ChiGoose

It's hard to imagine that those crusading against Roe actually cared about being "pro-life" since most of them also opposed policies that would actually reduce the number of abortions (comprehensive sex ed, easy access to contraceptives) or help people support a kid so they wouldn't even have to consider it (universal healthcare, paid parental leave, child tax credit). I do not know you, so I am not accusing you of being one of these people. But something that is incredibly frustrating to me is the "pro-life" contingent that supported policies that made it harder to avoid an unwanted pregnancy, harder to manage a pregnancy, and harder to raise a child; all while supporting a singular policy that they knew (or should have known) would not end abortions, but would only make abortions less safe, and would endanger women's health and even their lives. If they truly wanted a common ground, something to make it easier to have kids, less likely for people to have abortions, they would have found a willing partner in many people like myself. Proven methods of avoiding unwanted pregnancies (unlike failed "abstinence only" policies), Pro-natalist policies to encourage kids, to give families the support they need, to ensure that a woman's healthcare needs are met. But they generally oppose such policies. It's hard to draw any conclusion other than the fact that it's not actually about stopping abortions. It's not actually about promoting life. If it were, Roe wouldn't be necessary because we would have a robust system that prevented unwanted pregnancies while making it easier for people to have kids they want. If the vocal "Pro-Life" contingent actually cared about life and actually cared about reducing abortions, Roe wouldn't be necessary. They don't want that and it tells you everything you need to know about them.

Fetterman is pretty relatable:

There already are funds, and I do donate, but that's a wholly inadequate response. It must be nice to be able to hand wave this away while people are suffering consequences of the decision you support. It also must be nice to have confidence that the same legislatures that are passing laws that cause confusion and prevent people from getting the healthcare they need will be suddenly inspired with divine knowledge on how to fix this when, in reality, they are far more likely to make things worse.

This is pretty telling. It’s almost as if some people cannot understand why someone would do something that didn’t benefit them personally. Hearings held 5 months before an election are a terrible way to influence the election. If that’s what this was all about, they would hold the hearings in September and October instead. But for people with no principles, where power is the only goal, it’s hard to understand that maybe some things are not done for personal gain. If you’re judging the hearings based on the impact to the midterms, then you’re really just telling on yourself.

Nah, just keep the guardrails of Roe and Casey in place. Also, why don't you go tell those people who have to spend money on plane tickets just to get proper care to be patient?

Twitter sues Musk after he tries backing out of $44 billion deal

Don't disagree, but I just found it kind of funny to have these two next to each other. Schumer may not have lost his "fastball", but Mitch has been throwing 105 MPH heaters his whole career while Chuck has been topping out at 80 MPH the whole time.

It's a deflection tactic, but clearly it's not true: Almost 6 in 10 say they are following Jan 6 committee's work closely

That line actual came from a Trump appointee.

Wait, did Trump attempt to tamper with a witness this week? If this is true, he's even dumber than I've thought.

It's so weird how any time someone who promotes these claims has to talk under oath, they stop promoting them. Except Sidney Powell, I suppose. So in the world of people who will talk about this under oath, you can have: Sidney Powell And I'll take: Trump's DoJ Trump's Campaign Trump's White House Lawyers The election administrators The courts overseeing the election lawsuits Basically anyone who isn't Sidney Powell Rudy Giuliani during one of the court cases when he said it wasn't fraud Yeah, I think I'm pretty happy with my side of the equation on this topic.

I'll take the sworn testimony from Trump's handpicked DoJ leadership over some rando on the internet. But if you're looking for comfy products from someone who agrees with you in earnest and is definitely not promoting the same theories as a grift, you can try this promo code for a deal:

Not hard to believe. Most Americans were tired of Trump's crap. Enough Republicans defected that there is now an entire industry for Never-Trump Republicans. 2020 was the first time that I personally voted for a Democrat for president, and I wasn't alone in that.

We have testimony from Bill Barr and his deputies that they investigated every claim of fraud that was raised and found them all to be without merit. So is it your assertion that they were all committing perjury, or that somehow nobody raised the particular theory your are espousing to them? Or is it that Trump's hand-picked DoJ leadership were secret Dem deep state globalist illuminati baby eaters?

All of this is BS. We now have sworn testimony that these claims were investigated and found to be without merit by Trump's DoJ, Trump's campaign, and Trump's White House lawyers. If you still believe this, then are you saying that all of those people, whose jobs counted on Trump winning, committed perjury by saying that he did not win? That, for some reason, they decided to lie under oath that they had investigated the fraud claims and found them to be baseless?

No there wasn't.

To understand what happened that lead to the events of January 6th and make it clear to the nation who was responsible. Considering that they have sworn testimony from almost everyone in the upper echelon of the Trump admin, campaign, and DoJ that the election was not stolen, but people today still believe it and we even have candidates running on that complete BS, I feel like it's a good idea to keep hammering that point home as well.

Texas has its own grid specifically so that it evades federal regulations. Cruz knows he's lying but, like many GOP politicians, he thinks people who support him are too dumb to realize he's playing them. I saw this tweet the other day from a candidate for Lt. Gov that does a good explainer of what is going on with the Texas grid:

Doctors Report Compromising Care Out of Fear of Texas Abortion Law Yup, the solution is definitely to trust that state legislatures will find a common sense solution that does not cause confusion or endanger lives. Because that's definitely working out well in Texas...

The difference here between Hubble and James Webb is astounding: https://twitter.com/erinbiba/status/1546624746598563840?s=21&t=SSkcrrPeitAR_FB0lukKLA

We need some serious electoral reforms and while a maximum age wouldn't be at the top of my list, it's a darn good idea and would probably be broadly popular.

Wasn't Monticello a plantation?

He didn't have much of a leg to stand on, honestly.

As far as I know, there is not another buyer lined up. But Twitter's stock price has taken quite the hit since this whole ordeal started. There is no guarantee that it will rebound upon resolution (whatever that may be). As a public company, Twitter has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders, so it's possible that the board will be sued for mismanagement that led to the stock drop. If the stock price remains low, it is possible that another buyer comes in at a price lower than $44 billion and buys Twitter. In any case, the board has made a solid case that it should be replaced. Either by Musk upon acquisition, or, if he does not end up buying it, then they should be forced to resign and replaced by people who would be better stewards. As an aside, Musk planned on leveraging some of his Tesla stock to finance the deal and since then, Tesla's stock has also plummeted (which makes the Twitter deal less affordable to Musk). There is an outside chance at a similar shareholder lawsuit on behalf of Tesla stockholders but that seems less like than the one for Twitter.

The board basically has to say that they are committed to the agreed upon price or else they are inviting shareholder suits. I agree that it seems unlikely at this point that Musk buys Twitter for the full price. I'm not going to make a prediction other than the fact that it's going to be very messy unless Musk just cuts the $1 billion check (which I doubt he will).