And then those files will only be half released and full of redactions because it turns that Trump and the other billionaires have been fucking alien kids too.

The majority of eligible voters already don’t vote. Low voter turnout does not embarrass the rich and powerful, it just makes the system easier to control. Fewer voters means fewer people to answer to, fewer people to influence, and fewer people to shuffle around through gerrymandering.

For fuck sake, they are consistently trying to make it harder for people to vote. They want lower turnout. They know their most loyal supporters will still vote. They’d much rather have their base be the only ones bothering to show up to the polls. They don’t care about legitimacy, they care about winning.

Just waiting for them to come up with a version of this bill that keeps all these same restrictions but which adds an alternative of using digital identity verification processes administered by third parties. Then they can just approve Xitter and the like as verification partners, making the easy route available through platforms their side controls, all with no transparency or accountability.

I used to beat myself up a little for dismissing bitcoin early on and therefore missing a chance at being rich. But then I realized that it was like beating myself up for not winning the lottery just because I know now what last week’s winning numbers were. I would have had to dedicate time, effort and money I couldn’t easily spare into chasing an irrational long shot.

Plus, odds are I would have sold it all the minute it was worth a little, which would be much worse. Or that someone would steal it all, as happened to a lot of people early on.

No surprise there. They don’t give a shit about solving the problem. They certainly weren’t going to put any effort into it. This was all about being able to announce that they brought down prescription drug prices. Well, that and to slap Trump’s name on yet another useless waste of time and money.

I prefer to hear it coming from the Banjo-Kazooie character.

Even if they were following the law and had no agenda or ulterior motives they wouldn’t be about crime. And that’s part of the problem. They avoid constitutional limitations associated with all other forms of law enforcement by having only administrative authority and dealing with civil law.

It’s like giving postal workers body armor and assault rifles and letting them abduct anyone that they suspect might have used improper postage or that had thrown away junk mail addressed to someone else while claiming everyone they attack had been terrorists sending letter bombs.

According to the article, the names were in government documents which they were able to view. There’s no indication that the information was released or intended for release. It sounds more like someone with access leaked the information to them.

It’s possible that this is a lie, but I don’t see how it helps DHS or the administration. I think it’s a lot more likely that there’s a complete lack of standards and accountability at CBP and ICE and that the problem has festered for decades. Being a 10 year veteran doesn’t mean anything if they aren’t enforcing standards and weeding out anyone who falls short.

Not a lawyer and haven’t read the law, but it seems logical that “stalking” isn’t a separate crime from premeditated murder when it’s just determining the location of the target and traveling to reach the target.

Greenland is Iceland.

Bleach is medicine.

E. Jean Carroll is Marla Maples.

I get 3 in 1 but only use it as face and bodywash. I have long hair that doesn’t play nice if I don’t use decent shampoo and conditioner. But the 3 in 1 stuff isn’t any more expensive than other bodywashes and there’s enough fuzz everywhere else that I like a little conditioner in my soap.

[Happy Chewbacca Noises]

From what little I have seen, right wing outlets were interpreting the video as proof the officer was hit by the car because of the way the phone gets jostled at the end. You also can’t see in this video exactly when he draws his gun, or how the shooter is positioned. It’s damning when combined with the other videos, but on its own it’s a lot less clear.

And they also see it as proof that these were “agitators” obstructing “law enforcement” based on the confrontational tone with the woman outside the vehicle. They want to frame the issue as law enforcement vs criminals, rioters and radical domestic terrorists. They want to blame the victim and undercut the narrative that this was an innocent bystander.

Obviously a sane person would recognize that it doesn’t matter if the victim was politically active or even obstructing police, it’s still murder. But these aren’t moral, rational people and they aren’t trying to persuade an audience with legal arguments, just feeding the US vs them mentality.

Trump isn’t personally running the entire federal government and showing up to court to file his own motions and answer questions from judges. Trump and his inner circle may act like they’re above the law, but the people who have to carry out their instructions aren’t immune to consequences.

This is especially true in court. Lawyers aren’t eager to throw their careers away by lying to judges, filing false statements, or openly defying court orders. That’s why the administration has lost so many lawyers and says things in court that are wildly different than what they say everywhere else.

Suing this administration has been a much more effective strategy than most people seem to realize. It’s often a long, drawn out process that wastes time and money, and they drag things out as much as possible. And yes the Supreme Court has been blatantly corrupt in the ways they’ve bailed out the Trump administration. But still, they only take on a small fraction of the total number of cases (and even then, they mostly help them stall cases with temporary orders rather than deciding actual cases).

When the Supreme Court doesn’t intervene, the Trump administration loses or backs down the vast majority of the time.

The 25th amendment is invoked by the cabinet and the vice president. Those are the people supporting this shit, they aren’t going to get rid of him. He’s doing what they want and giving them cover.

I would say that the only thing that could convince them to remove him is if he became such a liability that they felt the need to get rid of him out of self-preservation. But honestly, I don’t think they have the necessary level of awareness. If anything, I suspect most of them would be more likely to double down on being cartoonishly evil and try to do whatever it takes to cling to power.

There is no statute of limitations on murder.

The feds will protect him, but that’s only guaranteed for as long as the current regime is in power. Even if the next administration (or the one after that, or the one after that, etc) isn’t inclined to make a federal case out of it, they could easily decide to just not obstruct justice and cooperate, handing everything over to the state.

She was clearly performing a Y turn to steer around him. You can see him pull his gun out as she’s switching from reverse to drive, and he fires the first shot while she’s barely moving. She continues to accelerate after getting shot and yet he doesn’t get hit, but he does continue firing.

Her intent was obviously to escape, not to inflict harm. His intent was obviously to inflict harm, not to escape.

So the average college graduate does better than the average non-college graduate if they end up with similar work histories.

OK, but those who start and don’t finish end up in debt without the benefits. So you need to factor in the chance of not completing college and the associated drawbacks and factor that into the cost benefit analysis for deciding to start college. Otherwise the argument is about as valid as saying that playing the lottery makes financial sense given the amount of money that goes to the average lottery winner.

Second, the average outcome isn’t the only metric that matters. The average person who pays for most kinds of insurance will get less out of it than they pay in, that doesn’t mean that it’s always a better idea to be uninsured. Hell, the average player in a Russian roulette game turns out fine. Unfortunately, that’s exactly the kind of thinking that tends to dominate conversations around college and particularly student loans. If the majority are better off after college, great. But if have to drop out due to forces beyond your control, or the degree you pursue suddenly becomes less valuable because of an unforeseen shift in the economy, you can still end up buried to your eyeballs in debt with nothing to show for it.

Third, even if you make enough additional income to mathematically offset the debts you accumulate in college, you can’t get back the lost time. Many people have to delay major milestones in life because they’re weighed down by debts on top of all the other brutal economic realities out there. Good luck buying a house. Hope you weren’t too eager to have kids.

Fourth, college might be a better option than not going to college, but it can still seem bad when both options are shitty due to an economy that exists to enrich billionaires.

I’m not saying it’s a mistake to go to college. I just think the article is glossing over the very real problems that come from our atrocious student loan policies, and that perhaps some of the pessimism around college is a symptom of the economy as a whole being rigged against us.

Real people don’t have scripts to read from.

But seriously, listen to the way people talk. It’s chaotic, messy, often unclear and very inefficient. Conversations meander wildly, with dangling threads that are never concluded and often times with people talking past each other as much as to each other. If you wrote dialogue that way it would just be harder for audiences to follow and waste precious screentime.

Realistic sounding dialogue is about writing what a real person would say if they stopped to think for a minute between each statement.

In some states you have to be registered as a member of a party to vote in their primaries. In states with open primaries you can vote in primaries without registering as a party member, but they still typically have party affiliation as an option on the form.

And the microorganisms. He’s gonna need an eternity if he has to go through one by one.