rdietzman.bsky.social
@rdietzman.bsky.social
Still wondering why we couldn’t have just pulled a Weekend at Bernie’s with her for a little bit
January 16, 2026 at 7:00 PM
Still wondering why we couldn’t have just pulled a Weekend at Bernie’s with her for a little bit
Not sure what this means
January 16, 2026 at 5:43 PM
Not sure what this means
What a weird thing to say
January 16, 2026 at 2:44 PM
What a weird thing to say
It still pisses me off whenever I remember that we actually paid for Arlington
January 14, 2026 at 5:41 AM
It still pisses me off whenever I remember that we actually paid for Arlington
We know they were lying because no one actually sending coded messages would do it that way
January 12, 2026 at 8:34 PM
We know they were lying because no one actually sending coded messages would do it that way
100%. Add to that the thread through some of the replies that maybe he was faking being gay to gain access to women’s spaces. Barely one step removed from TERFy arguments about trans women.
January 11, 2026 at 8:02 PM
100%. Add to that the thread through some of the replies that maybe he was faking being gay to gain access to women’s spaces. Barely one step removed from TERFy arguments about trans women.
I had never considered the idea of a blanket snorkel, but it does sound super cozy
January 10, 2026 at 6:45 AM
I had never considered the idea of a blanket snorkel, but it does sound super cozy
It’s a fee on every shipment over $100 to Minnesota. I’m not sure why they felt the need to highlight the food delivery part
January 8, 2026 at 1:25 AM
It’s a fee on every shipment over $100 to Minnesota. I’m not sure why they felt the need to highlight the food delivery part
Is the zone 100 miles? Because it's definitely more than 100 miles from the great lakes. To be clear, I'm not making any sort of argument that it will meaningfully restrict these operations, but I don't see how you draw any 100 mile zone that includes the twin cities.
January 7, 2026 at 5:35 PM
Is the zone 100 miles? Because it's definitely more than 100 miles from the great lakes. To be clear, I'm not making any sort of argument that it will meaningfully restrict these operations, but I don't see how you draw any 100 mile zone that includes the twin cities.
It’s not within 200 miles of Canada. Lake Superior is within 200 miles but that’s not the border
January 7, 2026 at 5:25 PM
It’s not within 200 miles of Canada. Lake Superior is within 200 miles but that’s not the border
If they wouldn’t have gone anywhere there’s no point to a pardon, the courts would have done their jobs
December 3, 2025 at 5:55 PM
If they wouldn’t have gone anywhere there’s no point to a pardon, the courts would have done their jobs
The Biden pardons were to protect them from political prosecution. The Trump pardon here is because Cuellar was positive about his border policies. Not at all the same thing. And I did read the charges. They’re for accepting bribes through shell companies, aka corruption.
December 3, 2025 at 5:54 PM
The Biden pardons were to protect them from political prosecution. The Trump pardon here is because Cuellar was positive about his border policies. Not at all the same thing. And I did read the charges. They’re for accepting bribes through shell companies, aka corruption.
It certainly did not start to be enforced in 2014. If this fee even happens it will be the first meaningful enforcement for air travel.
December 2, 2025 at 2:47 PM
It certainly did not start to be enforced in 2014. If this fee even happens it will be the first meaningful enforcement for air travel.
All “exponential” tech growth is actually just somewhere in the middle of a sigmoid curve. This has happened several times before just in the field of AI.
July 24, 2025 at 3:56 PM
All “exponential” tech growth is actually just somewhere in the middle of a sigmoid curve. This has happened several times before just in the field of AI.
They did. Although it’s certainly possible for this court in particular to turn around and okay this, especially when faced with the reality of Trump actually doing it and having to tell him no. I wouldn’t feel confident betting either way.
July 16, 2025 at 3:35 PM
They did. Although it’s certainly possible for this court in particular to turn around and okay this, especially when faced with the reality of Trump actually doing it and having to tell him no. I wouldn’t feel confident betting either way.
From your own source: “Evidence indicates that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines continue to outweigh the risks of the disease”
July 3, 2025 at 4:45 AM
From your own source: “Evidence indicates that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines continue to outweigh the risks of the disease”
If you believe this constitutes a convincing argument, it’s no wonder how you were duped by anti-vax bullshit
July 3, 2025 at 4:43 AM
If you believe this constitutes a convincing argument, it’s no wonder how you were duped by anti-vax bullshit
Hear me out…maple syrup AND whipped cream. Best of both worlds.
July 2, 2025 at 4:38 AM
Hear me out…maple syrup AND whipped cream. Best of both worlds.
Are you getting at the fact that the court didn’t decide on the actual merits of birthright citizenship? That’s technically true, but their ruling allows Trumps order to go into effect in 28 states (in 30 days). That implementation is “thanks to the Supreme Court” which could have stopped it.
July 1, 2025 at 2:39 PM
Are you getting at the fact that the court didn’t decide on the actual merits of birthright citizenship? That’s technically true, but their ruling allows Trumps order to go into effect in 28 states (in 30 days). That implementation is “thanks to the Supreme Court” which could have stopped it.
Okay. But the Supreme Court could (and in my opinion should) have agreed that those rules include nationwide injunctions.
June 27, 2025 at 4:26 PM
Okay. But the Supreme Court could (and in my opinion should) have agreed that those rules include nationwide injunctions.
Seems like a concern the majority should have addressed then. But his power is to command the military. There’s nothing in the ruling that would prevent him from using that power to do assassinations.
June 27, 2025 at 4:16 PM
Seems like a concern the majority should have addressed then. But his power is to command the military. There’s nothing in the ruling that would prevent him from using that power to do assassinations.
If there’s ever a time for broad injunctions it’s to step in when the government is violating rights. No one should have to sue in order to “get the benefits” of their basic constitutional rights. This decision makes it vastly easier for those rights to be violated.
June 27, 2025 at 4:14 PM
If there’s ever a time for broad injunctions it’s to step in when the government is violating rights. No one should have to sue in order to “get the benefits” of their basic constitutional rights. This decision makes it vastly easier for those rights to be violated.
They did though. Absolute immunity for all “official acts”. The dissent even pointed out how this allows him to literally assassinate political rivals and the majority does not even attempt to refute that. You don’t call that a rubber stamp for lawlessness?
June 27, 2025 at 4:07 PM
They did though. Absolute immunity for all “official acts”. The dissent even pointed out how this allows him to literally assassinate political rivals and the majority does not even attempt to refute that. You don’t call that a rubber stamp for lawlessness?