I’m not super interested in defending trump or Missouri, but he was neither sentenced in general nor convicted of a felony, or running for office, in Missouri.
So other than the name and inspiration, none of this even applies to him.
I was just pointing out that in Missouri, felons aren’t completely disenfranchised. Yay marginally better civil rights than a lot of people assumed!
Felons actually can vote in Missouri if they’ve completed their sentence. This includes parole and probation terms.
Permanent disenfranchisement is actually less common than people think. It’s still too common by far, and we need to revisit the reasoning for disenfranchisement while incarcerated or on probation, but in most of the country a felony doesn’t prevent voting permanently.
There’s a whooopoooole lot of factors that can be involved, and it can be a combination of all of them.
Background: microwaves don’t just heat water, they heat things with molecules that, like water, have a lopsided electric charge. When the microwave energy comes in contact with something, it either goes through it without interacting, bounces off of it, or is absorbed. Light with a window, a mirror and black paint is the same.
Lopsided molecules absorb the microwave and wiggle, and wiggly molecules are what we perceive as hot.
Microwave safe items are transparent to the microwave energy, and it goes through to the food.
Depending on the material your plate or bowl is made of, it might not be properly microwave safe. Some ceramics have the lopsided molecules microwaves like, so they get hot.
The bowl might also be made of a material that transfers heat really well. Think about how air from a hot oven is tolerable to have hit your face but significantly colder water is lethal.
It’s in continuous contact with something that’s getting up to boiling, the steam on the food, and so it gets hot quickly and transfers the heat to your hand easily. Since water can absorb a ton of energy before turning to steam, the energy is there for a while and there’s plenty to heat the bowl.
Finally, microwaves have hotspots, even with the rotating tray. This can work with either of the previous two things to allow the food to stay cold while pumping a lot of energy into the bowl or one spot in the food. It’s why a lot of reheat functions run the microwave and then sit for a few minutes:it lets the heat from the hotspots even out.
I was a bit skeptical as well, but there’s at least one seemingly reputable academic researcher who says as much: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-war_protests (first citation).
So even if it wasn’t, one could easily be forgiven for the mistake.
The estate has a duty to maximize the value of the liquidation, and pay back creditors as best it can. Specifically to settle the debts.
While a creditor can’t dictate the value of the estate, they can offer to forgive debt, which is the same for the purposes of the estate.
If the cancelled debt would have been worth more than the cash, then the creditors would be rightfully furious if the state instead sold the asset for less cash and paid them that way.
If you owe me $50k, and I tell you your watch is worth $5k to me, and instead you sell it for $250 and give me that while declaring bankruptcy so I don’t get anything else, that’s a terrible outcome for me, and great for you if you sold the watch to your friend who then gave it back to you in exchange for $250 later.
No, that’s actually still the market deciding. It’s a perfectly standard type of auction that discourages low-ball bids. Bidding is secret, you only get one bid, and you don’t know who or if anyone else is bidding.
If you want it, you make your best offer for what you’re willing to pay for it, and if someone else bid more they get it. If you would have been willing to pay more with more rounds of bidding, you should have bid that from the start.
Open-bid auctions get better prices for sellers when there are a lot of bidders, and better prices for buyers when there are few. Given there were two bidders, it’s fair to seek the most either party will bid, rather than seeking $1 more than the maximum the loosing party will pay.
That’s essentially what they did. They chose an auction type where each party offers as much as they’re willing to pay and the highest offer wins. The Sandy Hook families included a chunk of their debt in the offer which was part of the value.
No idea, and not entirely sure why it matters. If your goal is to sell an asset and maximize proceeds, it’s a known and unsurprising strategy, particularly since it gives higher returns when there are few bidders.
So it’s unfortunately not actually a sale until the judge approves it, it’s just an accepted bid.
Sorta like when buying a car. The salesman tells you the price for the vehicle, overpriced perks, and how much your trade in is worth, and you accept the final price. Then the salesman has to get the floor manager to agree, which they always do, because they’re the ones with authority to approve the sale. Then you can sign the paperwork and exchange money and you’ve actually processed the sale. Until then either party can walk away for any reason.
In this case, it’s like the floor manager rejected the sale because the cash part of the sale price was less than MSRP, and they didn’t think the trade in value mattered.
It’s not common for the sale to get rejected, and it’s even weirder for them to reject “not cash” instead of paying attention to value.
The judge saying the estate can’t accept debt forgiveness in lieu of cash is just odd, since it reduces the debt more than the cash would.
Sealed buds are usually better for that.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sealed-bid-auction.asp
Each party is incentivised to make the highest offer they’re willing to pay from the beginning, as opposed to negotiating the best price they can get.
Additionally, the families forgiving a significant amount of money as part of the bid should factor in, since the responsibility of the estate is to get the best deal, not the most cash.
A first price sealed bid auction is a perfectly common type of auction.
It’s functionally equivalent to an auction where you know the value of a thing (like we do a business being liquidated because the owner is in extremely deep unrelated legal debt), and the auctioneer starts by asking for the face value and then progressively lowers the ask until the first person accepts the price.
Instead of trying to get the lowest price possible, people are incentivised to start with their best offer for what they actually think the thing is valued. Allowing follow-up bids encourages people to low-ball and work their way up, which can reduce the price the seller gets for the item.
They’re not similar situations at all. For one, it’s an absurd difference in scale. Whatever your opinions of Amazon delivery driver working conditions and pay, it’s in no way comparable to “an invading army murdered their family”.
Second, whether or not I should push a button to give someone $5 with no obligation on their part is a different situation from getting a bandaid for a murdered family on the whim of the responsible party.
If you could push a button and a random person somewhere in the world gets $1 million, would you push the button?
… What? That’s such a non-sequitor that I’m honestly not sure if you replied to the wrong thing or something.
I can’t say that I would say the same thing in an entirely different situation with nothing to do with the other.
You went from “I like the tea is cheap” to “I bet you’re in love with Elon musk and I hate liberals” in like… No steps at all.
The boss does sometimes have to be bossy. If the workers have a stake in the company that actually matters, then they also actually care about the outcome that the company faces.
You’re not going to vote to drive something into the ground if you think it will provide you with more value not dismantled and in your pocket.
Workers aren’t idiots any more than CEOs are. It’s why worker owned co-ops that elect their management do sometimes vote to reduce their own wages. They have a fair stake and want what’s best for the business because it’s best for them.
Yes, but they’re the cog that makes choices about where to invest the money.
People with 401Ks who don’t know where their money is invested certainly aren’t to blame for corporate evil, even if they, as a block, make up the vast majority of shareholders.
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/08/who-has-retirement-accounts.html
Saying the blame for putting money before lives lives not with the people who control how the money gets invested, but instead with the more than 50% of the country aged 24-64 who have a hands off account seems very strange to me.
Why do you think the investment managers aren’t to blame ?
My point was more that the corporate behavior is geared towards pleasing fund managers rather than retirees or people with retirement accounts.
The fund manager decides where the money goes, so they’re the ones that need to be happy. Yes, legally both the fund manager and the company have a fiduciary duty to the literally millions of people with 401ks that put money into their stock or fund, but in practice it’s fund managers who matter.
If blackrock says that all things being equal, they’re going to preferentially invest in sustainable companies, suddenly companies have an incentive to make themselves sustainable by whatever metric blackrock is using. Likewise when an investment firm doesn’t reduce their stake in an insurance company for harming patient outcomes.
Non-voting means the CEO can be sued by them, but not replaced. It’s a different level of responsibility.
I would disagree that that is an example of generational warfare.
The older people get, the less of their money tends to be in actual stocks, and the shares managed by retirement funds are inevitably non-voting, so they can’t even voice what tiny bit of opinion their fraction of ownership would theoretically get them.
The “shareholders” being performed for are the managers of those investment funds.
Making obscene wealth on stock investing is relatively rare, but making obscene wealth investing other people’s money and then paying yourself an obscene salary out of the proceeds is far more common.
Those are the people who control the massive amounts of money that companies perform for to drive up share prices.
Why own when you can get paid to control? Then your money isn’t on the line and you don’t need to be lucky to get rich.
Ah, the high risk situation of being called to deal with a man falsely accused of a non-violent crime, and an unruly mob of people keeping their distance and “begging the men with guns and armor not to murder a man in the street”. I can definitely understand why shitty cowards would feel threatened.
lied about in court
I’m gonna go with “nah”. He was found guilty, so he’s a guilty murderer.
I’m shocked a bootlicker like yourself would have such doubts in the system. Or is it because they actually found a cop guilty and you just can’t accept such a travesty? Just think of all the black kids he could have threatened!
Go to hell.
He was indeed not running for a state or local office in Missouri.
The law in question did not apply to him, and the bill was just named referencing him.
The entire thing is moot. All I was saying is that Missouri doesn’t permanently disenfranchise felons, and the law being discussed didn’t apply to trump for a variety of reasons.