I’m not sure if it’s really reasonable to complain about the price of an advent calendar. Those things are usually pretty worthless; you can usually buy all of the items for it individually for less money and less aggravation.

Yeah that was a big weak spot in the article for me. If you’re going to accuse the ACLU of corruption you should at least describe what you think they did wrong.

That was my assumption too. Not everyone sets aside the time to purge everything from their ex digitally or from their homes.

I think the bigger reason for that is because liberals and progressives don’t vote or run for office. I don’t think embracing sexual predators will do much to fix that, so I think it’s kind of a false dilemma to say that we have to “pick” between winning elections or condemning sexual harassment. It kind of reminds me…

What I’m curious about is what goes through the minds of people like this when they read about scandals like their own in the media. It has to be at least a little uncomfortable for Franken to read about Weinstein, Moore, Spacey, etc. seeing women bravely stepping forward and being believed, and wondering when the…

The ACLU did; the standard they use is intent to harm, but the writer of this article doesn’t like that standard. I can see both sides of this argument. Proving intent is difficult, but ignoring intent makes it hard to separate criminals and noncriminal content.

You probably can, but I don’t think that would satisfy people who are worried that creating exceptions and loopholes would make the law ineffectual.

This article’s summary of their position seems a little slanted/distorted, so I looked up what the ACLU’s stated reasons were here:

The article is focused on criminal prosecution though, and they’d need a specific statutory authorization to file state criminal charges. They couldn’t just say, “copyright infringement”, they need permission from a legislature.

I would be surprised if they did a write in campaign. Those are tough to win, especially for candidates who don’t have a statewide reputation and solid name recognition. Murkowski was able to pull it off because she’s a great politician and her family is the closest thing Alaska has to a royal family.

I think the last Democrat they elected to the Senate was Richard Shelby, who is still in office.

One of the judges who took away Garmon’s law license was... Roy Moore.

The issue is less, “do we believe the women?” and more “is there anything we can do about it?”

Yeah, but I’d rather screw up their Senate majority more. The Democrats are going to have to fight hard to retain their current level of representation in the Senate next year and every single seat counts when it comes to holding the line. Moore winning would be more bad than good; I don’t think his presence will help…

A lot of Republicans condemned Trump and he won anyway. It’s hard to really go against your constituents too much on stuff like this. With Moore, the Senators who aren’t from Alabama have some leverage; Moore isn’t a cult figure in, say, Nebraska.

I’m glad Hazel’s nashai aboot callin’ dis guy out.

He might have been a sex trafficker instead. You knows with Those People amirite

Bannon even admitted that he pushed for this policy because he thought that Democrats would have to struggle with defending transgender people in the Midwest.

It still made it hard to enjoy this site. Every time I would come here on my phone I would end up feeling vaguely nauseous and uncomfortable.

Ahem, it’s spelled Megyn. Meghyn. Mygyn. M’gyahn.