Someone argued people should be free to purchase only the coverage they want, and not be forced. If they felt at risk for cancer, they’d purchase cancer coverage.

I pointed out that if people were any good at it, they’d be paying directly, but with extra steps, and would need to buy insurance.

spoilers!!! (Though I knew it had to be coming… and I just realized who I have to beat for it 🐦)

It’s mathematically impossible to get meaningful correlation between those two sources, it’s called “the ecological fallacy.”

So I did look it up. I searched for “hispanic voters 2024,” and the first three analyses? All based on exit polling data.

One claims the shift was a methodological error.

You know those are based on polls, right?

Well, if you can vote without selecting your ethnicity, how do you know Hispanics are moving towards Trump?

What race did you put down on your ballot?

You really think Hispanics are like, “We’re Whites so Christian Nationalism yay, go MAGA,” and not, “Oh they’re literally attacking hispanic citizens based on appearance, and that’s me”?

False, nor a fact, nor how the law works.

If the argument that not all government speech is coercive succeeds, it would probably go back to the 5th circuit to apply this standard and determine if there is evidence of coercion.

The SC could step in and decide it in the spot, but they usually don’t.

Fact: Nowhere does the amicus brief claim anything dominates the 1A.

Fact: It says the circuit was incorrect to invent a new test for whether coercion was present, when there's an existing standard.

Fact: The brief says the remedy was overly broad, barring collaborative, nonbinding discussion too.

It is a paraphrase. Just read the summary argument on pages 3-5.

I'm not claiming the brief is correct or proposing good law-don't know enough.

But nowhere does it propose rolling back 1A rights.

If it _effectively_ does so indirectly, I don't see a mechanism for it, and would expect an analysis.

Article says "Democratic state officials are now taking action to urge the SC to roll back longstanding First Amendment freedoms," links to James' amicus brief. But the brief says, "Please do not bar collaboratory and non-coersive communication between state governments and social media companies."

What is the Democrats' position on censorship? You keep saying there is one, but I haven't heard it. Can you just say it? Since they were campaigning on it, it would be like one or two pithy sentences. Should be an easy question.

After seeing the article literally had nothing on him at all, and the writer must have been very clear on the facts, but that the author didn't care one bit, I decided that I'm not reading NY Post unless I have the time to fact check every sentence.

Khalil. It primed the reader with emotional rhetoric, followed by a lovely quote inserted so a primed reader would assume Khalil said something actually said by his accusers.Then repeated guilt-by-association, and an antisemitism claim that requires ignorance about how libraries or sit-ins work.

I will point out two things though: The word "campaigning" appears nowhere in the article, and for some reason ... I dunno, I wonder why... it starts by citing a Pew research poll but does not link to it. Do you wonder what Republicans answered on the same question? I do.

Ah, the NY Post. Last time I fact checked an article by them, I was actually astounded by the brilliance of the writing and the use of rhetorical misdirections that were never quite lies, but definitely believed the reader stupid and emotionally manipulable. I don't have the time to do that today.

Hwhat?

There was a pic of his gaming PC in the White House.

This wasn't the original article, but it's based on the same photo.

www.tweaktown.com/news/103735/...