HandsHurtLoL

I agree with @picassowary, but I also read this as complicating the virtuousness surrounding motherhood. We put mothers on a moral pedestal for being sacrificial, yadda yadda, but here is a mother violating that expectation of purity, good sense, decorum, and sacrifice. What questions can we now invite?

How vile are mothers on the far right? How tantalizing is the Kool aid on the far right to seduce virtuous mothers into debased insurrection? How troubling is white supremacy that white women participate in it because they are rewarded for being complicit?

The list goes on if you read the inclusion of the word mother as a way to violate the expectations of motherhood more than read it as a pull for sympathy.

I agree but that's so far down the line and "the damage will have been done," by then so to speak.

The two big issues of this article are 1. Start time of the trial, which Cannon has agreed that mid-December (5 months from now!) is too early; and 2. That Trump can't get a fair trial while he's campaigning (Cannot didn't agree to this).

Let's say the trial doesn't start until after March when Trump is the obvious front runner for the RNC after Super Tuesday. His next ploy will be "I can't campaign enthusiastically while this trial is going on, so delay it," and Cannon may/may not allow it. Then heaven forbid Trump is elected president again, he will claim his position is now completely beyond reproach (there's another submission in this magazine to a video explaining that this is his stated goal) and so now he's exempt from being held accountable through this trial at all.

Even if this court case was wrapped up before November 2024, he's going to challenge any outcome that doesn't exonerate him. And yes, a higher court would comment about how this shouldn't have ever received the first delay and should have started in December 2023, but what all machinations have transpired in the background while that appeals trial is happening and being decided?

I understand your larger point that technically Ernest could pull the plug on kbin.social (the instance my magazine is on) and we lose it all. In that sense, he is sole proprietor and owner of all the magazines on this instance. I get that point.

But to your point about who is going to pick up and move the magazine to a different instance, that's me or one of my colleagues on my mod team. I'm listed as the owner of the magazine, and until the next core rollout, I technically have higher privileges than the rest of the mod team (which I didn't expect nor ask for).

I'm responding to your idea here, which is if our instance ever got the plug pulled on it, I personally will not take the time to uproot the data from the magazine and set up shop elsewhere.

As the owner of a magazine, I do not want to do this. I don't want to be responsible for collecting data, storing it, and then shopping for a new place to set up homestead.

I wonder if Cannon is panicking on the inside from imposter syndrome every day of her life in her appointment, or if she has like, a calm sense of self-assurance that this is right, she was appropriately promoted to this role, this is God's reward and blessing for a loyal servant?

This is what AGs should be doing. Not procuring medical records from across state lines.

I would have never thought to give them traffic, but since you have, I have to humorously ask: do they really go out of their way to make sure everyone knows it's not whites only? I mean, in a "methinks the lady doth protest too much" kind of way?

Having read the article again, I'm commenting twice.

What strikes me in the article is the discussion surrounding Fled Cruz running off to Cancun. The Dem strategists say that Cruz was able to repair his image on that by pointing to a lifetime of career public service, so it seems like the Cancun trip is untouchable.

Why not go after Cruz on the fact that he proposed legislation for term limits for senators, and this upcoming term for him would exceed the term limit he proposed? You can't backpedal out of that. Do you or do you not believe in the strength of your own ideas in proposal? If you do, then why are you running again? If you don't, then why should anyone vote for someone governing from insincere positions?

I had a discussion last week about how Beto O'Rourke is never coming back from his "hell yeah, we're coming for your guns" comment a few years ago. Never.

So why doesn't he take all his political savvy and be a consultant for the DNC to put up fresh blood in Texas? Beto is really great at connecting with voters at town Halls, he keeps it real and is willing to step up to speak truth to power enough that he keeps it spicy and stays in the headlines, and he's good at traditional political action like fundraising and phone banking. Use all those skills to help someone else up, brother Beto.

I'm reminded of a very prescient joke that Seth Meyers told on his show back in 2016 that we were about to elect our first woman president ever (Clinton), or our last president ever (Trump).

Very chilling what Trump is proposing here with being the sole authority. You know damn well he doesn't actually want to work or evaluate things on a case by case basis. This will be a stream of overlapping edicts, each one trying to undo the logical inconsistency of the last edict because he can't think through to the natural conclusion beyond his petty resentments.

Ol' president sticky fingers, at it again.

I think conservatives are fine with skimpy models at events like this around children than drag shows because it contributes to compulsory heterosexuality (comphet), whereas drag shows - they assume - will make you gay if you watch them.

Their argument has been in the past year or so "sexualizing children," but as with many of their culture wars, there's the implied statement not said out loud: away from heterosexuality.

These folks still participate in purity pledges at daddy-daughter dances in which a prepubescent girl promises her sexual purity to her father until she is married off. Tell me that isn't sexualizing kids!