@Spintendo Clearly, you needed to make this political. It should have been properly made in the first place and/or fixed when they realized there was a problem.

@hubrys So much mental gymnastics to explain the liberal insanity. It's like how you guys redefined "racism" so only whites can be racist. What I can't deal with is lunatics demanding that I participate in their idiotic clown world.

@serenity An unofficial rule that they enforce, is a rule. Twitter never, ever officially banned "learn to code" when used against journalists, but they did ban people for posting it. Likewise with all big tech. As I posted earlier, you can go watch the Joe Rogan podcast and watch where Tim Pool calls them out for it and the Twitter lawyer and Jock Dorsey make up lame excuses why they banned for it despite not being an official rule. I think you need to bitch to the clowns in big tech and tell them under no certain terms that they violated their own rules by banning for breaking non-rules.

@raphjd In my country women can be guilty of rape. Maybe the UK is just very old fashion.

@raphjd I think the term "Voter" is what is confusing you here, since the word is both a noun and a verb. Let's make it simpler. A person who was a voter while they were alive, but then died, well they don't vote anymore. But if they did, that would make them a "Dead Voter". So for that definition to be accurate, the Voter has to have voted while they were dead. That would make them a dead voter. Someone who is dead, and still has an open registration -- is not really a dead voter according to the definition above. They would be more accurately described as a Dead Registrant. So when you say "Dead Voter" and the report talks about "Deceased Voter Registrations" you're not really on the same page. But you knew that already. You're a smart person, and you know exactly what the distinction is I'm talking about here. It's a distinction that your headline hyperbole glosses over.

@hubrys Federal courts are not the same as federal laws. Marriage equality advocates were pushing for states' rights, and part of that was to overturn DOMA and restore FF&C when it comes to marriage. This became important when Mass. legally recognized marriage equality in 2004. Unlike abortion, now, there was no push at the time to make marriage equality a federal law. It was states' rights based on Massachusetts.

@raphjd And then in your very next post you rely upon the ad hominem tu quoque fallacy. Classic, just classic!