Removed by mod

WTF is up with Hexbear users?

What makes you think that's likely?

Or wait, are you just Onioning?

Or will you decide which it is later?

Actual libertarians should take note: their right-wing allies were never pro-freedom, just antigovernment. And their opposition to government was never based on the principle of a less authoritarian society, but rather due to the government's role in restraining their own power and authority. Now that they see a path to their traditional role as society's power brokers, they have abandoned their so-called "libertarianism".

I was a Libertarian, with a capital 'L'. I was secretary in my local party. I held signs, knocked on doors, circulated petitions, and was otherwise politically active. I was never particularly comfortable with the low-key racism, patriarchism, corporatism, landlordism, and feudal and monarchial apologism, and otherwise nongovernmental forma of authoritarianism, that always seemed to be present in the movement, in one form or another. But for a long time I figured they were an anomaly in an otherwise decent movement.

But I eventually realized that they were not the anomaly that didn't belong; I was.

"Mothers for America" isn't.

It would make for an interesting lawsuit if this agreement were active and someone who was disqualified from certain state ballots nevertheless won the popular vote. I doubt that'll be Trump (he didn't even win the popular vote before he tried to steal an election). But it would be interesting.

If it were my place to rule on the matter, my take would be that because the agreement was between state governments, only states who are part of the agreement have standing to pursue the matter in court. In other words, the campaign couldn't sue over the matter, only another state government that was also part of the agreement.

In case you didn't already know, I'm pretty sure the agreement isn't active yet. It doesn't activate until there are enough states with enough electoral votes to decide the outcome. To the best of my knowledge, that hasn't happened yet.

"Evidence against Biden". Just a bunch of lines. :p

At first I was like, "Man, the Onion has gone downhill. These stories are supposed to sound both ridiculous and credible, not just ridiculous." Then I remembered that George Santos is a drag queen.

Sweet.

What is this an excerpt from?

Also, the "divine monarchist" point is a weird one. When asked about it, Jesus asserted that his kingdom is "not of this world". And when the Israelite demanded of them relief from the anarchy of the period of the Judges in the form of "a king like the nations have", the response was "don't you already have an even better one?" Which is what John Locke cited when writing against monarchy as practiced at the time.

When James spoke of helping the poor, he said, "is is not enough to say 'be warm and well fed', you must actually give him food and clothing". He might also have said, "it is not enough to say, 'be healed!', you must also pay his medical bill".

Please not that the reason this is even possible is that neither Wisconsin, nor the United States as a whole, has an anti-SLAPP law. (Though it would be better if we just adopted the English Rule.)

It's a bit of a read, but I would say the most important takeaway is to hammer the message that the Republicans, when they complain about "Critical Race Theory", aren't complaining about a real thing. Actual Critical Race Theory is a legal theory you won't find outside academia. Republican "Critical Race Theory" is just another example of how Republicans don't care about truth, even a little bit. They just lie, lie, and keep on lying in order to advance their evil interests.

I'm honestly not sure if I mean that as a compliment or not. They're exactly what it says on the tin, but you can't deny they're an effective bunch.

I'm not saying you are a bot, merely that your argument is weak.

I wonder what their long term goal is. Surely it isn't only to invest ridiculous amounts of money into property with a low potential return on investment. Either real estate investors are taking crazy pills again and we're due for another collapse, or there's a more sinister long term game here.

Bots are cheap, and Lemmy is growing. It would be foolish for them not to get in on this early.

You are right, of course, that leftism != liberalism. But just saying that doesn't count as an argument. I haven't yet seen what Menachem is complaining about, but I will be paying attention.

EDIT: On further read, you guys kind of feel at the very least like the left-wing equivalent of somethingawful.com.

"Your client's defense is supposed to happen in this courtroom, not on the internet," Chutkan told Trump's lawyers.

The Internet is exactly where Trump wants his defense to take place. Contamination of the jury pool is just one of the tactics he will use to try to stretch this trial beyond 2024. He's running for President like a Roman Consul, desperately trying to be in office due to a belief that so long as he's in office, he'll be immune to the legal consequences of his actions.

I'm not, I see the GOP going the way of the Federalists in the near future. My fear is that they won't go down without a long, destructive, and bloody fight.

Indeed, my hope is that the Republican Party collapses. When that happened to the Whigs, the focus issue for the party that replaced them was the abolition of slavery. Here's hoping the moral wing of the next right-wing party comes out swinging similarly strong for labor rights: not just speaking in favor and milking votes the way the Democrats do, but actually dealing with the problem and moving on.

As a heterosexual male, "best boy" is a topic I am unlikely to bring up of my own accord, but I would have no difficulty or discomfort engaging on the topic with ladies and/or gaybros.

That said, sometimes a male character is so compelling he gets ironically assigned the title "best girl".