orcrist

She almost apologized. She was so close to apologizing. But she couldn't quite do it. (At least from what is quoted in the article.)

I agree that the 24-hour news cycle is pretty horrendous and leads to a lot of unneeded political badness. At the same time, going back to the old style of political news is also a mistake. Hell, it let Nixon get reelected.

Rather than either of those options, it's important for people to realize that they are actively consuming the news, and one way to protect themselves from being manipulated is to consume the news in different ways and from different sources. It's surprisingly easy to do that these days, if you have a couple of different social media accounts or use an RSS reader, for example. Of course there are many other ways. It is our own personal responsibility to be active and aware enough to avoid getting manipulated in predictable ways.

Except that's not how it works. If you let more people bring weapons into schools, you will definitely see increasing amounts of weapons being used in schools, even if you're pretending that the weapons are supposed to be only for self-defense.

If you're serious about reducing mass shootings, the globe has shown us that you can do so by reducing the number of guns available in society. It really is that simple. Simple, but not easy, because many Americans love their weapons.

I'm not sure about that, but it has been clear for the past few decades then education funding in many areas of the country has dropped. Annoying paperwork and class sizes have gone up, resources have gone down. On average, it's less appealing than it once was.

So we can't point out racism and make jokes about how pathetic these racists are because other racists might get violent?

... I'm not with you on this one. It's a weak stance.

Define "counter-narrative". It's what you wanted, right? But you didn't. Instead you're blaming is for mocking absurd racist claims because ... checks notes ... other racists might or might not get violent.

And look, I've already read a handful of articles on the hoax just from whatever shows up in my subscriptions here or on RSS or whatever. People are addressing it head-on. That is happening, even if you don't see it. So, do you have any data to back up your claim.

He was waiting to receive his ticket. All they had to do was wrote the ticket. What was obstructed, other than their egos? ... This is contempt of cop, nothing more.

You didn't explain, which suggests shadiness, but let's assume better... Let's assume you didn't understand what I meant.

Cops can let you stay in the car. They can make you get out, if they have solid grounds to do so. That's relatively simple, and it lets cops choose the best location for the interaction. So it's safe for the cops (but not the occupants). Whatever, that's the law, OK.

But they can't have it both ways. If they let you stay in the car, they've already decided you probably aren't going to grab a gun from under the seat. So there's no safety issue for them.

But there is for you. They might reach in the window, for example, violating your civil rights. It would be better for them to have to open the door. It's easy to see big actions on dash and body cameras, and it's harder to write them off as accidental. You could even keep your door locked. After all, who knows if the cops stopping you are upstanding citizens. Who will vouch for their character, my friend?

Lock the door, crack the window as necessary, get out when ordered, always film the pigs. This is 100% legal common sense. Or don't, and risk your own safety. It's your life.

If that were true, then nobody would be worried about third-party voters. Off the top of my head, you might want to consider it 1992, 2000, and 2016.

(Of course motivating people is really important, too.)

• Shawshank
• The Great Escape
• Beyond the Clouds
• Groundhog Day

Sure did. But I'm sure you knew that.

I hear what you're saying, but I don't agree with your claim. In North Dakota for a very long time there was no voter registration, but then the Republicans insisted on creating it because they claimed there were eight cases of voter fraud, and they changed the law which made it harder for college students and Native Americans to vote, and not a single person was charged with voter fraud in the end.

If any voter fraud had actually occurred, you can be sure that state leaders would have charged people for it, because it would have been free political points. But they didn't, because there wasn't any voter fraud. I think they knew that beforehand, but even if you want to be unreasonably generous, at least you would expect that some of them would apologize later for wasting everyone's time and getting the issue totally wrong, and at the same time disenfranchising Native Americans and college kids. Of course no one did so.