ChiGoose

There is an easy solution to this. Just read the DoJ filings. The media sucks at stuff like this. It’s a rush to be first, so they make mistakes and sew confusion. So while it’s fine to engage in media criticism, we shouldn’t confuse it with the actual criminal case.

The police report stated that the officers believed it was laminated. Also that DePape stated that he had a hard time breaking through it. Maybe it wasn’t laminated but it doesn’t change the fact that the glass shards were both inside and outside of the door. Also, this part of the conspiracy never made any sense to me. Did they get into a fight and specifically break this one window and absolutely nothing else, but then they made up which is why Pelosi supposedly went back to DePape after opening the door (he didn’t, but people believe he did)?

Just because some people seem to think these are good points instead of what they are: terrible points, let’s take a look. Paul Pelosi called 911 before he was assaulted? How suspicious! You wake up at 2:30am to a stranger in the house, what do you do? Apparently call 911 is the wrong answer. Maybe just sit there and see where it goes? Paul Pelosi answered the door while wrestling a hammer with the assailant? Pelosi opened the door with one hand while keeping the other hand on the hammer the assailant was holding. This is suspicious because… reasons! The broken glass is outside the house?! The broken glass is both inside and outside of the house. Which is to be expected with someone trying to break laminated glass. Pelosi ran back to the intruder! No he didn’t. He was in the foyer when the police arrived. He was wrestling the assailant for control of the hammer and was able to open the door with one arm. This embarrassing insanity of completely ludicrous and improbable conspiracy has already been debunked but I guess it’s always feelings over facts over here.

It does get tough to try to explain things to the most ignorant people on the world who are suffering from internet brain worms. But I guess somebody has to do it.

If you think this is the same as the Jussie Smollett story, you need to log off from the internet for a while. It’s rotting your brain.

Eh, marriage isn’t a word beholden to a specific religion. Catholics get married, Protestants get married, Jews get married, Hindus get married, Muslims get married, atheists get married, etc. In Catholicism, there is the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. The government should not use that term, but to claim that “marriage” belongs to a particular religion is a big stretch.

Or maybe they are a good employee but value stability and/or time with their family. Or maybe simply saying “work harder” is just a really dumb thing that was literally a Simpsons joke about bad management so smart people saw the writing on the wall. I’m sure the other Silicon Valley firms are happy to scoop up all the new engineers out on the market.

Well this certainly turned into a scripture debate, but thankfully the law has enough carve outs for religions that more than 40 religious institutions including freaking LDS endorse it. It’s a good law. Glad it passed.

So I see we are all still doing the moronic bad faith conspiracies under a fig leaf of “just asking questions,” huh?

And how do you know that? My point is that Musk could basically do the exact same thing but over 3-6 months instead of 3 weeks. It would allow for a more orderly approach that would avoid the pitfalls of having to rehire people he already laid off and wouldn’t create the MASSIVE legal exposure he’s currently facing. It also would allow the company to maintain stability which would have prevented the chaos that chased away advertisers and ensure that the top talent would stick around.

There’s a difference between creating a culture that incentivizes your employees to work hard and creating a culture that incentivizes your best employees to leave.

Elon: I want anybody who is good at their job to question whether or not they should work for my company. Normies: That seems like it incentivizes good people to leave. Weird Nerds: Elon is a genius and if you don’t get it, you’re dumb!

Super fun to see people twist the words of fallible slave owners who opposed laws based on religion into the words of unassailable heroes who endorsed a very specific religious view. I suppose that when you divide the country into “us vs them” you’ll need to find some reason to oppose the Them, even if it is completely fabricated.

I calls ‘em as I sees ‘em. Are you arguing that dozens of religious organizations including the freaking Mormon Church have missed a big loophole that was discovered by a random, clearly biased website basically nobody has heard of? Can you point to the text of the legislation that supports your point?

Well this is all certainly nonsense.

Well, this is why I was happy the led with it. Probably 80%+ of Americans just do not care. And the more the GOP prioritizes it, the better for the Dems. What a responsible party would have done was lead off with their inflation plan or gas prices plan while also setting up the oversight committee to look into the Hunter claims. But apparently even the GOP leadership has terminal online brain, and as we just saw with the midterms, that's very good for the Democrats (it's also why Biden won in 2020, he was the least online candidate running).

I generally go against the majority of the board here, but I'm mostly with SoCal Deek here. It's oversight. I think the claims against Hunter are almost certainly overblown and used as an emotional tool to motivate the Very Online Right, but the allegation that a Senator and/or President may be benefitting from corrupt family members is exactly the kind of thing the committee exists for. The real question to me is if they're going to actually try to investigate Hunter or do a Benghazi-esque show trial solely to try to harm Joe Biden.

One of the fascinating aspect of this is how traditional opponents of gay marriage seem to be pretty ok with this law, if not outright endorsing it. From Christianity Today - "Everything You Need to Know About the Respect for Marriage Act" "Rather than just say no to RMA, a small collective of faith groups moved quickly in the Senate to see if the act could be brought into balance. A few senators from both parties who were keen on doing just that helped. After adding in a measure of religious liberty protections, the Senate substitute of the House bill passed the higher chamber earlier this week, 62–37. In order of significance, here’s what you need to know about the Respect for Marriage Act: Section 6(b) of RMA recognizes that religious nonprofits and their personnel have a statutory right to decline any involvement with a marriage solemnization or celebration—including a same-sex one. This federal right would preempt any state or local law to the contrary. It means clergy can refuse to officiate a gay wedding. A church can decline to be the venue for these unions. A Christian college can deny use of its chapel for the same reason, and a Christian summer camp can refuse use of its lake and nearby pavilion, as well. This section of the act only deals with nonprofits and therefore doesn’t address ongoing litigation over for-profit Christian wedding vendors—photographers, bakers, florists, dressmakers, and others. However, RMA doesn’t harm wedding vendors. It’s simply silent and leaves the matter for resolution in the courts. (One of these wedding vendor cases—303 Creative, LLC v. Elenis—is about to be argued before the US Supreme Court.) Section 6(a) of RMA states that nothing in the act diminishes any existing federal right to freedom of religion or protection of conscience. For example, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 goes untouched by RMA, and so do many religious exemptions in civil rights legislation." Even the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormonism) endorsed it. Of course, if you're looking for a reason to be mad, I'm sure you can find something at RedStateBreitbartCultureInfoWars(dot)grift that will get your ire up about some misinterpretation of it.

This is the right call. The target of the investigation has declared their run for president and the guy who appointed Garland is saying he’s going to run too.

I'm watching him run it. He doesn't seem very good at it.

Isn’t this just shadow banning? What constitutes a “negative tweet”?

Attorney General Merrick Garland to name special counsel in Trump criminal probe, report says Liberals are going to be mad, but this is absolutely the correct call.

Hi, it's me. One of the few resident liberals of PPP. I do not want Twitter to fail. I don't care if Musk came in and changed the content moderation policies. The Twitter user experience is highly customizable. If there are more trolls, then I can just block them. Whatever. The content moderation debate does not activate me. My criticism of Musk is because instead of coming in, taking stock of the situation and then making changes, he is just acting a like a bull in a china shop. As I have stated before, most brands are conservative with their ads buys. They want bland reliability and to avoid controversy. Musk making Twitter chaotic is an anathema to brands and will harm Twitter's ability to sells ads and generate revenue. We are already seeing major brands suspending their ad buys. Generating revenue is more important than ever, since the terms of Musk's acquisition adds an addition $1 billion in annual costs to the company. Making brands reluctant to put their ads on the platform seems like a bad move. Additionally, the wanton way he is slashing staff is going to result in the most talented and valuable employees seeking work elsewhere. You see this with most layoffs: the best people will leave even if they're not laid off because they will seek stability. I get that Twitter's staff is likely bloated, but that isn't a problem to solve entirely in three weeks. There are smart ways to do this that don't involve having to try to re-hire people you laid off because you didn't think it through or completely axing important infrastructure teams. If the goal was to streamline Twitter and reduce expenses, then a review and targeted dismissal of teams like R&D and new features would be a good start. Keep the infrastructure rolling but eliminate investment in future features to keep the lights on. Ax the content moderation team if you'd like. You could probably get to the same reduction in staff over ~6 months without the chaos and embarrassment of having to ask people back. Not to mention the fact that these rash actions have opened Musk and Twitter up to substantial legal jeopardy, both from former employers and federal regulators. It would not be surprising to see multiple 9-figure lawsuits hitting Twitter in the next couple of years. To make a long story short (too late!), my frustration with Musk's approach is that it appears to be designed to tank the company instead of improving it. It feels more like Yahoo! buying Tumblr for $1 billion in 2013 and then selling it 6 years later for $3 million than it does anything like Tesla or SpaceX.

Because it’s a dumb question. Like, if I asked “Fascist Cons, why do you love licking Trump’s sweaty taint while cheering on white supremacists?” you wouldn’t expect anyone to give a real answer, would you?

No surprises here: Trump tweeted an image from a spy satellite, declassified document shows "Three years ago, Donald Trump tweeted an image that left intelligence experts gobsmacked. The picture was of a rocket that had exploded on a launch pad deep inside of Iran. It was so crisp, that some initially thought it may not have been taken by a satellite. "This picture is so exquisite, and you see so much detail," says Jeffrey Lewis, who studies satellite imagery at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey. "At first, I thought it must have been taken by a drone or something." But aerospace experts quickly determined it was photographed using one of America's most prized intelligence assets: a classified spacecraft called USA 224 that is widely believed to be a multibillion-dollar KH-11 reconnaissance satellite." ... ""The entire US intelligence community is incredibly averse to letting this information out," Lewis says. "The idea that the president would just scream 'YOLO!', photograph it and tweet it--is really hard to take." Cardillo says he is certain that other countries have used Trump's tweeted image to learn more about what U.S. spy satellites can do. If, for example, Putin had tweeted a photo from a Russian satellite, he says that the U.S. would have assembled a task force to learn everything they could from the image. In the case of Trump's tweet: "my assumption is that Russia would have done the same thing and Iran would have done the same thing," he says. Aftergood says the latest release "confirms a kind of recklessness on the part of former President Trump and also a disrespect for the rather astonishing intelligence that he was receiving."" IB4 The same people who would be apoplectic if Obama or Biden did this completely missing the point and replying with "durrr Trump had the authority to do this. hurr durr."