~2% of the US population - getting closer to the famed 3.5%

We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless ― if the left allows it to be

• Kevin Roberts, president of the right-wing Heritage Foundation

NASA or NSA?

We dont yet know if the assassin is from the left

Update from the Library of Congress says they’ll fix it and gave a weak excuse, for now they’ve added a banner to the website saying its not accurate

At least they are not doubling down

https://bsky.app/profile/librarycongress.bsky.social/post/3lvqilhwb6k2x

Reminder that most states, while the majority may have gone for one candidate or the other, were still mostly under a 60/40 split

The States with the most landslide victory for trump where all northern states, Wyoming, West Virginia, and North Dakota, and even those were just 70/30 splits.

Thats many people who did not want this president. The South is not some unanimous bloc

I’d counter part of that is that US law is based on common law, which is defined by prior court cases not just law - vs civil law which is only based on law.

There are issues with both of course, but, its common law that requires lawyers and knowledge of every court case and knowing what a judge in the 1800s thought a word means to win or lose a case.

I think the common law system of justice is deeply flawed and leads to this legalese where everything is vague and malleable with no certainty

So you care about what he dosent say, but dont care about what he actually says and does.

Got it.

This book should fulfill all your goals - it doesn’t leave a single word unsaid: https://shop.merriam-webster.com/products/websters-third-new-international-dictionary-unabridged?_pos=1&_fid=95a7efe7f&_ss=c

Because he’s said multiple times that that word should instead be attributed by the international court of justice

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/09/politics/video/israel-genocide-bernie-sanders-collins-source-digvid

Its intentional that he doesn’t say genocide, because its a powerful legal word and he believes its not his place to apply it - however his stance and his actions are clear - abundantly clear - latching onto this one point, that he explicitly has a rationale for is silly at best, and deceptive at worst.

Here’s Bernie in 1988 talking about Israeli war crimes against Palestine: https://youtu.be/TocimL0AT1w

Only one of them has a natural smile

From what I understand, this is a tiered boycott. Yes it starts today with a one day boycott, but there are more and longer and targeted boycotts planned. The other day I saw a flier but forgot to save it or I’d share. Hoping it pops back up again.

I think that’s important because for a general strike and boycott to work, you need to train the people, and this is how you train the people. Most everyone can stop shopping for a day, next week they can stop shopping for two days, then not at amazon for a week, then not at Walmart for a week. Then not at any big store for a week, then a month, etc

It dosent end with a one day boycott, it begins with a one day boycott!

I’m still mad at that, it was totally unnecessary and a weak virtue signal at best

Note that while he resigned from this current Congress, he did get reelected to the next Congress, so he’ll still be a US rep in Florida once the session starts in late January. Just kind of an extended two month vacation really.

https://www.economistgroup.com/esg/board

Chaired by a Baron, the Lord Paul Deighton, who also chairs the Heathrow airport and was involved in banking and the conservative governments of UK, handling part of the covid crisis for Boris, and being involved with the Pandora papers scandal.

The rest of the board has their own stories.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Deighton,_Baron_Deighton

The editorial board had written an unpublished endorsement for Harris, and they have been publicly endorsing presidents for the past ~50 years. This year they did not, and recently it was made public why: the billionaire owner, Jeff bezos, ordered them not to.

It is more about there being proof that the owner is having editorial control of the paper, than about any endorsement.

The owner controlling editorial decisions is to many, myself included who also cancelled my subscription, a violation of journalistic principles and not the product we are paying for.

I want to read a publication where skilled journalists can speak their mind, and that is no longer certain at the Washington Post, instead I must interpret their opinions as filtered through a billionaire’s goals and opinions. I do not want to pay for that.