this is a reference to how John Hinckley Jr shot Reagan because he thought it would impress Jodie Foster. It’s posted today because of the assassination attempt on Trump yesterday.

That’s ignoring my point. You introduce the word “persona” in order to describe yourself in a nongendered way. In Spanish, this is necessary because many adjectives need to correspond in gender with the object they are describing. If I’m describing a person directly, I need to assign them to some gender in order to properly form the adjectives.

That is, if I wanted to say precisely that “I am American”, not that “I am an American person,” I could say either “Soy Americano” or “Soy Americana.” The former means that I identify with the masculine grammatical gender, and the latter that I identify with the feminine grammatical gender.

Well, as somebody that identifies as a man, I’d go with the former, but it ends up saying more about myself than the English version of the sentence does. How do I specifically say, “I’m American” without relaying my gender identity or assigning myself to a category such as “person” (well, perhaps I could speak authoritatively to somebody about their native language, and that would be enough to convey the idea). In practice, this doesn’t matter, but I’m speaking very narrowly about semantics. Semantically, it’s hard to express that concept in Spanish with as little information as I’m able to provide in English. I either have to express my gender (or at the very least, one gender that I do not identify with), or indicate that I’m a person.

But if you were to say that you were Latino or Latina, the sentence would be grammatically correct either way. The only difference is in your gender identity. You have to assign a grammatical gender to yourself to construct the sentence, and that is where your gender identity comes into play.

And that’s ultimately the crux of the joke in this post. Somebody says that they are neither masculine nor feminine (i.e. nonbinary). They are then given two choices of words to describe that aspect of themselves and instructed to choose one based on whether they are masculine or feminine.

No. The individuals will work with other like-minded people across the government to accomplish their goals. The party affiliation helps you understand who they will plan to work with and what goals that group will be striving to accomplish. That is ultimately the most important thing to consider when voting: which group will be empowered to advance their goals.

Well the origins were laudable, it’s just that it was shortly thereafter extended for racist means. Binet and Simon wanted to see if they could devise a test to measure intelligence in children, and they ultimately came up with a way to measure a child’s mental age.

At the time, problem children who did poorly in school were assumed to be sick and sent to an asylum. They proposed that some children were just slow, but they could still be successful if they got more help. Their test was meant to identify the slow children so that they could allocate the proper resources to them.

Later, their ideas were extended beyond the education system to try to prove racial hierarchies, and that’s where much of the controversy comes from. The other part is that the tests were meant to identify children that would struggle in school. They weren’t meant to identify geniuses or to understand people’s intelligence level outside of the classroom.

The list says there’s not enough space for that item.

The ask that YouTube manage their system better. Currently, they assume that a copyright claim is valid unless proven otherwise, and it is difficult for content creators to actually get them to review a claim to determine if it is invalid. So, a lot of legitimate users that post videos without actually violating anybody’s copyright end up being permanently punished for somebody illegitimate claim. What we want is for YouTube to, one, make it more difficult or consequential to file a bad claim, and two, make it easier to dispute a bad claim.

However, that’s not going to happen because the YouTube itself is legally responsible for copyrighted material that is posted to their platform. Because of that, they are incentivised to assume a claim is valid lest they end up in court for violating somebody’s legitimate copyright. Meaning that the current system entails a private company adjudicating legal questions where they are not an impartial actor in the dispute.

So your concern is legitimate, but it’s ignoring the fact that we already are in a situation where a private company is prosecuting fraud. People want it to change so that it is more in favor of the content creators (or at least, in the spirit of innocent until proven guilty), but it would ultimately be better if they were not involved in it whatsoever. However, major copyright holders pushed for laws that put the onus on YouTube because it makes it easier for them, and it’s unlikely for those laws to change anytime soon. That’s what I’d say we should be pushing for, but it’s also fair to say that the Content ID system is flawed and allows too much fraud to go unpunished.

You’re talking about the court system. They are talking about Content ID. YouTube makes it easy to submit faulty copyright claims with little repercussions if they fail, so there are more fraudulent claims than you’d see in the actual court system. They want YouTube to penalize the abuse of their system more strongly so people that upload videos don’t have to deal with so much shit.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it means to cut in a wasteful manner, particularly in terms of fabric. From elsewhere, it looks like it’s also used in construction in regards to cutting material such that the remaining sections are not usable for other purposes.

However, I’m not sure how stale bread discourages such cuts.

If you want similar, yet opposite, I would suggest Sebastian Lague. He has a slow output of high quality videos, which are interesting “coding adventures” where he goes in depth about learning some aspect of software. He’s much more relaxed than Code Bullet, but he’s similar in that the videos are primarily about the process of implement some project and showing the failures along the way.

I can’t read this article due to a paywall, but I know that Janet Yellen has been leading an effort to set a minimum corporate tax rate worldwide. I don’t know what her stance is on wealth taxes in general, but I wouldn’t be surprised if she’s just trying to ensure that a minimum corporate tax rate work is not derailed by changing the target to something more controversial.

I was more so responding in regards to the original posters comment regarding the lack of justification as distinguishing this act from murder. If the police officers were allowed to kill him under the law, it is not murder. Murder, by my sources (which show the English-language definition) as well as yours (which show the legal definition), is a legal term that applies to a subset of acts of homicide.

Murder is a specific kind of homicide which is defined as the “unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.”

• Merriam-Webster
• Encyclopedia Britannica
• Dictionary.com

He’s referring to what he said when the Senate acquited Trump after he was impeached by the House.

Trump’s lawyers are trying to argue that he can’t be prosecuted by the courts for actions he took as president unless he is first impeached and convicted in Congress for those actions. When Trump was impeached and acquitted in 2021, McConnell stated that Congress can’t impeach him as he is no longer in office and that the matter is an issue for the criminal justice system.

As shit as McConnell is, he is not confused with his dates right now, and his statements from 2021 are very relevant to this case and have been discussed in the news a lot recently.

I’m also not sure what’s wrong with your quoted text. Nothing about it sounds confused to me.

US News (Feb 14, 2021): Text of McConnell’s Speech

President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office, as an ordinary citizen, unless the statute of limitations has run, still liable for everything he did while in office, didn’t get away with anything yet – yet.

We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one.

I hate oranges in general, and by extension, anything that is orange flavored or scented. I’m assuming I’m not alone in that (though it usually soaks a lot of confusion with people that I meet).