- Automatic voter registration.
- No excuses needed to vote absentee.
This is not controversial.
Anyone who is legally eligible to cast a ballot in an election should be allowed to do so in whatever way is most convenient for them. If that's in-person on election day, great; by mail, great; in-person in the weeks leading up to an election, great.
- Automatic voter registration.
- No excuses needed to vote absentee.
This is not controversial.
https://t.co/4AcTPT2HfD
They just want to put as many obstacles in the way as humanly possible, to make it more difficult for people to vote.
No one stopped you from voting in person, Pete!
And it's time the press started treating it as such.
Shameful. It's not a matter of "this side says it's about security, this other side says suppression"
And had they, personally, not felt threatened, could they have even mustered up what outrage they did have?
I can hope, though.
More from Parker Molloy
This is what pisses me off about the constant bad faith victimhood crap people on the right do:
1. They wildly misrepresent something innocuous (no, Pelosi did not “ban” anything).
2. They come up with a “gotcha” example of hypocrisy... that relies on their misrepresentation.
This same exact nonsense gets trotted out constantly. “Oh, so now we’re not allowed to call ourselves husbands or mothers or uncles or aunts or men or women?! Outrage!” But no one at all is doing that, nor have they ever been doing that.
Yet the right loses its shit over this every few months. A lot of the time it’ll be something like... a lawmaker will introduce a bill that would tweak applications for marriage licenses to say “spouse 1” and “spouse 2” instead of just “husband/wife” because the status quo ...
... will have been creating actual legal issues for gay couples who then have to put something false on legal documents designating one of them as “wife.”
It’ll be something like that, just meant to fix an issue that has no material impact on 99% of people.
And the right, like clockwork, will lose their minds over it as though anyone is trying to “ban” the concept of someone being a husband or a wife or a man or a woman or whatever.
From a few years back, here’s Bill O’Reilly doing that
1. They wildly misrepresent something innocuous (no, Pelosi did not “ban” anything).
2. They come up with a “gotcha” example of hypocrisy... that relies on their misrepresentation.
Shot/Chaser pic.twitter.com/NwAZg7TTrL
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) January 2, 2021
This same exact nonsense gets trotted out constantly. “Oh, so now we’re not allowed to call ourselves husbands or mothers or uncles or aunts or men or women?! Outrage!” But no one at all is doing that, nor have they ever been doing that.
Yet the right loses its shit over this every few months. A lot of the time it’ll be something like... a lawmaker will introduce a bill that would tweak applications for marriage licenses to say “spouse 1” and “spouse 2” instead of just “husband/wife” because the status quo ...
... will have been creating actual legal issues for gay couples who then have to put something false on legal documents designating one of them as “wife.”
It’ll be something like that, just meant to fix an issue that has no material impact on 99% of people.
And the right, like clockwork, will lose their minds over it as though anyone is trying to “ban” the concept of someone being a husband or a wife or a man or a woman or whatever.
From a few years back, here’s Bill O’Reilly doing that
I told you they’d bring this up
I was wondering why that tweet had so many stupid replies. And now I see
Seriously, this was “the night before.” If you’re at the march where they’re changing “Jews will not replace us” and “Blood and soil,” you’re not a “very fine person.” Full stop.
There are 3 important moments in that transcript.
1.) When someone asked Trump about a statement *he had already made* about there being blame on “both sides,” he said the “fine people” line.
2. Trump does clarify! “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally “
Okay!
Then adds that there were “many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists.”
Right-wing media have essentially convinced themselves that Trump never said "very fine people." They're lying. https://t.co/5960NPMYLJ
— Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) February 11, 2021
I was wondering why that tweet had so many stupid replies. And now I see
The Fine People Hoaxers are trying hard to keep you from reading the actual FULL transcript because then you would see how the hoax was pulled off with devious editing. https://t.co/PQLj0DWuPj
— Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) February 11, 2021
Seriously, this was “the night before.” If you’re at the march where they’re changing “Jews will not replace us” and “Blood and soil,” you’re not a “very fine person.” Full stop.
Trump defense talking about how the then-president was praising the peaceful protests at Charlottesville that occurred "the night before" the violence on Saturday. That was the night where the torch-bearing crowd chanted "Jews will not replace us." pic.twitter.com/HCKS6Q9LBY
— Anthony Zurcher (@awzurcher) February 12, 2021
There are 3 important moments in that transcript.
1.) When someone asked Trump about a statement *he had already made* about there being blame on “both sides,” he said the “fine people” line.
2. Trump does clarify! “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally “
Okay!
Then adds that there were “many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists.”
"Communist Blogger" is my favorite Neutral Milk Hotel song
Anyway, here are some of the "communist" blog posts about the Qongresswoman from Georgia (thread)
In 2018, she agreed with someone who said that 9/11 was an inside job and argued that the school shooting in Parkland, FL was a false flag.
And then there's another time she said that the Parkland shooting was fake
She claimed that there was "never any evidence" that a plane was flown into the Pentagon on 9/11
Communists bloggers like @mmfa run the same playbook of lies and smears on people they feel threatened by.
— Marjorie Taylor Greene \U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8 (@mtgreenee) January 21, 2021
Produce fake news, spread it all around, then tag all fake news stories about their victim in all future stories.
Guess what?
Nobody cares about your BS.
Anyway, here are some of the "communist" blog posts about the Qongresswoman from Georgia (thread)
In 2018, she agreed with someone who said that 9/11 was an inside job and argued that the school shooting in Parkland, FL was a false flag.
And then there's another time she said that the Parkland shooting was fake
She claimed that there was "never any evidence" that a plane was flown into the Pentagon on 9/11
More from Legal
1/ In "stupid lawsuits over mean tweets" news, the 6th Cir. will hear arguments shortly in a case against @kathygriffin (save your personal opinions about her, I really don't care). Listen in here at 1:30 Eastern:
2/ The case has flown mostly under the radar, likely because it was dismissed on the relatively unsexy issue of personal jurisdiction. But it's extremely important in cases about online speech (I'll add more to this thread later about that).
3/ The suit was brought by parents of Covington Catholic students that attended that infamous 'March for Life', who probably saw the Sandmann lawsuit and said "let's try to get rich off of this too!" There's no shortage of lawyers willing to help you on that quest.
4/ The basis of the lawsuit is that during the whirlwind of coverage over the March for Life incident, Kathy Griffin sent some tweets about identifying the protesters seen in the videos that went viral.
Complaint: https://t.co/EF9ST2Som5
5/ The lawsuit calls these tweets "doxing," which strikes me as kind of hyperbolic. I know some people disagree with me on this, but the identity of someone taking part in a public event (which is literally all Griffin asked for) is not particularly private information.
2/ The case has flown mostly under the radar, likely because it was dismissed on the relatively unsexy issue of personal jurisdiction. But it's extremely important in cases about online speech (I'll add more to this thread later about that).
3/ The suit was brought by parents of Covington Catholic students that attended that infamous 'March for Life', who probably saw the Sandmann lawsuit and said "let's try to get rich off of this too!" There's no shortage of lawyers willing to help you on that quest.
4/ The basis of the lawsuit is that during the whirlwind of coverage over the March for Life incident, Kathy Griffin sent some tweets about identifying the protesters seen in the videos that went viral.
Complaint: https://t.co/EF9ST2Som5
5/ The lawsuit calls these tweets "doxing," which strikes me as kind of hyperbolic. I know some people disagree with me on this, but the identity of someone taking part in a public event (which is literally all Griffin asked for) is not particularly private information.
You May Also Like
I think a plausible explanation is that whatever Corbyn says or does, his critics will denounce - no matter how much hypocrisy it necessitates.
Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel
He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:
He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:
He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party
One of the oddest features of the Labour tax row is how raising allowances, which the media allowed the LDs to describe as progressive (in spite of evidence to contrary) through the coalition years, is now seen by everyone as very right wing
— Tom Clark (@prospect_clark) November 2, 2018
Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel
He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:
He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:
He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party
“We don’t negotiate salaries” is a negotiation tactic.
Always. No, your company is not an exception.
A tactic I don’t appreciate at all because of how unfairly it penalizes low-leverage, junior employees, and those loyal enough not to question it, but that’s negotiation for you after all. Weaponized information asymmetry.
Listen to Aditya
And by the way, you should never be worried that an offer would be withdrawn if you politely negotiate.
I have seen this happen *extremely* rarely, mostly to women, and anyway is a giant red flag. It suggests you probably didn’t want to work there.
You wish there was no negotiating so it would all be more fair? I feel you, but it’s not happening.
Instead, negotiate hard, use your privilege, and then go and share numbers with your underrepresented and underpaid colleagues. […]
Always. No, your company is not an exception.
A tactic I don’t appreciate at all because of how unfairly it penalizes low-leverage, junior employees, and those loyal enough not to question it, but that’s negotiation for you after all. Weaponized information asymmetry.
Listen to Aditya
"we don't negotiate salaries" really means "we'd prefer to negotiate massive signing bonuses and equity grants, but we'll negotiate salary if you REALLY insist" https://t.co/80k7nWAMoK
— Aditya Mukerjee, the Otterrific \U0001f3f3\ufe0f\u200d\U0001f308 (@chimeracoder) December 4, 2018
And by the way, you should never be worried that an offer would be withdrawn if you politely negotiate.
I have seen this happen *extremely* rarely, mostly to women, and anyway is a giant red flag. It suggests you probably didn’t want to work there.
You wish there was no negotiating so it would all be more fair? I feel you, but it’s not happening.
Instead, negotiate hard, use your privilege, and then go and share numbers with your underrepresented and underpaid colleagues. […]