![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/db7182d9-181a-45e1-b0aa-6768f144911a.jpeg)
The author assumes the Court doesn’t understand the consequences of what it’s doing, but I really don’t think that’s a reasonable assumption. It’s entirely possible they know exactly what they’re doing.
The author assumes the Court doesn’t understand the consequences of what it’s doing, but I really don’t think that’s a reasonable assumption. It’s entirely possible they know exactly what they’re doing.
Democrats are not “so called progressives”.
Some progressives are Democrats, but not all Democrats are progressives. Most Democrats are not progressives, in fact. Things make a little more sense once you accept that.
But only a little.
Because there couldn’t be any legitimate reason to do the things they’re banning, like cloud seeding, crop dusting, air dropping seeds for reforesting, I dunno, literally releasing anything as you fly over even like CO2 exhaust as mentioned by the other commentor.
Literally all matter is a chemical, chemical compound, or substance. IMO this law is going to be struck down super fast just for being overly broad. Not that that would stop Republicans from passing it and spending millions of dollars in public money defending it in court.
You mean birth rates + immigration > people leaving the state? I’m shocked! Shocked I tell you.
Seriously though, there does need to be an asterisk after “fleeing” that says “if they can afford it” which, let’s be honest, excludes most people who want to leave the state.
My parents were just telling me about a friend of theirs who moved back to Ohio… fucking Ohio… after discovering that retirement in Florida was terrible.
Yeah it must be pretty bad if Ohio and Kansas are looking better.
Never mind that the whole point of a provisional ballot is “I don’t know if this vote is valid, but here it is just in case it is valid”
I feel like casting a provisional ballot should protect you in cases like hers, not condemn you!
You’re 100% correct, but don’t think that’s enough for Meta. It’s inherent to the nature of corporations to sell to grow, ie increase market share. If Meta thinks it can increase it’s market share, even a little, by destroying mastodon.social it will.
Trickle down economics, as a theory, has been around well over 100 years, and it’s never been believed in by everybody. Hell, a presidential candidate gave a speech against the idea in 1896
You’re correct about misinformation having been around forever, but access to and ease to create misinformation is greater than ever before thanks to the Internet.