My point is that it doesn’t seem like being very concrete on policy is necessary to win the the Presidency.

Georgia looooooves victim shaming. “She said it was okay so anything after that was totally on her!”

one of the reasons Wysolovski was offered the lesser sentence was because the victim—who suffers from a series of mental health issues—and her family did not want the case to go to trial.

HRC was the most concrete policy-oriented candidate in memorable history, and she lost (the electoral college, which is literally the only thing that matters since there’s no prize for second place in a Presidential election) to a demagogue with zero plans.

The personal or religious exemptions he proposed would be specifically subject to the state being able to maintain whatever necessary herd immunity rate. It’s possible and maybe even likely that what he described is impossible, and therefore, effectively, there would be no personal or religious exemptions—in principle…

and personal/religious exemptions if states can maintain local herd immunity and there is no public health crisis

I think it would come down to whether the school could show a ‘legitimate pedagogical concern’ for censoring the article. I’d wager a California District Court Judge would probably (depending ultimately on the focus of the article) side with the students, and if the Ninth just issued a PCA in that case, SCOTUS…

this story could follow her for the rest of her life.

If the article is salacious or crude, I agree it’s probably not appropriate. However, if it’s a profile of a fellow student running her own small business, which is perfectly legal, and making a living doing, I’d say that’s newsworthy. If the article were about a student who had started a gourmet cupcake business, and…

Slow down with that talk of research and thoughtful descriptions of candidates—this article was about knee-jerk, capricious hot takes veiled as satire. It’s Friday, and what you’re talking about would have required work.

Oh it’s literally a run down of only the men, I got to the end and was like, “how did I miss Harris, Warren, Gabard, and the other one?”

There are a lot of other arguments in the article you just read that get the points you’re saying you wish the article had made.

Respectfully, the right to vote is the single most-often mentioned right in the Constitution.

The article makes the argument that if we allow prisoners water and heat (i.e., the most basic necessities), then we should also allow them to vote. What I am pointing out is that the basic necessities for life are the absolute floor of decency; you nominally shouldn’t deny anyone water for any reason. So the argument…

I think we should let prisoners of war vote in their elections back home if it is sufficiently convenient

I find your arguments somewhat odd. You seem focused on a bunch of technicalities for the sake of avoiding dealing with the real point of the article.

Because whether it’s the ability to vote or access to heat and water, incarcerated people’s access to basic rights shouldn’t be up for debate.

As much as I appreciate your analysis, it seems like a great deal of the defections count on whatever particular Senator deciding to go off the reservation without warning (contrary to most of their conduct to date)—and doing so basically in unison. Collins and Murkowski, I can wholly agree would probably jump ship;…

Their reputation is inarguably harmed, such that they may not be able to ever go home again. This is well within the ambit of what defamation laws are designed for.

So their family in Nigeria be damned? Or are we going to trust people ignorant enough to hate gay people for being gay to not practice some kind of guilt by association retribution.