'"It is not humanitarian at all because it only serves one segment of the population there. The hostages there do not receive any humanitarian aid.”

They mean the civilians in Gaza held hostage by the Israeli military, right?

These judges like Wallace are people too, with families who cannot hide behind anonymity like a high profile jury in a mob case. They've seen what Trump's Brown Shirts will do to those they don't like: anything from incessant threatening phone calls to attempted murder with a hammer. What an impossible position to be in: serve justice, or risk your family being stalk and possibly assaulted.

This is how democracy dies. It takes very brave people in power to stand up to someone like Trump.

Isn't this standard enshitification?

Google started off like any new tech company years ago and they did have a superior product. Then they went public and Wall Street started expecting certain revenue numbers every quarter, growth slowed because they saturated the market, so the core product was pushed toward making money instead staying true to the original goals.

Typical stuff, really

It's fascinating, sad, and terrifying that people are so dedicated to a man who is obviously, to anyone outside the cult, a lying grifter and con man.

So much for the Constitution, eh, Mike? Can you point to any historical basis for the US being a "Christian nation" or nation of any religion?

Just like the Bible, the guys only cite the Constitution when it suits them, but ignore the rest.

"On environmental issues, he is equally provocative, calling climate change “a socialist hoax”, and saying that a company should be able to pollute a river as it sees fit."

It's amazing how much damage can be done in a short amount of time when people like this get in charge. This isn't even getting into the fact that he wants to end investments in research, when investments in US research generate 2.6x in economic output. I'm guessing it's not too different in Argentina, but guys like this have no interest in facts.

Well, at least that's a logically consistent position in the issue, even if I vehemently disagree with their broader stance. Of course, they would need to extend that to allow women to claim unborn children as dependents in their taxes, allow women to drive in the HOV lane alone with their fetus, etc.

I LOL'd at the quote about men not liking that, and paying child support from the time of conception was dumb. Yeah, no shit, dumbass. There goes your logical inconsistency again.

How about this... we'll pay them something extra for wearimg a camera, but then officers are personally liable for any wrongdoing. No more qualified immunity, and settlements are paid by the officer and not a fund of public money. If the cops don't like that they can go get their own liability insurance and they pay the premiums with that camera bonus.

He won't stop because the cruelty is the point

A lot of people were wondering this during the later Trump years: what's to stop government officials from simply ignoring the Supreme Court (or another branch, for that matter). It's surely a "Constitutional Crisis", but many conservatives seem more interested in preaching about the Constitution than actually following it.

I guess they haven't discovered the button to block communities?

My feed is quite nice after blocking the stuff that doesn't appeal to me.

"She was told she violated state rules about judicial impartiality because her refusal to treat LGBTQ+ people equally cast “doubt on her capacity to act impartially to persons appearing before her as a judge due to the person’s sexual orientation.” "

That's the other major issue here. By refusing to officiate same-sex weddings she is saying that she cannot be impartial on an actual court cases brought before her if they involve an LGBTQ person.

She shouldn't be a judge at all. Of course, Texas is one of only a few states where judges are elected, so you'll get crazy QAnon judges if enough psychos show up to the polls.