Free speech absolutist, though.
Free speech absolutist, though.
Shocking. Absolutely shocking, I say. It’s almost like we’ve seen this exact pattern a hundred times before.
They’d have to convert half the building into a ranch to be considered neutral.
Hear me out: inbreeding.
Money is kinda important when running a political campaign. Now that the floodgates are open, it’d be shooting yourself in the foot not to use it, even if it’s not the “right thing to do”. Is it somewhat ironic that one needs to accept dark money to have a chance at ending it? Absolutely. But that’s simply the reality of the situation now.
How about we save the cries of “Hypocrite!” until she has the opportunity to end it, yet still doesn’t.
Or shot him as well as 2 bystanders and another cop, and then claimed he had a knife, but that it was subsequently stolen.
Boss makes a dollar, I make a dime.
That’s why I use this app to normalize time.
And you can’t out yourself because, in many workplace cultures, the appearance of knowing is more important than actually knowing. :/
That’s honestly an excellent sanity check on the poll. I did take a brief look at the methodology table, and there were some interesting numbers in there:
[Polled respondent reported political affiliation:]
Republican: 1603
Independent: 1544
Democrat: 1720
Other/Don’t know: 485
As an outside observer, whenever I’ve watched US elections, it’s never been obvious that there have been that many independent voters. It did make me wonder if these are mostly strategic voters who shift their allegiance on election day, or if the MSM simply never accurately conveys just how many independent voters there are.
Funsies ✅
Fundies 🚫
I think either you’re misunderstanding the data, or I am, because it does indeed seem to be 24% of Republicans according to the source:
Most Americans (81%) disagree with the statement, “if Donald Trump is not confirmed as the winner of the 2024 election, he should declare the results invalid and do whatever it takes to assume his rightful place as president,” compared with 14% who agree.
Around one-quarter of Republicans (24%) agree with the statement, compared with 13% of independents and only 5% of Democrats who say the same. Republicans who hold a favorable view of Trump are more likely to agree than Republicans who hold an unfavorable view of him (29% vs. 6%).
If the 24% was the portion of Republicans out of the 14% who agreed, who would the other 76% be?
That seems like a very backwards way to talk about “rights”. They don’t have the right to infringe upon the rights of others, which is the reason they face legal consequences for doing so.
It’d be like me saying “I have the right to kill indiscriminately, and the state has the right to punish me for it,” instead of simply “I don’t have the right to kill indiscriminately.”
For context, not that I’m sure it helps…
https://youtube.com/watch?v=niSLZDVApdQ
Edit: It really was a different time. Everyone thought it was all just a joke:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=oguvSPdtHQ8
But then we entered the dark timeline. :(
Cynical take: Presumably to protect corporations from whistleblowers.
I think what stands out to me is the growing use of legislative power to stop strikes and remove negotiating power from unions. The most recent major example being the then pending rail strike back in 2022.
Sure Trump will be 10x worse, but the Dems really haven’t done enough to address the health and safety of these people, and to protect them from growing corporate exploitation.
Just to be clear, this is a matter of workplace policy, so relating to the law, but not of the law. But yes, it would be prudent to know the policies of your workplace, and doubly so if you’re a goddamned judge.
I feel like there’s something peculiar about those slanty words you used, but who am I to judge?
My spitball theory is that she sees this new Loomer person coming to eat her lunch as token crazy maga lady, so she’s trying to get off her sinking ship.
Cannon had filed the Sage Lodge trips with the federal judiciary’s administrative office but had “inadvertently” not taken the second step of posting them on the court’s website. [The clerk] explained that “Judges often do not realize they must input the information twice."
Seems like a bad system. Why not just have it be done automatically, or have the clerk do it. Presumably the judge’s time is going to be more costly than the clerk’s.
It almost seems intentionally bad so these little oopsies can keep happening.
I think Smith would hate a lot of what’s going on in modern capitalism, TBH.