The outcome of the first Prairieland trial does not mean that resistance is impossible.
But it does mean we have to
—teach all potential defendants not to cooperate with police
—teach all potential jurors about jury nullification
—and take these steps to build redundancy and resilience:
How dare you treat one of the 500 dudes who wrote both an Alien vs Predator & a Freddy vs Jason spec script in the '90s like this.
I'm breaking everything near me and I am invoicing this guy
As The Gorge? The Gorge!? The movie that dared ask 'what if Anya Taylor Joy's character was only good at anything when she's above sea level?'
That said, I think you're 100% right. The fact that the original is something that would make the average person sick with shame and not even having a follow-up to cover the dangling bit of bone feels like a choice.
I'd believe it. I read the article about the artist he hired and I go back and forth between him wanting a rush job from a friend to thinking he choice someone who wouldn't ask questions. Will say personally, it's nice to no longer be a 'the cover-up is a special order temu inkbox' truther.
Obvious attack on the First Amendment, and also--importantly--an attack on the second amendment
One asshole did a stupid thing, and the completely legal firearms owned by other protesters became evidence of domestic terrorism
I was baffled how he settled on a tattoo like that for a cover-up. I figured if he was hiring anyone with experience covering nazi tattoos they'd be wary of using something even resembling Fenrir and/or Celtic knots & warn him against it.
Reports of major U.S./Israeli airstrikes hitting Tehran tonight, locals report that the ground is shaking and the sky turned red.
cool how nobody is talking about how 2 of the prairie land defendants who are going to jail for (? 10 years) essentially got charged with fake crimes and their sentence is a defacto Forced Detransition and probably being assaulted in the future
If you're willing to support a Blackwater merc with a Nazi tattoo just to win an election, what makes you different from the liberals that said we had to vote for genocide?
Because here's the thing: I don't know what's in Platner's heart and I don't care, because I do know he's found it politically advantageous to dogwhistle as an edgelord. Maybe he thinks he can win votes without having to give anything up. But he's already given up the fight against fascism.
Also agree that one of the things getting caught in the crossfire is understanding that many of Platner's supporters in Maine are aware of the tattoo and, likely, don't care. Which is really just one of the most bleak aspects of these midterms.
Kind of sounds like people need to do the slightly harder work and get behind one of the three other candidates not named Mills or Platner.
There are other people running (including at least one other progressive), just been very hard to get people to shift to other options.
I'm definitely not the majority on this, but I'm anticipating him becoming blue Paul LePage.
Absolutely agree that's a huge obstacle. Just hoping other people in Maine, like yourself, do everything you can to bridge that gap and campaign for someone that has actions to match their words.
Or you could shift to the other progressive candidate that has a tangible history of helping people. Especially considering the primary is still two and a half months away.
i’ve mostly refrained from commenting on platner and ultimately it’s up to the people of maine who they want to vote for but every new thing i learn about this guy sucks
I suppose it was only a matter of time until crypto scams turned into a slow game of Cookie Clicker.
As usual, if you think I've misinterpreted bills I previously mentioned or got anything wrong (especially about the talking filibuster), please comment and let me know. Also, it's nice to not be alone here during a week that could take a very historic turn.
Will say though, it is nice to enter into a situation where the Dems have more of an advantage. The SAVE Act passing would be one of those things that would immediately shift my attention from electoralism to emergency preparedness. Things are decidedly bad. The SAVE Act is a point of no return.
One thing the talking filibuster could do is give Trump more opportunity to sway GOP Senators like John Cornyn to his side or just allow the frustration of working cl-opens for three months to get to the holdouts. But the odds are also there of the GOP procedurally messing up before that happens.
The GOP majority makes this seem like a slam dunk, but based on a cursory look, there are potentially 24 GOP Senators that could be against it & 5 (Collins, Cramer, McConnell, Murkowski, & Tillis) that have said they won't do it. Grain of salt for believing them, but those aren't great odds.
3) The nuclear option. On paper, this seems like the easiest way forward, but, at the moment, the talking filibuster has a more realistic path. This option would require a simple majority of Senators to change the interpretation of Senate Rule 22 and reduce cloture from 60 votes to 50+the VP.
This option easily favors the Dems and has a lot more room for error for Republicans. Trump has vowed that he won't sign any legislation until the SAVE Act is passed, so, if he means it, then it all comes to to which party has the greatest constitution for this kind of marathon.
Each Dem Senator gets two unlimited opportunities to speak. However, they cannot sit, go to the bathroom, or consume anything other than water & milk. If every Dem keeps to these rules (& assuming all of them can speak as long as Cory Booker), it could take 98 days for every Dem to speak.
2) Deal with a 'talking filibuster.' In this option, Dems will need to speak on the bill non-stop, but can have two speakers each legislative day. The Dems will need 2 people on the floor at all times while Republicans need 50 to keep a quorum & block any amendments the Dems propose.
1) Bring the SAVE Act up for a cloture vote. This requires 60 votes & would require every Republican and 7 Dems to vote yea. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has stated she is a nay. John Fetterman (D-PA) has sort of supported the bill, but has recently seemed against it. Either way, no path forward here.
