I argued with family about this more than once since the debate, and it’s endlessly frustrating. I work in the medical field. I’ve worked mother/baby. Still takes way to long to impress on them that this not only isn’t happening, but any remotely similar story they hear is someone twisting the worst day of hopeful parents’ lives around to support their political bias. Real people having their tragedy flagrantly lied about, and being painted as baby killers, for no good reason. It’s disgusting.

Still no idea if I’ve gotten through, but they seem to have stopped bringing it up for now.

Then called her (I think NPR said it was a her) crazy afterwards, implying she was having a mental health episode. Then they’ve gone on to release photos, showing they were blatantly violating federal law after being clearly told they were doing so. Not to mentioned , they allegedly assaulted an Arlington cemetery staff member in furtherance of that violation (I know you mentioned this but I feel it’s worth repeating, there should be multiple people charged for this).

There are over a hundred million working adults in the US, and all of them with their own opinions and needs. Many of them completely out of touch with the world outside of their bubble, and some who even approve of the current trajectory. The idea of organizing a generalized strike is a complete pipe dream. I’d love to see it, but we are nowhere even close to that. We must work with reasonable, attainable solutions.

They’re terrified of seeming political, or making a mistake that will let him walk. Republicans have stacked the courts with people who barely grasp US law, and certainly have no respect for it, and the Democrats have put up glorified bureaucrats. We need a judge willing to force the issue and say “if you were anyone else this behavior would land you jail awaiting trial, so that’s where you’re going.”, Or I dunno, maybe stop giving breaks with fines. Let the morons whine and cry about being biased, or an activist judge; make the USSS have to coordinate with corrections to maintain protection while being held. Show this isn’t a game. Prove that you have some conviction when it comes to the rule of law in the US. History would look kindly on the person who chose the make the right call when it wasn’t easy.

I feel like a broken record with how much I’ve said this in the last handful of years, but: someone needs to be the fucking adult in the room.

I’m pretty sure “did we have a moment?” got me out of a minor ticket once.

I don’t get this. I was raised by a cop, and I’m very comfortable with firearms. Flashing your concealed weapon in public is immature at best. I can think of zero reason to flash a concealed weapon in public (unless you intend to defend yourself with it, right there in that moment), even if someone is asking to see it the answer is, “It’s not a toy”. It’s an object designed to kill, the threat is inherent in revealing it.

Not calling out you specifically, but the irreverent attitude of the loud pro-gun group has pushed me way further left on gun control than I used to be. Actions like OP tell me the leaders advocating for it do not have a healthy or mature view of firearms.

They didn’t specify it would be floating in the water…

Interestingly enough, 2/3 of those are subs I dropped within the last year or so based on a lack of quality/content for what they cost (never bothered with ESPN, NHL games are easy to find). Seems like streaming is starting to collapse a lot quicker than TV did.

Silicon Valley. Great show, gotta love Mike Judge.

That’s been the GOP M.O. for a while, but according to the info presented in the article the Dem appointed judges have actually been slightly more lenient (sentenced less than what prosecution sought 92% of cases, against the Trump appointed 90%).

I’m sure there’s more nuance to it if you look at it case by case, but it seems like across the board judges are handing out lenient sentences for Jan 6.

Ridiculous. Human Ted Cruz is only one being, and not several.

I think it was the Logan Act I was thinking of! Thanks!

Disappointing that it’s never been enforced. While this scenario is not the makings of an diplomatic crisis, it seems a pretty cut and dry example of what the Logan Act seeks to block. It’s a U.S. rep blatantly pushing acting against US diplomatic interests.

I think it would be utter chaos, but I’d love just a single solid year of throwing the book at obvious illegal behavior no matter how trivial. Put the fear of God in some of these morons.

Walberg explicitly encouraged Uganda’s leaders to resist opposition to the law from the U.S.

Can US representative just blatantly undermine US foreign policy, or is this one of those things where it’s wrong but won’t be pursued in any official way?

I’m not sure the comment calling for regulation is a corporate shill. It’s a pretty level-headed look at things imo, because the truth is YT cannot afford to operate for free. We live in a system that just doesn’t allow that, for better or worse. Unfortunately, the way we went about funding things on the internet (outside of ridiculous amounts of capital flowing to startups for years, which doesn’t really apply to YT/Google) was ads, and they have gotten wildly out of hand. This is on top of an insane amount of data harvesting. We have to face the reality that any major, data-heavy platform like YT is going to need significant revenue.

We need a solution to either lower the cost of (opening things up for individuals to host), or more efficiently fund, services we like if they’re going to stick around in the current state of the world. Even if we say “google can eat the cost” we’re still putting all our faith in the goodwill of an entity that is designed to do the opposite of what we’re asking. That’s begging for issues.

Peer-to-peer stuff is the best solution I’ve seen, or self-hosting. I’m far from an expert, but from what I understand the tech just isnt there yet for it to become the norm. All that data has to go somewhere, and storage is prohibitively expensive at a certain point.

Coequal branches of government, that’s well below an 8th grade civics understanding. Crazy that people genuinely believe the Supreme Court is untouchable by congress and the executive, who do they think appoints them?

You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.

In a lot of cases that limbic system is the only shot you have at changing their minds. A massive number of conservatives don’t believe the way they do because they’ve sat down and thought about their worldview. It’s cultural, and has become an identity for them. In many cases it has become directly tied to Christianity, which only worsens the shitty blurring of lines. You’re not going to logic that out, and most need to have their worldview shook pretty damn vigorously to even begin to see things differently.

Some of these people live in a totally different reality. You can’t even begin to find common ground to jump off from without directly challenging their worldview. People turn emotional the moment that happens. Even if you get so far as to present opposing facts they will be mostly ignored/rationalized, and anything accepted will be conveniently forgotten shortly after the conversation. For as many complaints as we see from conservatives about “indoctrination” they made a fine job of doing as much with their base. It’s a much bigger problem than people give credit to – I wonder if that’s due to ignorance of the issue, or if we’re just afraid of looking directly at it.

The number of people who are politically disengaged is staggering. What better to motivate those people than to prompt some anger over an issue and hope they care about it enough to stay angry and vote. Also important to note this stuff is never done alone, there’s other outreach happening at the same time. It’s a numbers game, and those few disengaged folks you got fired up with a stupid ad could make or break you.

That said, I think most attack ads are damaging to political discourse by nature of demanding a concise, pithy message. Never going to get genuine criticism out of that.

Ibuprofen all the way for the flu. I think its a more effective antipyretic, and it will help with the inflammatory response that causes the body aches.

I’m not against rank-choice, I prefer it. I’m just not so short-sighted as to miss how dumping such a change on a population without proper education accompanying it can backfire and poison the idea for some time. Nor am I so reactionary as to call a legitimate concern racist, merely because it involves a minority group. I’m not saying this a failure of the population, I’m saying the population has been failed and we need to compensate for this if this is going to be implemented properly.

Volunteers, groups that already expend effort to educate populations on voting, fucking pamphlets. There are plenty of ways to spread information somewhat reliably. I’m not even saying to avoid implementing rank-choice. I think it would be a net benefit, but I also think concerns over education on the new system are valid. Implementing something like this improperly opens the door to the entire concept being poisoned for the rest of the public, and we should be talking about how a lack of knowledge regarding the new system can inadvertently suppress voters.