EXCLUSIVE: Katherine Maher says that she abandoned a "free and open" internet as the mission of Wikipedia, because those principles recapitulated a "white male Westernized construct" and "did not end up living into the intentionality of what openness can be." pic.twitter.com/Ved9mgGvJH

— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) April 18, 2024

Oh my god…

I missed this originally but he’s also proposing a 25% tax on UNREALIZED gains.

UNREALIZED.

That’s for wealthy individuals but still, absolute insanity. A lot of people would just leave the US and the government would likely have less tax revenue than before. https://t.co/J0XecKgAM0

— Geiger Capital (@Geiger_Capital) April 24, 2024

The US still maintains about 1,000 soldiers in Niger, but their movements have been limited since the coup.

They were under house arrest. See below

https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1782056169562853511

And here

https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1781999920104210688

They turned it over to the russians

This is Unfucking real. The FBI plotted to get Trump’s valet “sweaty” before going back to see Trump to fool Trump into thinking the valet was out jogging, instead of being in a secret grilling by the FBI. https://t.co/7lkbJaVoNc pic.twitter.com/6X8ikkWxVH

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) April 12, 2024

(yes)

I recently witnessed a significant "family meeting" type discussion in /r/law after the Fanni Willis debacle. Experienced trial attorneys making politically agnostic observations about potential impacts to the case were being down voted into oblivion for the mere act of being politically agnostic and acknowledging even the possibility that Willis could have acted in a way that could negatively impact the case. The adults in the room circled the wagons. The consensus was that any thread that achieves a minimum critical mass of participants will attract partisan non-experts whose interest in facts and reality is secondary to their interest in every situation conforming to their preconceived notions.

r/law used to have high quality legal discussions like three years ago. Now it's r/politics with a thin veneer of “objectivity”

This post is one of the bad legal takes on this sub that it purports to call out.

“You can think that the stakes are so high here that the justices should depart from textualism and original public meaning to read the phrase more broadly. You can upvote all the people who say Trump should lose”

Just read Baude's extensive paper. Disqualifying trump likely follows the text original intent and original meaning of the 14th amendment. Pretending disqualifying Trump is “progressive” constitutional interpretation is disingenuous and misleading

This article combined with the Federalist society argument is not a novel “progressive” constitutional theory.

There is ample historical evidence that the president was considered an officer at the time of drafting and ratification.

Yeah, it's hard to take posts like this seriously.

We are posting in a midwit thread on God

WORDSWORDSWORDS MY SO WORDSWORDSWORDS

!Neolibs, do you think you know more than the supreme court?

If only those farmers were Tesla and other "green" megacorps.

Seriously whats the point of a latvia, portugal or a montenegro

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/05/rnc-arizona-gop-challenge-court-decision-allowing-non/

Hungary-like fertility policies flatly don't work.

Hungary has dedicated major resources to this - no taxes for 3+ kids, debt forgiveness, major subsidies for homes. It's actually equivalent to ~5% of their GDP. The US military is 3.2%, so big spending.

Nothing happened. https://t.co/ICmu43cieu pic.twitter.com/VNWRctggwc

— Hunter!📈🌈 (@StatisticUrban) April 29, 2024

@kaamrev @sneedman

I know what you want: Another pandemic!

I wonder how long until they become a cookie sales pyramid scheme