I was expecting to read the article and find some seventh level of hell legal trickery bullshit, but it does sound like the organizers fucked up.
John Thurston, the secretary of state, rejected the petition outright, saying that organizers had failed to correctly submit a sworn statement confirming that paid canvassers had been instructed on how to collect signatures.
However, while I may be an expert in bird law, with a focus on dick towel related torts, I don’t know shit about Arkansas state law or their regulations for proposing ballot measures.
Maybe someone who is can tell me why this isn’t the fault of the organizers, or if some other shenanigans are at play?
Any chance that they submitted the document, but didn’t complete some arcane ritual like having it delivered by a female virgin courrier? Or not including a list of the mother’s maiden name for every canvasser?
The other shenanigans was that the secretary of state allowed other petitioners with the same issues to proceed on the ballot, namely marijuana and gambling referendums. The organizers should have been on their best behavior because the state was always going to selectively enforce the rules here.
The Twitter cofounder previously backed the Tesla CEO in his takeover of the company but walked back his support earlier this year, telling a member on rival social media platform Bluesky, "It all went south.”
Did it Jack? You got to unload a limping dog for top dollar.
To be fair, Twitter’ was always fueled by drama, and if nothing else, Musky sure has been sure to keep that tank full.
Twitter was actually dying before hand because it was completely irrelevant echo chamber. It survives because its now also a complexity irrelevant echo chamber, however, this time with popcorn worth drama.
If you are any where even remotely close to the political left and are still on that platform “clapping back” at idiots, you are part of the problem and giving Musk power.
The Hill - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Hill:
> MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
To date, AARO has not discovered any verifiable information to substantiate claims that any programs regarding the possession or reverse-engineering of extraterrestrial materials have existed in the past or exist currently.”
What if their process for verification is impossible to conduct or they have it set up so its not verified until the reports recieved but the report can never be produced or received so its a catch-42
It’s like how you’ll see “Harvard Professor” or “Ivy League professor” and immediately know it’s Avi Loeb
There’s definitely weird shit going around with Elizondo tho, like his dad being a US spook working against Cuba, the DoD disavowing him, and high ranking politicians backing his claims about DoD related work that the DoD was denying
I can’t believe that a conspiracy this fucking big would have one person whose spent 8 years screaming at anyone who will listen, and the government just lets him keep going but not a single other person from that program came forward to back him up.
Like, DoD looks into all types of shit. The Men Who Stare at Goats was based on a true story about the DoD trying to recurit clairvoyants and people with telekeniss.
Even tho it never pans out, it’s still classified for decades. I think that’s what’s going on. He really ran that goverment program and they really did try to find aliens
I just don’t think they actually did, and while the DoD can’t disclose what was or wasn’t done, they also can’t stop this guy from saying random shit. But they could stop him if it was real, be cause then it would be disclosing classified material
Mediaite - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Mediaite:
> MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
Everybody calm down. There’s a reason that the 2Aers won’t get mad about this.
This is as racist of a dog whistle as you can get. Lots of people are aware “stop and frisk” really means “stop and frisk minorities and plant drugs and weapons when you can.”
So it’s perfectly in line with the “law and order” bullshit. Don’t expect a lot of anger about these comments. To the shitheads, these comments are directed at the “right” people. Cops wouldn’t stop and frisk them, they think, because cops know that they’re a law abiding citizen by the color of their skin.
Racists gonna fuckin racist, man. First gun control we ever got in the USA was because white people got freaked out by black people with guns.
You might be able to chip a few away by calling him a “gun grabber.” They probably won’t vote for Harris, but they won’t vote for Trump either. They might just sit it out.
Chip a few away here and a few away there… that might be all that’s needed.
Fascists don’t win on facts and logic, they win on affect.
He says one thing about guns, but means something about hurting minorities. His electorate only cares about the second part. Literally anything you could argue about the first part is worse than useless, because through sheer power of denial they’ll revert to affect on this well-practiced talking point (”Trump love guns, Trump hate [insert slur here], Trump just like me"). You can’t win on this battlefield, no matter how objectively and obviously right you are.
That’s why “Trump is weird” is so unbelievably more effective than “Trump is a rapist”, “Trump is a fascist”, “Trump is a criminal” or “Trump is a traitor”. Pointing out his weirdness directly undermines his affect. “We’re not going back” calls back to the constant feeling of dread of his presidency. Ironically when dealing with humans, but especially when dealing with fascists, affect and core values are more important and less malleable than facts.
To the shitheads, these comments are directed at the “right” people. Cops wouldn’t stop and frisk them, they think, because cops know that they’re a law abiding citizen by the color of their skin.
The joke is that it’s the same damned thing when Eric Adams or Beto ORourke suggests it.
Take the guns from the poors is always the subtext. You never talk about disarming the police or curtailing access to private security.
Republicans just want to be vigilantes. And they’re mad at Democrats when they can’t hunt people in their neighborhood for sport.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.