rdietzman.bsky.social
@rdietzman.bsky.social
If they wouldn’t have gone anywhere there’s no point to a pardon, the courts would have done their jobs
December 3, 2025 at 5:55 PM
If they wouldn’t have gone anywhere there’s no point to a pardon, the courts would have done their jobs
The Biden pardons were to protect them from political prosecution. The Trump pardon here is because Cuellar was positive about his border policies. Not at all the same thing. And I did read the charges. They’re for accepting bribes through shell companies, aka corruption.
December 3, 2025 at 5:54 PM
The Biden pardons were to protect them from political prosecution. The Trump pardon here is because Cuellar was positive about his border policies. Not at all the same thing. And I did read the charges. They’re for accepting bribes through shell companies, aka corruption.
It certainly did not start to be enforced in 2014. If this fee even happens it will be the first meaningful enforcement for air travel.
December 2, 2025 at 2:47 PM
It certainly did not start to be enforced in 2014. If this fee even happens it will be the first meaningful enforcement for air travel.
All “exponential” tech growth is actually just somewhere in the middle of a sigmoid curve. This has happened several times before just in the field of AI.
July 24, 2025 at 3:56 PM
All “exponential” tech growth is actually just somewhere in the middle of a sigmoid curve. This has happened several times before just in the field of AI.
They did. Although it’s certainly possible for this court in particular to turn around and okay this, especially when faced with the reality of Trump actually doing it and having to tell him no. I wouldn’t feel confident betting either way.
July 16, 2025 at 3:35 PM
They did. Although it’s certainly possible for this court in particular to turn around and okay this, especially when faced with the reality of Trump actually doing it and having to tell him no. I wouldn’t feel confident betting either way.
From your own source: “Evidence indicates that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines continue to outweigh the risks of the disease”
July 3, 2025 at 4:45 AM
From your own source: “Evidence indicates that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines continue to outweigh the risks of the disease”
If you believe this constitutes a convincing argument, it’s no wonder how you were duped by anti-vax bullshit
July 3, 2025 at 4:43 AM
If you believe this constitutes a convincing argument, it’s no wonder how you were duped by anti-vax bullshit
Hear me out…maple syrup AND whipped cream. Best of both worlds.
July 2, 2025 at 4:38 AM
Hear me out…maple syrup AND whipped cream. Best of both worlds.
Are you getting at the fact that the court didn’t decide on the actual merits of birthright citizenship? That’s technically true, but their ruling allows Trumps order to go into effect in 28 states (in 30 days). That implementation is “thanks to the Supreme Court” which could have stopped it.
July 1, 2025 at 2:39 PM
Are you getting at the fact that the court didn’t decide on the actual merits of birthright citizenship? That’s technically true, but their ruling allows Trumps order to go into effect in 28 states (in 30 days). That implementation is “thanks to the Supreme Court” which could have stopped it.
Okay. But the Supreme Court could (and in my opinion should) have agreed that those rules include nationwide injunctions.
June 27, 2025 at 4:26 PM
Okay. But the Supreme Court could (and in my opinion should) have agreed that those rules include nationwide injunctions.
Seems like a concern the majority should have addressed then. But his power is to command the military. There’s nothing in the ruling that would prevent him from using that power to do assassinations.
June 27, 2025 at 4:16 PM
Seems like a concern the majority should have addressed then. But his power is to command the military. There’s nothing in the ruling that would prevent him from using that power to do assassinations.
If there’s ever a time for broad injunctions it’s to step in when the government is violating rights. No one should have to sue in order to “get the benefits” of their basic constitutional rights. This decision makes it vastly easier for those rights to be violated.
June 27, 2025 at 4:14 PM
If there’s ever a time for broad injunctions it’s to step in when the government is violating rights. No one should have to sue in order to “get the benefits” of their basic constitutional rights. This decision makes it vastly easier for those rights to be violated.
They did though. Absolute immunity for all “official acts”. The dissent even pointed out how this allows him to literally assassinate political rivals and the majority does not even attempt to refute that. You don’t call that a rubber stamp for lawlessness?
June 27, 2025 at 4:07 PM
They did though. Absolute immunity for all “official acts”. The dissent even pointed out how this allows him to literally assassinate political rivals and the majority does not even attempt to refute that. You don’t call that a rubber stamp for lawlessness?
They gave him immunity from criminal prosecution, a literal rubber stamp for his lawlessness. What would it matter if he lost 99% of his other cases?
June 27, 2025 at 3:52 PM
They gave him immunity from criminal prosecution, a literal rubber stamp for his lawlessness. What would it matter if he lost 99% of his other cases?
I assume that was a joke about a “bad actor”
June 16, 2025 at 6:30 AM
I assume that was a joke about a “bad actor”
I think all three of those are correct. They’re agreeing to donation as a concept in the context of their family member’s organs.
June 6, 2025 at 8:10 PM
I think all three of those are correct. They’re agreeing to donation as a concept in the context of their family member’s organs.
What’s the issue with the grammar there? Seems fine to me
June 6, 2025 at 8:04 PM
What’s the issue with the grammar there? Seems fine to me
She wasn’t just upset, she threatened defamation lawsuits. That’s extremely not cool.
May 29, 2025 at 3:18 AM
She wasn’t just upset, she threatened defamation lawsuits. That’s extremely not cool.
So they didn’t state that having Palestinian family members is illegal? Then why did you claim that?
May 29, 2025 at 3:12 AM
So they didn’t state that having Palestinian family members is illegal? Then why did you claim that?
If you say someone said something, it’s not “bad faith” or a gotcha question to ask what they said. It’s not my fault you can’t actually point to where they said anything like that.
May 29, 2025 at 3:09 AM
If you say someone said something, it’s not “bad faith” or a gotcha question to ask what they said. It’s not my fault you can’t actually point to where they said anything like that.
Oh. Can you point out where they stated that?
May 28, 2025 at 11:24 PM
Oh. Can you point out where they stated that?
I think it’s pretty slimy to go around accusing people of defamation for saying anything mildly critical.
May 28, 2025 at 8:33 PM
I think it’s pretty slimy to go around accusing people of defamation for saying anything mildly critical.