This stereotype is exactly as true as the idea that, in California, there are parents cutting penises off of their babies because they want to force them to be transgender. And it comes from the same place of tribalism and ignorance.

I’m not saying Alabama doesn’t have problems. Obviously it does. But this weird, “hurr-durr they marry their sisters,” thing is stupid and offensive.

True and fair. But, on the flip side, I don’t remember the last time I saw a private jet plow through a crowd of protestors. So, like, there are trade-offs I guess.

As opposed to cars, which have famously few consequences when things go wrong.

Is your definition of neoliberal “anyone who doesn’t agree with me on 100% of issues?”

If not, can you give examples of issues that someone could disagree with you on which would not get them branded as a “neoliberal”?

No problem.

Looking through the full act, I think it was just a boolean logic issue when writing it.

Every other list in the thing says “and”, but the query at the top of every other list is positively phrased. Like, the guy must do x, y, and z. But when they went to do that one they added a “not” to the beginning, but didn’t realize that that requires you to change the ands to ors.

!(A && B) -> !A || !B

Easy mistake to overlook.

Okay, that took some finding, but I did find the original language in the act. I agree that the “does and mean or” snippet reads bad, but I think it probably does actually mean or. The snippet reads like (not the actual language, just the form)

In order to qualify, the candidate must have never:

• killed a man,
• stolen a car, and
• beaten his wife.

It does say “and,” which means technically a candidate who just killed a man is fine, since he didn’t also steal a car and beat his wife. The “and” side is saying that unless you’re guilty of all three things, you’re an eligible candidate. The “or” side is saying any one is disqualifying by intent of the law.

Here’s the actual text, for clarity:

(1) the defendant does not have— ‘‘(A) more than 4 criminal history points, excluding any criminal history points resulting from a 1-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; ‘‘(B) a prior 3-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; and ‘‘© a prior 2-point violent offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;’’

My read is that saying “must have a 3pt offense and a 2pt offense” is a pretty clear signal of intent for “or.” It’s tough to imagine a scenario where lawmakers intentionally decided to only block people with both types of offense, but not with just one or the other.

But RAW says and, which is probably why the courts ruled that way.

It’s in the article. It’s not that he wanted to save anyone. When he was a kid his dad spent some time in federal prison, so he’s got strong feelings on mandatory sentencing requirements.

And the original law that let him get out early in the first place was passed under Trump #1 and championed by Jared Kushner. It turns out there’s not a clear partisan line on this one.

I ctrl+f’d the article and can’t find that quote in it. Can you point me to it? Or is it from another source?