Wait… What’s wrong about this?

You’re moving the goalposts. Neither the person you’re replying to nor the article mention anything about relaxing the standard. All of the legislation and proposals in this area come from Republicans trying to make it harder for non-citizens to vote.

The article is pointing out the boogyman nature of this focus from the right. I would go a step further and say that this focus is an effort to disenfranchise working class voters by throwing more paperwork between them and their vote. I might even go another step and say that it’s an effort to delegitimize our elections by claiming fraud to pave the way for illegitimate power grabs (like Jan 6).

We’re talking about leftists here. The #staged and #flaseflag ideas are conspiracy theories that the would-be assassin was actually planted by Trump to boost his campaign. These are theorized by people that don’t like Trump.

Yeah it’s not the best option. But it did popularize the form factor

I think most PowerA controllers don’t have gyro or NFC. PowerA is what you’re most likely to find as a 3rd party controller.

On the other hand, you can play with your hands in completely different locations which is nice for being lazy on a couch.

They actually sent it back to a lower court to classify the charges.

Has this changed? It used to be that sexting was explicitly just referring to sending nudes and the surrounding horny conversation. If you’re right, the definition has broadened to include flirting or locker room humor.

What should really happen is Dr Disrespect should release the DMs (after redacting any details of the minor) so we can stop speculating about how bad this is.

They claimed that the government was focusing on this one issue when really it was a small part of a much larger legislation. Whether it’s good or bad is a separate judgement.

This was part of an overall package including aid to Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan.

Personally, I just find it really disappointing. This Tik Tok issue could have been an opportunity to improve privacy and reduce data collection across the board. Instead, it’s a surgical strike in order to not disrupt American tech companies doing the same thing.

What will happen is that Bytedance will sell the US Tik Tok to an American VC firm and it will continue data hoarding as before. This time, the US government will be getting the data instead of the CCP. I’d rather nobody got it.

If you’re trying to play with your son, Smash Ultimate is good. It also has a good amount of single-player content.

When I worked in a factory, all the old country maintenance guys and techs were on tik Tok during their breaks.

Then, the sequels were so consistently mediocre that the original was more or less erased from history.

I will not have you slander Battlefield Vietnam like this. I spent countless hours on a “heliwars” server after school as a kid.

IANAL, but it doesn’t seem like this is a big deal. DOJ wanted to know if the defense was going to use a particular defense. The judge didn’t compel the defense to disclose their defensive strategy. Maybe a lawyer can provide some insight but this seems like a non story.

I’m a Wikipedia addict but I’m not complaining

the pardons were meant to help thousands overcome obstacles to renting a home or finding a job.

I thought pardons don’t erase a conviction. They just erase the sentence. Wouldn’t the conviction still show up in a background search?

the Biden impeachment… zero evidence, no specific crime identified.

Biden has not been impeached. There is an upcoming inquiry which is tasked with investigating Biden’s potential business dealings with foreign nations. The purpose is to gather evidence and identify crime if appropriate. Hot take: if there is evidence of a crime, he should be impeached. I think the inquiry is largely political but if they do find evidence of a crime, it should be publicly known.

Overall, I don’t think we should be fighting fire with fire. Then we’re just sinking to their level. If my political opponent is doing illegal things, let them stand trial. Trump has a ton of indictments meant to bring about justice. I just think the legal process is too slow for the left to feel satisfied right now. Give it time.

The take is nuts. The amendment clearly applies to all state and federal politicians, judges, and beurocracts. It seems silly that it wouldn’t apply to the highest position as well, even if a literal interpretation wouldn’t include the president. The court agreed with that interpretation.

During the civil war, the president was Lincoln. Obviously he’s not involved in insurrection. As a result, the amendment didn’t clearly include the president. After the civil war, the government officials of the Confederacy was a matter of public record. So you obviously didn’t require them all to stand trial before barring them from office. The amendment was written to keep confederate officials from regaining power. It was general enough to include any insurrection. Now we’re in territory the amendment wasn’t directly written for so it makes sense to interpret it with the original intent in mind. The standard for insurrection isn’t clearly defined so the courts are exercising their ability to interpret it. If they didn’t have this ability, any gun control legislation would require an amendment.

In all of the indictments Trump has received relating to the election, he hasn’t been indicted for insurrection. Which tells me the prosecutors don’t feel they can prove it in a criminal court. I believe even Trump is innocent until proven guilty. Rule of law should trump political ideals.

I mentioned in another comment but I think conviction should be the bar. During reconstruction, we bypassed due process on this because it obviously applied to anybody holding office in one of the seceding states. Now that we’re in territory the amendment wasn’t directly written for, it’s appropriate to review the interpretation.

One of the arguments of the defense was that the specific wording of the amendment meant it didn’t apply to the President. If we go with the specific wording of the amendment, we get pretty far from the intended effect of the amendment. The court agreed that the amendment applied to the president despite some discrepancies, but disagreed on whether due process would be violated by limiting the ballot.