volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@kegill no no but I've spent decades vacuuming up what they say and watching how the courts act.

The state court ruling was posted a couple of days ago so we can read exactly what its ruling said.

@kegill Well it's more complicated for a few reasons. This is actually a rather complicated situation.

Federal laws impact this decision in a few different ways, and that would give SCOTUS some level of authority over the state, but it would be a really exceptional thing for the court to use those rarely used authorities. But then this is an exceptional case.

Aside from that, another complication is that the state applied federal law, not just state law, in the case, giving SCOTUS a second pathway for becoming involved.

It's pretty much a mess at this point.

@benfell Well the lower court accepted an argument about the amendment that has been seriously considered (but not necessarily accepted) for years.

It doesn't sound like such a strategic action with that background in mind. They were merely saying that they found the argument compelling.

@CarolineMalaCorbin

@mayadev Like I said, I'm talking in qualitative terms, not quantitative. I have no particular number in mind.

But that low number dovetails with what we know about Israel actively avoiding targeting members of the group, so taken together, we have the claim, and then we have the data supporting the claim, and that's pretty convincing to me.

@JoshuaHolland

@Tesseks it's a matter of elections in the US being run by states and subject to state laws primarily.

Each state has slightly different rules regarding who can run and how ballot access is managed. They also have different court systems and processes to adjudicate stuff like this.

In the end, in general, a person is able to run in respect for voters being able to cast their ballots as they see fit.

Beyond that, each state restricts the process differently.

One thing to emphasize is that just because someone wins an election doesn't mean they get to hold office. If voters want to elect someone who's ineligible to actually take office, the state systems might be happy to let them vote that way.

@mayadev and again, that is not my claim.

You seem to still be missing my stance since what you are repeating back to me is definitely not my position.

@JoshuaHolland

@davidalove perhaps, if folks first stipulate that a building posing a threat or serving in a military capacity is effectively no longer functioning as a church.

@peachfront Well I know that's not true because I have seen lots of content on that site that wasn't Nazi content and wasn't censored.

Clearly they are choosing not to censor a lot of content. Because it's there uncensored.

@jeremy_pm

@mayadev If you can't show the group targeting then you haven't met the definition that you supplied that relies on group targeting.

And when I consider the numbers that you put on the table, that doesn't look like coherent targeting of a group.

That's what I'm pointing out, that's why this is relevant, the record calls to question the basic idea that the group is being targeted, and therefore makes it look like it's not genocide as per that definition.

@JoshuaHolland

@knittingknots2 I believe his argument isn't that the amendment is time limited but that what it applies to isn't around anymore.

@mayadev the definition requires a showing of the group being targeted, but the stats don't make a compelling case of correlation with group identity since they're so low.

You must kill at least enough to make a compelling showing that the group is targeted.

The record so far just isn't qualitatively compelling to make that showing.
@JoshuaHolland

@lakelady yep, and I'd say all the focus on Trump distracts from the really vital job of engaging with those attitudes to change them.

Too many don't understand that Trump didn't make this movement. Those people existed long before he began his campaign, and they projected, and continue to project, their ideas onto the incoherent nonsense that he spouts.

Yes, it's hard work to address that. But it's the real work that needs doing.

@kdawson fair counter!

Like I tried to emphasize, I just don't think there's really anything to this report, as it's come out so far.

That take seems about the same level of compelling as what I was noticing, so it's a good match.

@mayadev I just don't find it to be a compelling argument that Israel intends on genocide, but they're just really bad at it.

That is an argument I've heard before, but it comes across as a huge stretch.
@JoshuaHolland

@melmc Yeah but more importantly it's another instance of a lot of press outfits putting out these sensationalized stories to get clicks and push agendas.

No, the US doesn't give presidents the option to act so unilaterally. Whether Trump knows that or not, the rest of us should keep that in mind.

@realTuckFrumper this doesn't seem like anything new of substance, though.

We know he was publicly critical of the process at the time, so it would have been weird if he didn't make that personal appeal as he disputed the count.

If anything the details, that he was offering to provide lawyers, make him sound more reasonable. But mainly, there doesn't seem to be anything new here.

@lauren Yeah my understanding is that public perception of the safety of mercury saw a pendulum swing from too little concern to too much concern. And a similar thing applies to public perception of everything from lead through radiation.

And I'm sure there is philosophical disagreements within different parts of society as to whether they should be aiming for accurate public regard or rather feeling that maybe it's okay to err on the side of making people extra cautious, even if that means a little fibbing.

@lauren I don't see what's new or important about that.

Trump was publicly pressing at the time, there was no secret here. We already heard it coming from Trump's mouth, and we had reporting about the canvasers deliberations at the time.

@lauren Trump was pretty public that he didn't think the canvassers should be certifying the results he was contesting, so this doesn't really seem like any groundbreaking news.

It would be weird if he DIDN'T make that request.