I know the swearing is yet another departure from the norm but I really wish the headlines about this would focus less on the cursing aspect and more on the “threatening war crimes” aspect.

So, if I’m reading this correctly…

Non-indigenous farmers: We’re tired of people who aren’t from here and don’t understand the land trying to come in, take our land, and push the presence of this species that we aren’t cultivating and consider a threat to our way of life!

The indigenous folks who have been diligently working with American Prairie to bring back buffalo and restore destroyed buffalo-managing ways of life after European invaders who didn’t understand the land came in, exterminated buffalos en masse, murdered Native folks, stole their land and destroyed their way of life, and pushed cows to the detriment of the land’s health: thousand-yard stares

Was there not an entire deal during the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearings where the GOP was up in arms about the left being ‘anti-Catholic’ for questioning her beliefs about abortion and about queer rights? And now they’re doing this?

I’m not surprised by the hypocrisy, I just feel like it merits pointing out.

I find myself wondering if her cushy “private sector” exit is a direct result of her having seen the fully unredacted Epstein Files. Trump knows he can’t piss her off enough to spill those beans.

This comment aged like wine.

Democrats in Congress have been pushing for sweeping reforms to ICE operations, including requiring judicial warrants for home entries by federal agents, body camera mandates and bans on masks worn by officers during raids.

including requiring judicial warrants for home entries by federal agents

Hang on, this is absolutely already required by the law though. This is the most basic of Fourth Amendment things. This is not a reform to change existing policies, this is already the law, and they are just breaking it.

Thanks!

Does anyone have a paywall-free version?

Even with the automatically generated transcript to get you started, the amount of work already involved in reviewing this transcript is astronomical, and the addition of Wikipedia article links would make an already valuable resource even morevaluables. Thank you so much for putting this together.

We already have plenty of laws and procedures that could rid us of that man, it’s just that no one with the power to use them is fucking doing anything.

The case has gripped South Korea, where abortions are not regulated properly. The procedure was decriminalised in 2019, there is no clear regulation on how far into pregnancy it can be carried out.

I cannot imagine a single reasonable person arguing that there is any legal right to kill an already born baby as a part of any abortion policy.

A huge fundamental principle of the pro-choice movement is about bodily autonomy and your right to decide that you will not use your body to incubate a fetus to maturity at this time, for any reason. The idea is that you have the right to remove a fetus from your body using reasonable methods, and if hasn’t matured into a viable baby that can survive outside of your uterus by that point, then it is an abortion.

There are a whole lot of arguments to be had within this realm. What does ‘reasonable’ look like in different cases? At what point is the fetus enough of a person for its rights to be considered, and how does that weigh against the pregnant person’s right to decline consent to using their organs to provide life support to another person? If a pregnancy is near the point of viability and there is no threat to the pregnant person, how long is it reasonable to expect them to wait to bring the fetus to the point of being a viable baby instead of aborting? Even among people who hold a consensus on the right to an abortion, there is some debate.

But I have never once encountered a single person who has argued that abortion law applies after the baby is already fucking born.

This is not a legal gray area.

This feels like a “read the room” kind of comment.

All humans are biologically considered animals, and there are many times when I feel that viewing human behavior through that lens genuinely encourages compassion and understanding, and yet: there is a long history of people being called “animals” as a dehumanizing measure in order to justify doing the same horrible things to them that humans routinely do to non-human animals. This is particularly true for historically marginalized groups.

Likewise, there is a long, racist history of white people calling Black people “apes” or “monkeys” to justify racist systems and treat Black people the way they view monkeys and non-human apes, as resembling humans but not fully human.

This representative is specifically responding to a video shared by Trump, who has a long history of racist behavior, in which the Obamas were depicted as distinctly non-human apes (I cannot recall the specific ape and cannot readily look it up. Gorillas, I think?), echoing that racist trope.

When someone responds to Trump trafficking in racist tropes with “Black people aren’t apes,” they are not getting into the nitty gritty of taxonomical clades, they’re countering that trope. “Well, actually”-ing about humans technically being apes is undercutting the focus on countering Trump’s racism. Time and place.

Congratulations!

Given the extent to which Maxwell seems to have made deals with the Trump admin for a cushier prison life, I find myself wondering if the goal is to get the Epstein Files Transparency Act declared unconstitutional so that the massive amount of remaining files will remain secret while the Trump admin can claim plausible deniability and that it’s nothing to do with them.