Ontopic Poo-litical Thrad

wetwille

Vegan Bow Hunter
May 24, 2018
11,287
12,675
323
59
Mid MIchigan
Marklar
₥53,753.48
and if that's the case it would already be covered by suicide clauses, right? so was this bill meant to address situations where that wasn't the case? this sounds like snarky questions but I genuinely haven't had time to read the bill & I'm asking in good faith; I know sometimes new bills DO cover stuff that was already covered just to make a statement (e.g. the one WI tried to pull about saving aborted babies that survive) so I can't assume
I'm not following the bill per se - I was responding to immi's comment.
 

august

I’m always wet in my basement area
Sep 23, 2006
8,687
8,710
323
Madison, WI
Marklar
₥12,123.14
This shit is more than a little worrying...

I'm torn bc that's a common enough slogan that were it anyone else I'd be willing to give the benefit of a doubt, but this guy LIVES for these dogwhistles & plausible deniability
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: adi and APRIL

HipHugHer

Looks like Ted Nugent, Smells like Sasquatch
Apr 18, 2016
23,558
35,026
573
78
Marklar
₥89,643.86
If the suicide bomber was the one that bought the policy then it would be unfair to allow them create the conditions the policy has to be paid on. That would be like me blowing out the engine on my car(not insurance to be had) and then fire-bombing it so I could get a complete payout on a vandalism claim. Life insurance almost always has a suicide clause or a 1-3 year period before it would be covered.

I agree it sucks for the family. I'm sure some people do that intentionally, just to FUCK their family.
Evil as fuck - I love doing Plaintiff's work for that reason.
That's the wording that was slipping my mind.
Buy the policy then directly create the conditions for the payout, aka fraud.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: wetwille

august

I’m always wet in my basement area
Sep 23, 2006
8,687
8,710
323
Madison, WI
Marklar
₥12,123.14
Looked at the bill now - I'm not in favor of people being able to take or make intentional acts(or omissions) so 3rd parties can collect insurance benefits from it. I don't think that many people will be affected. Sorry, you don't get to keep daddy's stolen money.
this bill is specific to terrorism though, right? within the scope of that specifically, we are not terribly good at applying that label appropriately or justly. white dude domestic terrorists get written off as lone wolves with unfortunate mental illnesses.
 

wetwille

Vegan Bow Hunter
May 24, 2018
11,287
12,675
323
59
Mid MIchigan
Marklar
₥53,753.48
this bill is specific to terrorism though, right? within the scope of that specifically, we are not terribly good at applying that label appropriately or justly. white dude domestic terrorists get written off as lone wolves with unfortunate mental illnesses.
Ok, so remove the domestic terrorist part and you're still back to a denial on the insurance claim if it is deemed suicide. IRL the insurance company and the attorney representing the family might come to a negotiated settlement rather than roll the dice at the Court.
Maybe terrorist just have an unfortunate mental illness. Maybe the insurance company should do some digging to see if they can pin a terrorist label on more white guys whose legacy is getting a pass on who and what they really stood for.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: HipHugHer

Domon

enjoys a good porkin'
May 19, 2011
41,614
24,213
473
Marklar
₥43,115.69
I'm torn bc that's a common enough slogan that were it anyone else I'd be willing to give the benefit of a doubt, but this guy LIVES for these dogwhistles & plausible deniability
uhh, the crowd was chanting "send her home". About a us citizen, whos home in in minnesota, which is where she is.

So... i guess they were technically correct, but im guessing thats not what they meant.
 

HipHugHer

Looks like Ted Nugent, Smells like Sasquatch
Apr 18, 2016
23,558
35,026
573
78
Marklar
₥89,643.86
this bill is specific to terrorism though, right? within the scope of that specifically, we are not terribly good at applying that label appropriately or justly. white dude domestic terrorists get written off as lone wolves with unfortunate mental illnesses.
Would have to find out if any of the white terrorists got life insurance payouts or had policies that allowed for suicide by cop or something to really make a valid comparison. You might be right, we just don't know without that information.

In the end, taking out a policy on a life and then directly by your own hand (or hiring it done or finding a volunteer) ending that life triggering the payout is still fraud no matter who's doing it.

I can see a valid argument for something like an unknowing or accidental overdose, etc. Not an intentional suicide and certainly not one with the aim of taking others out with you.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: nukes

august

I’m always wet in my basement area
Sep 23, 2006
8,687
8,710
323
Madison, WI
Marklar
₥12,123.14
Ok, so remove the domestic terrorist part and you're still back to a denial on the insurance claim if it is deemed suicide. IRL the insurance company and the attorney representing the family might come to a negotiated settlement rather than roll the dice at the Court.
Maybe terrorist just have an unfortunate mental illness. Maybe the insurance company should do some digging to see if they can pin a terrorist label on more white guys whose legacy is getting a pass on who and what they really stood for.
Would have to find out if any of the white terrorists got life insurance payouts or had policies that allowed for suicide by cop or something to really make a valid comparison. You might be right, we just don't know without that information.

In the end, taking out a policy on a life and then directly by your own hand (or hiring it done or finding a volunteer) ending that life triggering the payout is still fraud no matter who's doing it.

I can see a valid argument for something like an unknowing or accidental overdose, etc. Not an intentional suicide and certainly not one with the aim of taking others out with you.
ok so I don't think we're in disagreement here.

I agree that there are issues with someone using suicide to get an insurance payout. we probably disagree on WHY that's not ok, but we agree that it shouldn't be a thing.

that is also already a thing that is already covered via clauses in life insurance contracts, so this bill is either unnecessary or seeks to expand the scope beyond suicide.

if it expands the scope beyond suicide & the sole determinant for denial of coverage is that it is labeled as terrorism/a death occurring in the pursuit of terrorist aims, we need to seriously address how we define terrorism and how we apply that label, if not to deal with how it HAS been used, then to codify how it WILL be used going forward to avoid reckless use of the label to benefit life insurance companies.
 

HipHugHer

Looks like Ted Nugent, Smells like Sasquatch
Apr 18, 2016
23,558
35,026
573
78
Marklar
₥89,643.86
ok so I don't think we're in disagreement here.

I agree that there are issues with someone using suicide to get an insurance payout. we probably disagree on WHY that's not ok, but we agree that it shouldn't be a thing.

that is also already a thing that is already covered via clauses in life insurance contracts, so this bill is either unnecessary or seeks to expand the scope beyond suicide.

if it expands the scope beyond suicide & the sole determinant for denial of coverage is that it is labeled as terrorism/a death occurring in the pursuit of terrorist aims, we need to seriously address how we define terrorism and how we apply that label, if not to deal with how it HAS been used, then to codify how it WILL be used going forward to avoid reckless use of the label to benefit life insurance companies.
That's fair, reasoned thinking.
Even just the book definition of "violence and/or intimidation for political goals" leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Water it down too much and all kinds of stuff becomes so-called terrorism.