I thought it was pretty when it was novel, but it's been around long enough now that it just kind of blends in. I think it's still a nice clean design, but not really eye catching anymore.

Sure, as long as we also have a competency test for retirees as well.

I wonder who scores better?

What procedural step is being abused here to allow one Senator to have this much influence? Or is this another case of one Senator being the face while backed by the rest of their party?

I get why people do it, but man do I hate the glorification of Sherman when it comes to addressing ~~Confederates~~ southern conservatives.

He used the same tactics that he used against the Confederacy against the Native Americans, to vile ends.

https://www.history.com/news/shermans-war-on-native-americans?cmpid=FACEBOOK_FBPAGE__20181210&linkId=60909388

I don't think he knows how SCOTUS works...

He bought the company to bootstrap his idea of his "X" app which he envisions becoming something like WeChat for the world outside of China.

I think it's a terrible idea that's a solution in search of s problem. WeChat works in China because the government literally enforces it's usage. The rest of the world isn't interested in a one-stop-shop for anything and everything.

It's the problem of trying to be everything for everyone. You end up with mediocre or bad solutions for many problems instead of great solutions for a couple of problems. It works when there's no competition, see WeChat, but when there is competition that competition is going to beat you at their game because you're too busy playing a dozen others.

I don't think he "face planted", he's telling us exactly who he is. The good Senator from Alabama, one of the lucky 100 to make major policy decisions for all of us, is a defender of white supremacists.

But don't worry, racism is dead and gone. SCOTUS told us so.

I feel like there's a concerted effort to delegitimize the entire concept of whistleblowing. They're getting more common, more partisan, and less backed by physical evidence.

Agreed, if a bear can eat a person why can't I eat a person?!

I don't think you solve one problem by introducing another problem. The solution to over-criminalization is to decriminalize things. If a person is a danger to society, charge them with a crime and let a jury of their peers decide their guilt. Hacking into someone's property so that you can spy on them is absolutely not an alternative worth entertaining.

This is just bizarre...what's the goal here? Putin already declared their acts as treason, how can he let this go unpunished? Is the Russian state really so weak that they have to forgive literal treason just to maintain power? What did Prigozhin gain from this? What about Kadyrov's movement towards Rostov, does he stand down as well? Was this all a weird performance?

Just...bizarre.

A large part of Trump's initial rise was "draining the swamp", right? Cleaning up the corrupt of D.C.

If we can't indict a former President for stealing nuclear secrets, what the fuck are we even doing here?