What, did you think Citizens United would only allow conservative organizations to conceal their funding sources?

I maintain that boast remains objectively true (yes, in spite of Biden's decline) every time your guy opens his fool, lying mouth.

It speaks volumes about who MAGA looks up to as their thought leaders, and it's perfectly on-brand that those people are as easy marks as their followers.

Let's start with Russia.

Sounds to me like a lawyer trying to get their name out there on a first-of-it's-kind suit.

Good luck trying to establish a shred of causation if it's public knowledge that the kid intentionally thwarted safeguards. And then you have to convince a jury or a judge that tricking the AI into talking about suicide is what led to the kid going through with it.

It sounds like hogwash, so it's got about a 50/50 chance of succeeding.

This isn't a technology problem, it's a law problem. The law is supposed to stop authorities from searching things outside of the scope of a warrant. The law is also supposed to impose penalties when authorities fail to operate within their legal bounds.

In short, "stopping them" is the entire point of the 4th Amendment.

I miss the page-widening posts.

This is about permitting, not funding.

"Shocked" isn't the word.

This is the "party of small government" at work, getting out of the way of business, correct?

Wasn't it the Trump administration that declined to defend this policy after the courts struck down the Biden-era rule? Because yes it was.

I mean other than the whole premise of the federal take-over, sure.

Reality: Crime is down in DC and the "emergency" was some dude who calls himself "Big Balls" got his ass kicked by a bunch of 15-year-old girls. If you want a more generous interpretation, the president simply doesn't want to see homeless people.

Did you omit the fact that the "heavier" police presence in DC is actually a federal takeover of the jurisdiction based on an entirely contrived "emergency" on purpose, or did you simply not know that?

See, this is how a good cause loses reasonable people.

Yes it is true that a flat map depicts Africa smaller than it actually is.

But we're to believe that A. this is a tangible, real factor in the continent's generational poverty, and B. that it is done willfully and intentionally (the fact that such visual distortions come with transferring a sphere to a flat map is purely coincidental) to that effect.

I like to believe I am a reasonable person, but I think perhaps there are factors that more acutely impact Africa than how it appears on a map.