To all the folks saying we already knew about this, yes we mostly did from some high quality journalism, but the details were not actually confirmed. Senator Whitehouse’s new report is still really important. From another one of my comments on an earlier post:
Ehh it was reported on, but we didn’t know it for sure, nor did we have specifics. There’s a difference between good reporting in a credible newspaper and an investigation led by a Senator on the Judiciary Committee. I think we’re just used to relying on good journalism since there has been a distinct lack of judicial oversight in Congress. But reports like this are based on totally different access and legal mechanisms that the press isn’t privy to (on the record, at least).
Relevant bits:
Since Kavanaugh’s confirmation, Whitehouse and Senate Democrats have tried to find out just how thoroughly the FBI investigated the allegations. In numerous hearings and letters, they asked FBI Director Christopher Wray for details and documentation but got nothing back until Trump was out of office, according to the report.
and
“The Congressional report published today confirms what we long suspected,” said Ford’s attorneys in a statement. “The FBI supplemental investigation of then-nominee Brett Kavanaugh was, in fact, a sham effort directed by the Trump White House to silence brave victims and other witnesses who came forward and to hide the truth.”
I mean, good. People should have every possible opportunity to vote. But it really says a lot about them, that they only give a shit when it might impact the GOP.
A little off-topic, but does anyone else feel like the way Axios writes their articles is condescending? It’s all bullet points and summaries, with very little substance. It comes across as patronizing to me. I get that they’re trying to make things as simple as possible, but I think they go way too far and end up disrespecting their readers’ intelligence.
Yeah, this is actually a better solution. There’s no legitimate non-partisan reason I can think of for why anyone would be against universal mail in voting.
Same in California, and I definitely need that extra time to review the ballot and figure out how I’m voting on ballot measures and for which local officials. The ballot is huge and relatively complicated, so I can’t imagine doing that in person either.
There were some good stats in there, but this wasn't anything groundbreaking. I'm totally in favor of making Election Day a federal holiday, it's arguably the most important day for the continuance of our democracy after all. BUT any action must take into account the fact that so many Americans don't get federal holidays off, and employers can't be forced to give them that time off. So there would have to be a fund or subsidy available to employers to continue paying their workers on this new day off. It should also be a kind of superholiday so even private employers are forced to observe it.
This, and getting rid of the electoral college should be a priority once we've soundly defeated the orange turd and can take a couple breaths.
If the Supreme Court lets it stand. Reminder: executive agencies don’t have deference to independently interpret laws like the Clean Drinking Water Act anymore, so this new rule will stand until someone decides to challenge it, and until a court decides they’d rather continue poisoning future generations instead of allowing the experts to do their jobs, which is something SCOTUS would apparently prefer.
Thank you, a great explanation. The whole situation makes me feel like a rag doll being tossed around the courts. Do I start repaying now? No? Tell me when….Now? No? False alarm. Okay, how about now? I want the relief, but at this point I’d take any decision so I can just make a freaking budget that I can stick to.
What’s the process for if the new venue doesn’t issue a stay, but the final outcome is that they strike down the relief? (I’m really asking.) My payments start back up, and then a month later they double or triple based on the outcome of the case? I just assumed the new venue would stay the relief from going into effect before making a ruling, but you’ve made me nervous.
It’s completely misleading, to me. As someone with a laughably high student loan balance, my livelihood depends on the outcome of these disingenuous court cases. When I saw this headline, my heart skipped a beat with excitement. But nope, this will only be resolved when there is a final judicial ruling (probably from the Supreme Court, eventually), and this was not that.
Wow, it’s hard to know just how impactful this will be, but it sounds like they’ve got something here.
its batteries which it said avoid using metals such as lithium, cobalt, graphite and copper, providing a cost reduction of up to 40% compared to lithium-ion batteries.
Altech said its batteries are completely fire and explosion proof, have a life span of more than 15 years and operate in all but the most extreme conditions.
That’s huge, especially the fire and explosion proof part.
I see where you’re coming from, because yeah he’s more of a human being than most politicians. But what makes him a politician is that he hasn’t corrected the record, and telling the story makes him look good, so he keeps telling the story.
But also, he is a politician. (A politician I will happily vote for.)
This serves as a great reminder that Tim Walz is…..wait for it…..a politician!
Seems to me he convinced himself it happened this way and just kept telling the story. It’s a pretty relatable thing to do actually, but yeah, he was in China the same year, but not during Tiananmen.
This is not the same kind of lie that Trump and Vance tell, but it’s still not the truth. Fortunately many of his supporters can hold two truths in their head at the same time: Walz is a politician who sometimes lies a little, and Walz has more integrity in his pinky finger than Trump and Vance have combined.
That's technically all well and good, but I think it's a bit unreasonable to expect everyone who happens to dislike some mod decisions to spin up their own instance. Not all of us could reliably do that without help, nor should we have to. But I do think it's reasonable for us to expect mods of large communities to follow their own rules, and moderate in good faith, regardless of the instance they're on. These platforms need regular participating users like me who can trust mods across the fediverse.
I recently moved from lemmy.world to lemm.ee because I'm frustrated by what I see on lemmy.world, and I like lemm.ee's general vibe and philosophy more. So that kind of instance move, and speaking out whenever I see shit that feels wrong, is the most I can do as a regular user.
2nd edit: I initially said the convo was on !asklemmy@lemmy.world, but it was actually on !asklemmy@lemmy.ml, my bad. That's probably why you couldn't find it.
I want you to be right, but I’m not so sure anymore.
For example, yesterday I was having a good discussion over on !asklemmy@lemmy.world!asklemmy@lemmy.ml about how terrible the media bias fact checker bot is, and when we started talking about the fact that it feels like there must be some kind of sponsorship deal involved, the mods removed the post. They cited a rule that the discussion absolutely didn’t break. So, it appears we’re free to talk about anything we want on Lemmy, unless a particular mod starts to feel sad or offended, or wants to hide something from the rest of us, and then they behave like anyone else with power and act unilaterally regardless of the ideals of the platform.
Oh, and it says a lot about how mods feel about an otherwise benign issue, when they remove all discussion of it. A sponsorship deal was only a guess, no one knew if that was true for sure, but when the mods deleted the discussion it made me convinced we were onto something. So, that kind of backfired.
To anyone who saw that yesterday, it made me furious. I almost quit Lemmy entirely. If we can’t be critical of mod decisions without fear of all our content being deleted by said mods, then this place is not worth my time. I’m going to stick around to see if things improve, but I’m frankly not optimistic.
To all the folks saying we already knew about this, yes we mostly did from some high quality journalism, but the details were not actually confirmed. Senator Whitehouse’s new report is still really important. From another one of my comments on an earlier post:
Ehh it was reported on, but we didn’t know it for sure, nor did we have specifics. There’s a difference between good reporting in a credible newspaper and an investigation led by a Senator on the Judiciary Committee. I think we’re just used to relying on good journalism since there has been a distinct lack of judicial oversight in Congress. But reports like this are based on totally different access and legal mechanisms that the press isn’t privy to (on the record, at least).
Relevant bits:
and