The Duke one is interesting. While there was a 6% drop in Asian students at Duke, there was also a 6% increase in students not saying what their race was. The percentage of white students dropped 1%, Hispanic rose 1%, Black stayed the same, Native American stayed the same. So we really don’t know how much the Asian student population changed, since it is within the uncertainty of “refuse to identify.”

Also, I find it funny that a group that says race-based admissions is racist, is saying that since Asian student numbers went down then CLEARLY there is still race-based admissions. Because assuming Asians are the smartest and most worthy of admission is definitely not racist.

He’s a senator, so prepared to be shocked.

Blow up the system by bringing in a person who will install an even worse system. Smart move.

The journalist DID get the correct type of gun. The title is not written by the journalist and is the only place revolver is used.

And the way you say, “what other basic facts have they misrepresented” makes it seem like you think this was an intentional thing to skew the story. Only gun nerds will care about that detail, so the editor/copy person who actually wrote the headline likely did no research at all and just used what normal people think of as a generic term for a gun. The point is that the type of gun is not important. Just like if the person had said the officer was wearing a cotton shirt under his uniform when it was actually a poly-cotton blend, it’s not 100% accurate but it doesn’t change the point.

Where did I say none of the facts need to be correct? Nowhere, that’s where.

The important stuff needs to be clear, but the type of gun is not nearly as important as the fact the guy was restrained on the ground with a gun (any type of gun) to his head. Other facts that are more important than the type of gun are what led up to the events, whether the guy was still armed but only restrained, the color of the individuals in question, etc. The type of gun is so far down the list of details that need to be correct that I wouldn’t even expect it to be mentioned other than “gun.”

Also, even more important is the fact the story had the correct type of gun, only the title (not written by the journalist) is incorrect.

I don’t think it is an important distinction at all. The point of the news article is that an officer pointed a very lethal weapon at a person’s head while that person was restrained and (apparently the correct term is) supine. Does it really matter if the pull force for the gun to discharge or fire or whatever the preferred term is happens to be 5lbs vs 8lbs (made up numbers because I’m not a gun nerd who knows those things)? The point is exactly what you talk about in your third paragraph, not what you talk about in the first two.

It’s a distinction without meaningful difference. Yes, a revolver is very different from a semi-auto pistol. Yay, congrats on being factually correct. Are they both lethal devices that can misfire/accidentally fire/easily be fired with a trigger pull? Because THAT is the point of the article.

I want one because I really like swimming in pretty places, being really comfortable lounging in the sun and sleeping at night, and also going to new places all the time. I can only pick two of the three at any time without a yacht. I don’t need a mega-yacht for that, just a nice 60 footer.

For billionaires, though, it’s so they can avoid laws while doing bad shit.

At first I thought you were making a three fifths compromise joke.

The moderators let Trump speak for nearly 43 minutes, while only allowing Harris to speak for 37 minutes. It’s almost like they were 15% more biased for Trump.

Except we all know that letting Trump talk is the best way to make Trump lose, so maybe they WERE sabotaging him. /s

You are making my point for me. When did he send that tweet? Was it before or after he went from a nobody to a somebody?

The biggest difference between things you say are identical is that when Trump said something, people actually listened. The only reason this guy is no longer a nobody is because people didn’t listen when he talked. He had to do it himself, because nobody was listening to a nobody.

But yeah, congrats on recognizing his current status now. It’s super relevant to the point at hand.

Trump is directing an audience of his supporters to fight, while this is a nobody tweeting at an entire country letting them know they are free to assassinate him. I actually do see a difference.

The schools I went to as a kid in the early 80s had paved playgrounds. Skinned knees were just a daily thing.

Not low enough.

Yeah, it’s a rough one to watch today.

So you think it is ok to answer a disrespectful rolling up of a window with physical violence?

I’d hate to be in any way related to you.

No, the person is saying the cops should have been smarter. They didn’t say, “the cops SHOULD HAVE done X.” They said, “it’s crazy that the cops DID do X.”

Maybe, and I’m just spitballing here, but maybe for a simple speeding offense they didn’t need to drag him out of the car? Just because they are allowed to based on past court cases doesn’t mean they should use that for every issue they see.

The ruling is that constitutional amendments, as defined by their state constitution, must define which laws are being requested to change or delete. So that means citizens can’t ADD rights to the constitution, only remove rights or remove a prohibition to a right. I would be surprised if any other ballot initiative had been ruled invalid for this reason in the past, since it seems so intentionally arbitrary.

That said, It feels like it would be easy to find the laws that need to be red-lined to make this valid.

It doesn’t keep the voters in the dark about anything. It further cements the fact that nobody with any power to do so is willing to actually hold Trump accountable for the many crimes he has committed. It has been 4 fucking years since he has been president and 8 fucking years since this specific crime was committed. They should have sentenced him immediately after conviction like any normal convicted criminal. I guarantee if he gets elected he won’t get sentenced, so why postpone sentencing?