The report shows that nobody asked for any money for nuclear sea launched cruise missiles but they went ahead and approved $190M for them lol.

I'm glad this attempt was foiled, but I think this flavor of mass shooter will become more common as time goes on and as anti-white rhetoric heats up. (And that's a good thing!)

DeSantis has such obvious gay voice, he's so lucky Trump never called him fruity.

https://twitter.com/catturd2/status/1776739392717033489

Socialist professor explains how to get a PS5 under socialism.

Yeah, no thanks. pic.twitter.com/jpramvLIiI

— Dylan Allman (@DylanMAllman) April 6, 2024

!anticommunists !commies

I want that poster dead because he's stealing oxygen and food that could support a dog or three.

This will probably blow up here in a few hours. It may not, don't really care.

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/04/28/shes-baaaack-disinformation-czar-jankowicz-to-head-new-project-before-election/

https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1784589165587202080

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?

!macacos

Believe it or not this was a real thing in 2017

Bottom text

https://twitter.com/Brick_Suit/status/1776369934203019370

https://twitter.com/micsolana/status/1776322876120948814

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

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