Last line of the article:

Another conservative justice is retiring next year, giving liberals a chance to take 6-1 control of the court thanks to Taylor’s victory.

“Aw yeah, this is happenin’.”

TIL “exposing” counts as “looking at a public figure’s public LinkedIn profile and seeing they’ve worked for RFE/RL”.

Next: groundbreaking news as we look at Andrew Sorkin’s Wikipedia article to expose that he worked at Businessweek.

“Exposed”

Does no exposing

To be expected from The Grayzone.

Also, appliances were way more expensive – both to purchase and (thanks to wasteful energy etc. usage) to operate. Bens Appliances and Junk has a good video on this that I imagine a lot of people are drawing on in this thread.

YET ANOTHER FAKED MOON LANDING PHOTO BY THE LIBERAL GLOBALIST CULTURAL MARXIST ELITE

Clearly referring to countries with three words in their name, like “Antigua and Barbuda” or “Central African Republic”.

I think this perspective is the real copium.

We’ll see by January-ish, I guess, because until then both of our positions are unfalsifiable. But I brought up Vance having nothing with Democratic voters not because it’s impossible to win that way, but because Vance simply isn’t Trump and doesn’t have his uncanny ability to “flood the zone with shit”. He’s shown e.g. with the Springfield, Ohio pet-eating hoax that, like Trump, he’s not above insane, bigoted strawman issues to distract from real ones, but Trump probably almost really has been at the point where he could shoot someone dead on 5th Avenue and have it out of the news cycle two weeks later. (It’s at least starting to turn now thanks to dipshit Republicans caring about e.g. easily visible gas prices.)

Trump isn’t, of course, some magical creature – he’s propped up enormously by Congress, online floods of disinformation by foreign adversaries, right-wing justices, news media, etc. Vance would benefit from some of that. But he doesn’t have this insane, just-now-waning grip over the US’ right-wing where he functionally can’t do any wrong and, if he can, it’s immediately forgotten about. Trump over the last 10 years has accrued an insane followership, and Vance inherits almost none of that. I think that, right now, Vance “enjoys” (or at least prefers) having Trump out in front as an incompetent, buffoonish shield to the general public while he can mostly stand away and do whatever work he wants to.

Edit: I forgot to address the “real copium” part, and enequivocally: no, it isn’t. I badly want Trump out of office. I hold this belief despite what I’d want to happen (recognizing impeachment at this point is effectively impossible).

Vance is waiting for January so Vance can do two more terms for a total of a decade…

I see this as total, baseless cope. Vance was carried into office by Trump and has minimal popularity with Republicans – while Democrats despise him. If Vance were seeking power, he would know the 25th (not necessarily Section 4) would be his only chance at the presidency. If Trump is allowed to fuck everything up for two years, then Vance swoops in and says “I declare bankruptcy the 25th!”, it’s somehow successful, and he’s left barely cleaning up Trump’s mess for two years, he may have a shot in the primaries, but he has none in the general. The guy has the charisma and likeability of a wet sock, and he knows it.

That is, it’s the exact opposite: if Vance were seeking power by usurping his way to the presidency, now would be the opportune time to do it; he’d have the most time, and the iron is getting red-hot.

The motors make a surprising amount of noise when operating, so LG designed the phone to play a musical chime to hide the sound.

💀

You know what? Fuck off. You don’t know this cop; you don’t know that there’s not a black man handcuffed under that table having the life extinguished from him while the cop plans how best to beat his children when he gets home.

And so what if he isn’t extrajudicially murdering a black man in that image? You don’t know how many died by his hand that day before he sat down on his lunch break. Are cops not humans who deserve breaks now? “Defund the police” because they stopped for a few minutes to have a bite? They’re just supposed to be perfect?

You leftist loonies make me sick. #backtheblue

Or triplets in January and one in November, or one in January and triplets in November (but it was definitely these two months). She’s crazy – capable of anything.

Bumblebees are pretty gentle, and whereas I used to be extremely scared of bees (and especially bumblebees because of their size), I find them adorable to observe up-close now that I’ve gotten over my fear.

However, the question I would ask regarding petting is: why? When I pet a household dog or a cat, it’s ideally because I think it comforts them, and at worst (if they’re mildly annoyed and I don’t realize), it’s never going to harm them.

For the bee, though, it’s probably strictly uncomfortable for them to have a being 50,000 times their size come up and start putting pressure on them. (Bumblebees can distinguish noxious stimuli, but they do still respond somewhat to regular tactile stimulation; see p.3.)

Their wings and legs are fragile, and it’s not like they can’t be accidentally provoked into stinging you. If they’re just minding their own business, it’s really best to leave them alone, because at best you’re annoying/not comforting them, and at worst you’re physically harming them.

TL;DR: Bumblebees are really cool, but just treat them like you’d treat other wild animals that don’t want to be touched; that you can get so close to them and watch is already a blessing.

It doesn’t seem like there’s an especially substantial call for the 25th Amendment, buuuuuut the 25th isn’t strictly a downgrade to impeachment:

• First, yes, impeachment is only 50% House, 66.7% Senate. Boom, out, donezo. Taking the numbers alone without any other context, that’s easier than VP, majority of department heads, 66.7% Senate, 66.7% House (which is even more far-right than the Senate).
• However, when invoking the 25th, the VP and a majority of department heads are the ones who initiate the proceedings, and there’s an active, visible struggle for power within the Executive Branch.
• If the cabinet were to effectively throw a coup (because let’s be honest: none of the ghouls in Trump’s cabinet give a flying fuck about his ability to execute the law and would not be in it for the betterment of the US), then it gives a major swing in credibility compared to just a House impeachment. This is especially true because Section 4 has never been invoked.
• I would argue for this reason that, while removal of Trump by Congress via impeachment is functionally impossible, public opinion would swing wildly if Trump’s cabinet started 25th Amendment proceedings, and it also puts the initial onus on Trump to establish that he’s capable rather than the onus on Congress to establish that he’s not (or rather, that he committed “high crimes and misdemeanors”).
• Thus, you can maybe swing for the fences with the 25th if you can convince enough of Trump’s cabinet that Trump is a sinking ship (and thus Vance becomes POTUS, debatably in his own self-interest). Impeachment isn’t overcoming the numbers game, but the 25th could (just potentially) change the numbers.
• It’d be divide-and-conquer: the Democrats all want Trump out of office ASAP (obviously, because they’re sane), while the Republicans in the House and Senate would be reckoning with siding with Trump or siding with his cabinet (and whoever their supporters are) – all while the general public bleeds remaining faith in Trump as even his cabinet are challenging his fitness, and while the question at hand is a lower bar than “high crimes and misdemeanors”. In an impeachment trial, it would just be “Democrats or Republicans” to the Republicans.

TL;DR: The argument for the 25th is that, if you can get the ball rolling, it might actually be possible compared to impeachment proceedings which currently, inarguably, are not.

If you can cheer, you can boo.

Sure, and that’s a fine opinion to have. I disagree they need to be treated the same way, yet I support his booing regardless of the consequences, and if it were up to me, Trump would be barred from the venue anyway and no booing would happen (not that he functionally could be right now as chairman).

It doesn’t make what happened to him even remotely a constitutional issue. This isn’t even a little ambiguous; you’d just have to entirely not understand or willfully, grossly misinterpret the 1A to drag it into this.

Wiseman is the oldest to travel out of LEO.

Has anyone proven that subway tomatoes, lettuce, etc. are actually nutritionally worse than supermarket equivalents?

If you’re looking toward iceberg lettuce for any kind of nutritional value (which teeeechnically it has) to the extent you’d be worried about a comparison between Subway and grocery, god help you, and I hope either the famine or your sea voyage is over soon.

That means his freedom of speech was oppressed.

• You don’t understand what the Kennedy Center is, do you?
• “By officials” in this case means by the Kennedy Center’s security, which are not agents of the US government.
• Again, though, even if the Kennedy Center weren’t a public–private partnership, I can’t just walk into a federal building and start making a disturbance expecting not to get kicked out. (Or in this case, just pulled aside for a few minutes before the play started and almost certainly given the option to wait or leave the venue.)

“His freedom of speech was oppressed” in functionally the same sense that it is if I get banned from a social media platform or kicked out of a library for making a disturbance. It’s not even remotely a First Amendment issue, and him citing the 1A is bonkers.

I think in another life you’d be supporting those obnoxious, far-right “First Amendment auditors” who walk into e.g. a library or USPS building, start making a scene, and think that being kicked out means their constitutional rights have been impinged. Not because you have ill intent but because you fundamentally do not understand what the 1A does or is supposed to do.

Yeah, I think it’s been long enough that removing the evil control would kill the host.

I did read the whole article, and I don’t feel like that excerpt addresses it at all. He says “being questioned about speech”, but what that questioning entailed or whether he was allowed to leave (in which case, that’s not actually detainment) is never addressed.

(Aside to the detainment question: e.g. libraries are government-funded; I can still be kicked out of them if I start yelling in one. The Kennedy Center is a public–private partnership, and this was private security, but it’s not like rules still don’t apply if I walked into a fully federally owned government building. I think his argument that his being kicked out of the theater temporarily for loudly booing before the show “undermines the First Amendment” because the Center receives federal funding is nonsense, even though I wholeheartedly support his booing. He notes that there was positive disruption like clapping from others, but it doesn’t “undermine the First Amendment” that he was singled out to temporarily leave.)

I’m confused what “detained” means in this context. The article Advocate is reporting on is from the Washington Blade, and it says Ramirez booed once Trump showed up in the balcony box, was “briefly detained by security” until the lights dimmed and the play started, and Ramirez watched the play. Does it mean that Ramirez was given the option by security to either leave or sit outside the theater until the play actually started?

Of note is that Ramirez is a journalist, but he wasn’t acting as one when this happened. Maybe other people get different vibes, but I feel like the title implies that – since a journalist being detained usually conjures imagery of arresting someone actively reporting something for a news outlet to silence them.