Laurie Em

Phil Donohue! 1982!

@beecherbibles56.bsky.social is right. "Stochastic terrorism" exists and its risks are much higher with intentional use of it in Trump era, within the bot-heavy social media context. Choice of the word "terrorism" is intentional because it invites the idea that it *should* somehow be banned.

This was incredibly important because Trump people were pushing VERY hard, telling the GA Assembly that Kemp and Duncan could call them into session so that they could override the vote, as well as testifying in the Assembly that they could call themselves into session for that.

Per Wikipedia on Duncan: On 12/6/20 "Duncan and ... Kemp put out a joint statement explaining that calling a joint session of the Georgia General Assembly to appoint their own electors to send to the United States Electoral College would be unconstitutional." See article for links.

That's fair. I was curious because abortion choice is important to me. But in the end, I'm a 1-issue voter -protecting "democracy", the structure on which all policies depend - so I'd sacrifice any policy to vote for whoever is the pro-democracy candidate most likely to win ... if I could tell!

But consider this: her mortgage agreement forms were probably spotless.

I asked my AI if a fee of $100k would give the payor a property/liberty interest so that if they retroactively change rules (who qualifies, whether you have to pay $100k just one time or every week etc) it might create some constitutional problem. AI says no. Leavitt today/Lutnick tomorrow.

I'm going to cook it in the microwave. Your cell is ringing.

Fortunately we do. Because the alternative is so much worse.

Yes. No.

It's so important that a pro-democracy candidate (so, a Dem) become GA's governor in 2026 - the person who certifies GA's election in 2028. Kemp, Raffensperger, and Duncan held the line in 2020. Electability is key ... if you want to keep voting in the future. (Duncan now supports abortion too.)

He says he's changed his mind on abortion and will put forth a bill to repeal the 6-week abortion limit.

Can you explain about him and the attempt to overturn the 2020 election? That's not how I remember it at all, and in fact, his standing up against the coup attempt was how he really came to my attention. But maybe I missed something? (Town halls will be good.)

He has said that he has changed his mind on abortion and will introduce a bill to overturn the 6-week abortion limit in Georgia.

Meaning in field of law: uscivilliberties.org/3979-invidio...

That’s the cops’ *job* when attackers / kidnappers are in the community: Protect and Serve! Defer to any claims of authority only when truthfulness of claim is fully established. (Remember how the cops sent escaped victims back to Jeffrey Dahmer?)

Cops should be instructed that claims of authority should never be assumed to be true. In fact, maybe the normal process should require calls to *known* federal supervisory authorities to vouch for the authority of the attackers … even if it takes a long while to get through to those supervisors.

Normally police forces coordinate, so that there isn't friendly-fire or interference. If feds aren’t coordinating with local authorities, cops must, as usual, arrest unidentified attackers / kidnappers. And must require anyone *claiming* to operate under fed authority to fully ID themselves.

Could someone get hurt? Yes, definitely. People are already being raped, robbed, and beaten by ICE / “ICE” officers anyway though.

Add in justifiable community-wide skepticism / nullification when “ICE” keeps behaving as a secret police (against both residents and local authorities), enabling abuses by ICE and ICE impersonators , and ICE would have to start operate more legally itself.

And normally cops ID themselves as / when appropriate so citizens will interact helpfully, or submit, and not shoot the cops. If ICE isn't ID'ing properly, people should have easy defense-of-other defenses (and civil claims against ICE - subject to bad QI rules - if hurt themselves as a result).

In the past, when armed masked men started beating on a smaller unarmed person & dragging her away, men used to come to the rescue, people called the cops for help.There has to be some way to verify if these *are* members of the fed govt acting in official capacity & Supremacy Cl is relevant.

What if we called it the "Gulf of America War Docket."

^I asked the above 4 days ago, before the new asylum filing which I haven't read yet. Maybe now the fact that he just entered the US and isn't time barred from the first entry date doesn't matter anyway because changed circumstances covers any asylum case he would file without regard to the reentry?

bsky.app/profile/laur...

I lived through the invention of the term as applying to the vast majority of people, held in one's pocket to pull out to assert that your argument opponent isn't allowed to express an opinion. And to tell some people they were never ever to mention any misfortune that had ever befallen them.

Wasn't FDR talking about a *tiny minority* - very wealthy people and the most powerful politicians? Not to middle and working class white men.

I understood and approve. But you did say "If we have to use a little bit of archaic language to do that, we got to be okay with it". I get that maybe you're being polite trying to pull 2 sides together, by labeling the **mainstream** word "archaic" ... but ... it's not. "Itinerant" is archaic.

At least (most of?) the national dems repeatedly said, no that's not what we're going to do - of course, we're not going to defund the police.

Yeah, that one was even dumber than almost all of the words on the Third Way list. It truly seemed intentionally provocative: let me say something that I could say more more clearly, accurately, reasonably, and acceptably, but let me say it in a way that's insane instead, for no reason at all.