tbh I haven't played around w them much so idk

Not that I have seen but I'd be interested to read it if you come across any

An infringement on the right to privacy, a government being invasive where it has no business being.

Anonymity is also crucial for democracy. Anonymity is required for sources to leak material to the press about corruption and malfeasance. Anonymity is required for people to speak honestly and freely. When the government turns against its critics, anonymity is required for those critics to speak safely.

You can still investigate crimes without eliminating the right to privacy or anonymity. It requires talking to people, finding witnesses, and doing good old detective work. The simple fact of the matter is that police have more tools today to fight crime than they ever have in human history. All of our communications, our phones and CCTV tracking our every move, etc yet crime still happens. Most crimes go uninvestigated and unprosecuted despite this wealth of invasive access. The reason for this is either lack of will or lack of resources, but it surely isn't lack of access. We were told if we traded our privacy and liberties we would be safe from crime, but the truth is that criminals will still crime and rich and powerful people will still get away with crime. The only difference now is that we lost our freedom and privacy along the way. And every day, we are told we need to give up even more freedom and then really, truly, the system will find those bad guys and eliminate them. Except the bad guys are often the ones who run and benefit most from the system. And they've gone so far to convince much of the population that doing things privately (like making transactions) is in and of itself a sign of criminal behavior or intent.

People 100 years ago in the US would scoff at the idea that the government would be able to monitor every financial transaction they made or read all their mail. Yet all day I see people in these comments saying how this is normal, needed even, for society to operate well.

Read the article, not the headline, he's not saying he won't do it or would veto legislation around it. He says he'll consider court reform. He's "dismissing it" as a thing to focus on right now because you need an an unrealistic amount of congressional votes to pack the court. Good luck with that. The supreme court interprets laws, with less votes than you need to expand it, you can write blisteringly clear legislation that leaves no room for interpretation. Supreme court problem solved.

No, you may have to re-login every time you connect, but once you connect, your MAC would be stable for that session.

The irony of somebody on a human rights community not realizing this guy's human rights were violated because they're so blinded by partisan/nationalistic fervor. Human rights are for everybody, especially people you disagree with. Hunted and imprisoned for 14 years for allegedly violating US law, a nation he is not a citizen of and not located in. His crime? Exposing crimes of the US government and leaking classified documents, a time-honored tradition protected by the UN UDHR and US law which protects us all from corrupt government and tyranny. The documents exposed war crimes, for which nobody was ever prosecuted.

But don't take my word for it, ask these human rights defenders:

UN Special Rapporteur on Torture - "[charges against Julsin are an] abuse of judicial processes aimed at pushing a person into a position where he is unable to defend himself"

Amnesty International - "The US government’s unrelenting pursuit of Julian Assange for having published disclosed documents that included possible war crimes committed by the US military is nothing short of a full-scale assault on the right to freedom of expression."

Freedom of the Press Foundation: "The indictment of Mr. Assange threatens press freedom because much of the conduct described in the indictment is conduct that journalists engage in routinely—and that they must engage in in order to do the work the public needs them to do. Journalists at major news publications regularly speak with sources, ask for clarification or more documentation, and receive and publish documents the government considers secret. In our view, such a precedent in this case could effectively criminalize these common journalistic practices"

The Guardian: "The US should never have brought the case against the WikiLeaks founder. This attack on press freedom must be rejected."

New York Times: "The new charges focus on receiving and publishing classified material from a government source. That is something journalists do all the time. They did it with the Pentagon Papers and in countless other cases where the public benefited from learning what was going on behind closed doors, even though the sources may have acted illegally. This is what the First Amendment is designed to protect: the ability of publishers to provide the public with the truth."

They picked Hillary in 2016, not Biden. But you're right generally.

Project 2025 wants to:

• Outlaw pornography
• Outlaw abortion
• Outlaw homosexuality
• Eliminate all major checks on presidential power. Say goodbye to the system of checks and balances
• Replace many federal workers with those who are loyal only to the president

www.defeatproject2025.org breaks it down by topic, also highly suggest John Oliver's segment on it

It's not Biden, it's the DNC's primary voters. They elected the guy, not once, but twice, maybe because he actually does a decent job and beat Don last time. There was a primary this year, I voted in it, there was more than one candidate (though I would have preferred even more), Biden actually lost a primary in American Samoa. I voted for him though, he was clearly the best of the options, nobody else even remotely competitive stepped up to be president.

Put money and effort towards the cause https://defeatproject2025.org/

For those out of the loop: Assange recently plead guilty in exchange for being allowed to return to Australia without serving any additional jail time

For good background on hit case, check the wikipedia article, pretty neutral and factual reporting on the history. TLDR he revealed the US committing war crimes, the committers of which were never prosecuted. The US went after him with everything they had including planning an assassination attempt (which they never went through with). They tried to apply US law internationally to somebody who wasn’t a US citizen and wasn’t in the US. The UN said his detainment was illegal and torture. He’s been on the run, in some embassy, or jail for over 10 years for activity other news organizations regularly and legally engage in (leaking classified documents). Various US military, intelligence, etc agency heads have testified to congress that they couldn’t find a single death related to the documents he leaked, he didn’t put anybody at risk, in fact, Wikileaks sent every leak to the US govt before leaking it asking them for notes on what to redact. The US refused to participate in that process.

He also revealed the DNC was trying to bury Bernie, which the DNC didn’t even deny, they had to let a bunch of their top people go and do a bunch of primary reforms as a result. That’s when liberals started hating Wikileaks, because the DNC emails helped get Trump elected. They say the “timing” of right before the election makes his leak partisan. But wouldn’t you want that information before you vote? It is the job of wikileaks, or any journalist, to maximize the impact of information they are revealing on corruption. It’s not Julian’s fault the DNC was corrupt AF, all they had to do to avoid that was… not be corrupt.

There were also some sex assault allegations against him, which I tend to believe have some veracity to them however the accusers explicitly did not want him charged, but Swedish prosecutors pursued a case anyways, it was a ploy to get him to Sweden where he would be extradited to the US. He was never even charged, only “wanted to questioning” but somehow got an interpol notice for it. His lawyers offered over a dozen times for him to be interviewed but Sweden insisted on an “in-person” interview for some reason. Curious.

Oh, and he helped save Snowden’s life by getting him a flight out of China.