Bamboodpanda

Honestly, with how often they use the emergency shadow docket these days, I was surprised they even tried to give the illusion of merit.

Now Roberts is saying "the public should trust us! ".

Nope. This is what ruling without merit gets you. Distrust.

That kind of “no hope” thinking is how nothing changes. If you believe something would make the country better, then it’s worth more than just a passing comment.

You’ve got your own voice. Use it. In a system like ours, that means being able to explain your position and defend it when it’s challenged.

Otherwise you’re not really standing for anything, you’re just agreeing in theory and giving up in practice.

You have your voice. They haven’t taken that away yet. Use it effectively.

I am beyond tired of seeing “raises ethical concerns” every time something blatantly corrupt happens. I understand Reuters and AP want to sound neutral, but at this point that phrasing just feels like polite fiction. When the president’s son-in-law is financing a $108 billion media takeover that the president himself may influence through antitrust review, that is not a vague “ethical concern.” That is a direct, structural conflict of interest in plain sight. The soft language does not make it responsible journalism anymore. It makes it feel like reality is being systematically understated.

This didn’t happen overnight. For over 20 years, Intuit has fought tooth and nail to stop Americans from having a truly free, government-run tax filing system. Back in the early 2000s, they lobbied Congress and cut a deal with the IRS. They were promising to offer a “Free File” option so the government wouldn’t build its own system. Then they turned around and buried that option so deep most people never found it, even using code to hide it from Google.

When people did try to file for free, they were steered into paid versions with deceptive “free, free, free” ads. They were so deceptive that Intuit had to pay $141 million in settlements. Now, after decades of manipulation, Direct File is being terminated. This is exactly what they’ve wanted all along. It’s the result of relentless lobbying, lies, and corporate greed, all to keep Americans paying for something that should have been free from the start.

I wasn’t trying to be rude. It just seemed like you were suggesting the preventative injectable could be worse than AIDS itself, and I was genuinely asking why that would be scarier.

I’m sorry you’ve had such a rough experience with HIV treatment. That sounds genuinely awful. But just to clarify, the medication being discussed here is preventative, not treatment after infection. It likely has a different side effect profile because its purpose is prevention, not management of the disease.

If anything, your experience actually makes the case for a reliable preventative even stronger.

I understand where you’re coming from based on what you’ve been through, but I think we’re talking about two very different situations.

Scarier than AIDS?

… what?

I read the WSJ article and she is absolutely infuriating. Her reasoning contains several fallacies:

False Cause:

“It was absolute fearmongering at its worst”

She blames political messaging instead of considering that vague legal language created legitimate professional uncertainty.

Straw Man:

“There will be some comments like, ‘Well, thank God we have abortion services,’ even though what I went through wasn’t an abortion”

This is particularly frustrating. Advocates aren’t celebrating her needing an “abortion”, they’re pointing out her experience is exactly what they predicted: doctors hesitating due to legal uncertainty. She had to argue with staff, pull up laws on her phone, and call the governor’s office during a medical emergency. That’s the system breakdown advocates warned about, not a misunderstanding of medical definitions.

False Dilemma:

“We have turned the conversation about women’s healthcare into two camps: pink hats and pink ribbons. It’s either breast cancer or abortion.”

This drastically oversimplifies complex healthcare policy into just two opposing sides and the irony is staggering. It’s like a company ignoring safety advocates’ warnings about a confusing manual, then when accidents happen, blaming those advocates for ‘scaring’ workers instead of fixing the manual.

She lived the very scenario abortion rights advocates had been warning about all along, yet somehow, in her mind, the problem isn’t the law, it’s the people who tried to stop it from hurting her in the first place.

I’ve said this for a while now. You want to make a dent? You go after the ego.

Picture this: an endless stream of totally “realistic” phone-recorded AI videos of Trump playing golf. He lines up the putt—misses. Tries again—air ball. It’s literally an inch away now—misses again. Doesn’t blink, just traps it in, smirks, walks off like he nailed it. Over and over.

The key is subtlety. These can’t look staged or flashy—make them feel like someone’s nephew filmed it from the cart. Make it look like he’s genuinely terrible but thinks he’s crushing it.

Then blast them everywhere. Flood the algorithm. Turn his “I’m the best at golf” schtick into a punchline.

This is how you use AI to actually take Trump down—with a thousand tiny ego papercuts.

Don’t worry. Trump is gonna remove taxes on tips. That’s like, so much money! /s

Also, it’s a terrible idea.

Why would they discuss classified military plans on an app where outsiders could just “add themselves”. That argument isn’t helping their case…

Nevermind. I need to stop thinking about things. The sheer stupidity hurts my brain.

Everytime I see this guy, this is all I can think of.

Oh, how I wish that were true. I wish Republicans had the moral fortitude to throw him out. But sadly, they cheered for Trump—the literal king of inappropriate behavior—as he waved his hand to dismiss the only Democrat who had the guts to stand up to every lie he was spewing.

I’m working on transitioning to using They/Them pronouns for everyone since they’re completely neutral and fit every context. If your preference is Xe/Xem, I respect that—but unfortunately, my brain just doesn’t have the bandwidth to keep track of multiple pronouns consistently. You get They/Them.

Ohh! English is your second language! That makes sense. I really appreciate you engaging with this conversation. Since there might be some cultural or language differences, I’d love to explain a little about analogies and how they’re used here.

An analogy is a way to compare two things that seem different but share something important in common. In this case, the comparison is between hoarding objects (like newspapers or furniture) and hoarding wealth. While those things aren’t the same physically, the analogy helps highlight how both forms of accumulation can become excessive and, in some cases, harmful.

The idea is that society often judges hoarding physical objects harshly, while accumulating wealth beyond what someone could ever use is seen as admirable. The analogy is used to ask: Why do we treat these two behaviors so differently when they can have similar effects?

I hope that helps explain it a bit! If anything is unclear, feel free to ask or tell me what your native language is and be happy to translate an explanation.

You might know they are assholes. At least 50% of the voting public doesn’t. In fact, they think they are very smart.

The man sent a literal mob to attack the capital, has been convicted of multiple crimes, and openly admitted to more. Teflon Don doesn’t care about dirt.

When the shitters clogged, you call the Mario Brothers to clean the pipes.

While frustration with the status quo is understandable, abandoning the mechanisms of government only cedes power to those who are already disproportionately influencing it—special interests and billionaires. The government, flawed as it may be, is still the primary tool, and often the only tool, for enacting systemic change. By participating—through voting, organizing, and holding leaders accountable—citizens can challenge the status quo and push for reforms that better reflect the collective will.

Change doesn’t come from disengagement; it comes from working within and improving the systems that already exist. To give up on these mechanisms is to forfeit the opportunity to make meaningful progress.

Go listen to Mitch McConnell’s speech on Jan 7th. McConnell is now considered a RINO by maga standards. It’s unreal how far the Overton window has shifted to the right.