- 1 Post
- 65 Comments
You’re moving the goalposts. Neither the person you’re replying to nor the article mention anything about relaxing the standard. All of the legislation and proposals in this area come from Republicans trying to make it harder for non-citizens to vote.
The article is pointing out the boogyman nature of this focus from the right. I would go a step further and say that this focus is an effort to disenfranchise working class voters by throwing more paperwork between them and their vote. I might even go another step and say that it’s an effort to delegitimize our elections by claiming fraud to pave the way for illegitimate power grabs (like Jan 6).
Has this changed? It used to be that sexting was explicitly just referring to sending nudes and the surrounding horny conversation. If you’re right, the definition has broadened to include flirting or locker room humor.
What should really happen is Dr Disrespect should release the DMs (after redacting any details of the minor) so we can stop speculating about how bad this is.
Personally, I just find it really disappointing. This Tik Tok issue could have been an opportunity to improve privacy and reduce data collection across the board. Instead, it’s a surgical strike in order to not disrupt American tech companies doing the same thing.
What will happen is that Bytedance will sell the US Tik Tok to an American VC firm and it will continue data hoarding as before. This time, the US government will be getting the data instead of the CCP. I’d rather nobody got it.
the Biden impeachment… zero evidence, no specific crime identified.
Biden has not been impeached. There is an upcoming inquiry which is tasked with investigating Biden’s potential business dealings with foreign nations. The purpose is to gather evidence and identify crime if appropriate. Hot take: if there is evidence of a crime, he should be impeached. I think the inquiry is largely political but if they do find evidence of a crime, it should be publicly known.
Overall, I don’t think we should be fighting fire with fire. Then we’re just sinking to their level. If my political opponent is doing illegal things, let them stand trial. Trump has a ton of indictments meant to bring about justice. I just think the legal process is too slow for the left to feel satisfied right now. Give it time.
The take is nuts. The amendment clearly applies to all state and federal politicians, judges, and beurocracts. It seems silly that it wouldn’t apply to the highest position as well, even if a literal interpretation wouldn’t include the president. The court agreed with that interpretation.
During the civil war, the president was Lincoln. Obviously he’s not involved in insurrection. As a result, the amendment didn’t clearly include the president. After the civil war, the government officials of the Confederacy was a matter of public record. So you obviously didn’t require them all to stand trial before barring them from office. The amendment was written to keep confederate officials from regaining power. It was general enough to include any insurrection. Now we’re in territory the amendment wasn’t directly written for so it makes sense to interpret it with the original intent in mind. The standard for insurrection isn’t clearly defined so the courts are exercising their ability to interpret it. If they didn’t have this ability, any gun control legislation would require an amendment.
In all of the indictments Trump has received relating to the election, he hasn’t been indicted for insurrection. Which tells me the prosecutors don’t feel they can prove it in a criminal court. I believe even Trump is innocent until proven guilty. Rule of law should trump political ideals.
I mentioned in another comment but I think conviction should be the bar. During reconstruction, we bypassed due process on this because it obviously applied to anybody holding office in one of the seceding states. Now that we’re in territory the amendment wasn’t directly written for, it’s appropriate to review the interpretation.
One of the arguments of the defense was that the specific wording of the amendment meant it didn’t apply to the President. If we go with the specific wording of the amendment, we get pretty far from the intended effect of the amendment. The court agreed that the amendment applied to the president despite some discrepancies, but disagreed on whether due process would be violated by limiting the ballot.
For sure they presented and debated evidence about whether Trump actually participated in an insurrection, and to what extent. But this court wasn’t deciding whether Trump is guilty of a crime. It was deciding if the state can limit Trump’s ability to appear on the ballot. A criminal conviction would require a trial and a focused scope. This is not the due process for that conviction.
Reposting my comment from another thread. Remember to bee nice:
Personally, I don’t think Trump should be on any ballot because he has a history of undermining democracy. It’s self-defeating for a democracy to allow non-democratic actors to participate.
That said, I also agree with the dissenting opinion. Without a conviction of insurrection, a court shouldn’t be able to limit democratic participation. That would be denying a person due process. I suspect the supreme court will see it that way too.
If you disagree with me, just imagine how this precedent could be used by the right against a left-leaning candidate. If democracy is limited without a conviction of insurrection, you’ll see this applied to candidates on very shaky grounds.
Why do they want to step into what we are doing here?
I think there’s a much simpler explanation. Elon’s actions are causing users to want to leave the platform. Meta wants to pounce on this opportunity. ActivityPub is an established, open source protocol that allows Meta to quickly spin up a Twitter competitor. The federated nature means that Meta can reduce regulatory risk. At the same time, they can lobby for increased scrutiny of Twitter since it isn’t interroperable like Threads.
I have no idea if this is actually how Meta is strategizing. But what I definitely know is that Meta absolutely doesn’t consider federated social media a threat. They aren’t trying to squash us. They’re aimed at Twitter. If they make some change that degrades the experience for us, absolutely we should consider defederation. Until then, let’s try to make some converts out of Threads users.
I’m using my leverless modified Quanba Obsidian for SF6. I really like it and it packs into a bag a lot easier than a traditional stick. My only gripe with virtually all leverless: the directions and attacks are too close together. I get that the up button is meant to be usable by both thumbs but I only ever use it with my left thumb. More often, I’ll accidentally bump it with my right thumb or bump an attack with my left index. Maybe one day I’ll make a custom faceplate but not anytime soon.
Came here to say fighting games. SF6 is attempting to address this with the whole single player mode. The Battle Hub also serves as a better spot for casuals. I’m hopeful that more fighting games take a better approach to teaching the game. When I first booted SFV, there was a 2 minute tutorial teaching you how to move and block and then it just cuts you loose. We’re likely in the next golden age of fighting games. It would be a shame if Tekken fumbled the bag with poor new player on-boarding.
I’ve always had some competitive multiplayer game. I’m competitive and it gives that energy an easy outlet. In order those games have been:
- TagPro - great browser-based game with a strong competitive community
- CS:GO - I got tired of the long games and potential for bad teammates to ruin the experience
- Smash Ultimate - love the game to death but the online experience eventually forced me to only play offline
- Street Fighter 5 - got into it during the pandemic
- Street Fighter 6 - my current everyday game. tons of fun.
Exactly. Assuming that he actually has proof (big reach), then he would have had to know it before he started doing illegal stuff in 2020. Even then, the obvious question would be why didn’t he go through the courts to fight it? Of course, he did and lost every time. This means that even if he does have proof now, he didn’t have it when he was trying to steal the election “back” or he would have presented his proof then.
I’m not expecting any real evidence to be shown in this press conference. It will be an obvious attempt to induce rage in his base to distract from the facts presented in court.
I’m not really interested in what a executives and union leaders have to say in this case. Both are shielded from harm and have an agenda. I wish this article interviewed some of the Yellow union members to see what they think. Do they feel like they were sacrificed for UPS worker benefit? Do they feel like the mismanaged company was doomed anyway? I wish I knew.
Milei — who has four dogs named Milton, Murray, Robert and Lucas, after US economists — argued that “market failures do not exist” and ruled out state subsidies to stimulate nascent industries such as green energy. He also advocates for all infrastructure to be built by private companies. Gustavo Weiss, president of Argentina’s construction business association, said “only 15 to 20 per cent” of projects can be delivered solely by the private sector
Oh man. Even most libertarians concede that roads should be govt funded.
Wait… What’s wrong about this?