Bartiromo asked Trump whether he was “expecting chaos on Election Day” if “you win.” “Trump suggests he’ll use the military on ‘the enemy from within’ the U.S. if he’s reelected,” said the PBS headline over an Associated Press story. That one does not even superficially make sense, since Trump would not yet be president in Bartiromo’s scenario.

So this guy says “I’m going to order the military to attack American citizens if I’m reelected” and Reason is out here saying that headlines expressing concern about using the military for political revenge are fake news because this interviewer asked what he’d do on Election Day? He literally said that he would send the military after “the enemy within” in response to her question. Reason out here lying about the context of his answer because the senile old fascist can’t wait until inauguration to get his hands on the military. Probably would be good for the MBFC to re-evaluate Reason’s factuality rating.

💯 Playing through Red Dead Redemption 2 and there is so much detail and it’s beautiful.

…but then when I’m trying to pick out herbs and plants and it’s all so beautifully rendered I don’t know what plants and flowers can be harvested and which are just there to be pretty. Dead Eye is a lifesaver for that.

That desaturated-with-highlighted-items vision is a design choice that does solve a problem even in realistic worlds – even if it’s just to show players something the character can see but is hard for the player to spot.

It’s a weird strategy to show up and explain how one team operates without rules and lies about everything, but it’s the other guy that’s the problem. I can see that you’re one good faith fella.

Cool story, bro (or sis, or comrade, or whatever, idk you). Was it the Democrats 40 years ago that discarded ages-old decorum, stared down stare decicis, and said “nah, that ain’t for me,” to then threw out established case law, casting doubt on the legitimacy of 1/3 of the co-equal branches of government? Oh, no? It wasn’t? It was a group of far-right so-called “Christians” put on the SCOTUS by Republicans?

Yeah, that’s certainly how I remember it happening, and, you know, objectively true, so thanks anyway.

Oh you’re trying so hard to build a strawman! How adorable.

Roe was established case law. Reproductive rights were settled. Blaming Democrats when the actions of Republicans baselessly dismissed it is moronic.

Democrats did this by not codifying

This kind of gaslighting should not be tolerated. Everyone take a moment and block that troll.

That’s like saying that the burgler that bypassed your locks by smashing a window is fully justified because you didn’t put cages over the glass. Reproductive rights were protected by 50 years of precedent. Roe was established case law for decades and was overturned by a court that rejected how the judicial branch was working and has worked for centuries by ignoring precedent, accepting a case on weak standing to challenge it, and arguing that the established case law was wrong on shakey arguments.

Don’t let right-wing nuts lie to you about objective reality.

“Blue MAGAs” “It’s over. You lost”

This troll has no intention of having a meaningful discussion. He lives in a bizarre reality where voting against a rapist, dictator, and felon is the same as going full cock in hand for an authoritarian. Block him and move on.

“Blue MAGA” What fucking fascist circlejerk birthed that nonsense?

… of children.

Historically, that would be true, but this SCOTUS is wild. Standing doesn’t mean much anymore. Take, for example, the recent ruling from the anti-lgbt web developer in the 303 Creative v Elenis decision. Smith had not started a business at the time the original suit was filed, and, after she had begun operating, shr did not have any requests to make such a wedding site as described in the suit. During an appeal, she provided a false request – for a man already married to a woman – as her standing. Her standing was obviously bullshit; she had none.

Not that it really helps. Our current SCOTUS will certainly not agree to hear a case that could actually benefit us and defend our civil rights. We should probably start fresh with a new SCOTUS if we want any of that.

Yes, and you can tell how ineffectual it is with how much effort they are going through to stop it!

could hurt pedestrians and cyclists

I dare you to convince me that anyone still buying Tesla would not see that as a benefit. That’s going to be the number one selling point of this thing after articles like this make their rounds.