TurtleJoe

Well, yeah, I would agree with that. The author also does a good job of pointing out how that's bullshit, and gives several examples of ways that the Times is covering the candidates differently, demonstrating their hypocrisy. (They've been laundering right wing ideas into mainstream public consciousness for decades now, anyway.)

It is still shocking to see the editor just come out and say, in plain English, that the very concept of democracy is a partisan issue, and that they refuse to weigh in on it.

Go for it. I'm not sure which forum it belongs in.

They know exactly what they're doing. Their editors have decided that American democracy is a "partisan issue" and have decided to cover it as such, meaning they won't "take sides" over it.

https://presswatchers.org/2024/05/new-york-times-editor-joe-kahn-says-defending-democracy-is-a-partisan-act-and-he-wont-do-it/

The article says that the specific people they're featuring have been ostracized from the gay community. I wish the article was longer, because there's a remarkable lack of self-awareness on display in the few quotes it includes.

This country was founded by white men, and built by enslaved black people. The white supremacy was baked right in from the beginning. Black Americans didn't gain full civil rights until the 1960s (when my parents were in college.) The legacy of that white supremacy remains to this day, both from existing power structures and ways of thinking, and due generational wealth differences.

It is not racist to point that out.

Because if Biden can't finish his term, a black woman will be president.

I don't know if you don't realize it, but you just agreed with the pithy quote.

I mean, the big philosophical divide between liberal and conservative judges is usually whether or not the constitution is a "living" document. That is, whether it can be interpreted through a modern lens, or if laws must be strictly limited by what is exactly written in the document.

I would argue that it's easily the former, since, one, they explicitly allow amendments to the Constitution, and, two, there is a session of the Bill of Rights where they basically say, "we can't possibly list all the rights that people are entitled to. This list is by no means comprehensive, and just because something isn't in here, it doesn't mean we've left it out on purpose."

I agree that the constitution is very flawed, and that we would probably be better off without it, but one thing they were very clear on: no kings. The Trump immunity ruling was not only legal nonsense, it was clearly not an originalist interpretation (what the conservatives claim to be.)

When you take into account all of the rulings that this current court has made, it's quite clear that they just start with the conclusion that they want, and reason backwards to get the justification. Once you're at that point, I'm not sure that it really matters what your legal system is based on; they're just doing make-em-ups anyway.

That's why NASA invented Tang.

Every single consecrated Catholic altar contains a relic of a saint. Usually they're pretty small, maybe a piece of a fingerbone or something. You're right that a good one like this would bring in lots of pilgrims (tourist dollars,) but it's a tradition that way predates capitalism.

I'm not in the business of defending the Catholic Church or capitalism, just wanted to clarify.

Half the reason I still visit Reddit is so that I can hit /gme_meltdown (the other half is sports.)

I prefer people do that than either delete the comment, or edit the original. Otherwise the comment chain makes no sense, and people don't get a chance to learn from the original incorrect comment.