Scratch that, it was technically still the first paragraph. I had just mentally added the paragraph start at a natural place as I was reading off of RSS. Still, it takes until the 5th sentence to introduce what is being talked about.

I kept waiting for the description of the tangle over free speech mentioned in the headline, but the summary doesn't have any reference to it.

Also, it was fun having to get all the way into the second paragraph to even figure out what "free speech site" they were talking about. You actually need to introduce the subject--we're not inside your head and able to know what you're talking about automatically.

Yep--all this says is that, "This last bit mayyybe has some chance to be a real case, so I'm letting it move on for real evaluation. The rest of this is so bad that we don't even need to bother wasting time on it."

No, among other responsibilities, it's their job to determine if changes are required to the current body of laws.

This can manifest as either passing bills or failing to pass bills, as a failure to pass bills just means the majority of the body determines that particular change isn't needed.

I've seen people elsewhere measuring the success of Congress by the number of bills they pass when that's about as effective as measuring a programmer by lines of code produced.

Gridlock does not imply brokenness.

Well yeah, given that was the bargain to get states to give up a chunk of their autonomy and sign on in the first place.

It seems perfectly sane to want to abide by the terms of the deal that was initially made. It's also perfectly fine to advocate for it to be changed via constitutional amendment.

I guess when voting for governor, everyone who votes for the losing candidate is also effectively disenfranchised.

Hiring a company called Shadow, Inc. to help with voting transparency finally eclipses Bush buying intelligence from a source codenamed Curveball.

If only we could get these Russian bots to stop dehumanizing us with this NPC meme.

Just limiting this to candidates who secured the nomination since '92, I'd say Al Gore and George H.W. Bush were both more experienced, with federal experience in both the executive and legislative branches.

If you strip out the need to have experience in multiple branches, John McCain, John Kerry, and Bob Dole all had more experience (and if you count the military as part of the executive branch, all three have experience in both).

That's 5 candidates out of 10 since '92 that had more experience at just the federal level. If you don't limit it to the federal level and/or candidates who were nominated, there have been tons of more qualified candidates in recent history.

I don't know how this "most qualified" or "one of the most qualified" stuff got started, and I don't know how it continues when so many recent examples spring to mind.

They are not allowed to discriminate who they conduct commerce with based on race.

No clue why this got modded down. Had a devil of a time tracking down this issue in a mobile app I just started taking care of. Like the grandparent, it never occurred to me that POSTs would get cached, but sure enough, they were.