flipht

I guess my point is that I don't trust half of our establishment to use such an ability at all, even if it would be valid/legal/morally correct to do so, and the other half will use it to punish their opponents regardless of reality.

There shouldn't be capital crimes at all, because the people deciding who committed a capital crime and should die are the ones who shoot people in the wrong house or speed drunk through red lights and blame the victims.

You need to stop giving regressives the benefit of the doubt. They will couch their rhetoric in as much plausible deniability as you're willing to extend them, exactly so that you'll go into the comments and carry water for them.

You and I both know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this will be prime fodder for AM talk radio, pulpits, and other bastions of the culture war. They are out there right now saying, "This is sad, but the boy [sic] was confused and was groomed by society." Framing it as grooming, dead naming, etc. is all a way for them to muddy the waters and poison the well. If it isn't blood libel, it's a single step away. Here's one example, I am sure you can find more if you look: https://twitter.com/Jermont_II

It was their children, engaging in terrorism they support (this is the natural consequence of the rhetoric they spew against LGBTQ+ people), against someone they consider subhuman.

If they haven't expressed their displeasure yet yet, it's because they're waiting for Fox to tell them which spin it needs to be "acceptable."

Remember Kyle Rittenhouse? The judge literally posed for pictures with him, and they turned him into a media darling and will probably run him for office if he can stay relevant and out of jail for a few more years.

I've heard of people growing kombucha scoby in rectangular containers and then drying it to use in place of leather.

This. If parents were being parents and letting their children know they're loved unconditionally, then no one would need to hide what they're feeling as they discover who they are.

This is a bad take.

It overvalues the republican narrative machine. What's the alternative? Rolling over and letting him do whatever because we're afraid of whatever lie he'll choose to tell? Hard pass.

If several blue states do the same, he will lose the nomination or the RNC will have to change the rules to put him in as the nominee. There are more republicans living in California than there are in Texas, and if they can't vote for Trump, they'll have to vote for another clown, which gives one of them a fighting chance of beating Trump. Regressives are selfish - they won't be able to resist infighting.

They become the darling of regressive media. Even if that doesn't happen for them, they get to feel like an underground hero that is being repressed.

These people have literally built persecution fantasies into a religion.

As with all things regressive, their whole truck is to treat their own viewpoint as a default state, and then try to force everyone else to argue around it, which allows them to steer the discussion and eventual outcome.

When they're headed off on one avenue they pivot, but this is the consistent direction of almost all regressive talking points.

There's a great book on the subject of food fraud called Sorting the Beef from the Bull.

It's insane what people will sell as food.

This is a long standing joke - what do you call someone who believes in Satan?

A Christian.