Learning that Platner was a bartender at the Tune Inn is another notch in the "he's not actually a Nazi" belt.
06.03.2026 20:54
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
Learning that Platner was a bartender at the Tune Inn is another notch in the "he's not actually a Nazi" belt.
🤷♂️
Stained glass window showing army special forces with rifles in front of a church with a quote from Proverbs: "but the house of the righteous shall stand"
Stained glass window of a green beret toting a rifle with hebrew scripture below
"the truth shall make you free" stained glass window
Wounded, bloodied special forces stained window
The Fort Bragg "JFK Memorial Chapel" is something else...
Sure, but if you're making targeting decisions based *solely* on the output of an LLM that is known to frequently hallucinate, or make factual "mistakes," then you are bombing with reckless disregard for civilian life.
Yeah, this idea that the targeting was based off old data in Claude's model, while plausible as a partial explanation of what may have happened here, unfairly shifts the focus from an incompetent/malicious military decision to an amoral piece of software.
And yet the evidence for this proposition being cited by the OP is coming from that very same chatbot. 🤔
Tweet from senator Andy Kim wishing constituents a happy Purim. The graphic is New Jersey with lots of Mardi Gras iconography for some reason
oh that’s not—
Ladies and gentlemen, the Federalist Society!
Also, heart disease!
My first impression was that there was a gulf in perceived age between him and Hilary, which seemed far greater than between him & Biden/Trump. From the bits I saw of the depos, he largely came across as the old man that he is, while Hilary seemed the same as 2016 (10 years ago!).
Erik Spoelstra: "Our paint defense was fortified by Gabe Vincent. Nobody could have seen this coming."
It's interesting b/c I think the idea that it's being viewed as misleading is genuinely surprising to even some of the most experienced lawyers among us. (To be clear, I'm not questioning your good faith interpretation; I'm just surprised to see there's this type of sincere divide on the semantics).
FWIW, this was my immediate take.
I'm legitimately surprised to see this is your take. I don't know. The fact that this seems to be something of a Rorschach test for attorneys suggests it's not an issue worthy of argument (no pun intended).
I hate the weak-kneed average Democratic politician response to a moral crisis, but a not-insignificant part of me thinks this level support is, partly, because the likes of Schumer, Jeffries, et al., have been their typical abysmal selves.
I think I'd rather they start hiring folks claiming degrees from MIT or Carnegie and Mellon law schools.
The median atty w/ any govt and/or appellate experience would not find her stmt to even raise an eyebrow. Lawyers often state they "argued at/before X court" when they were involved in formulating either written or oral legal arguments made to the court. Most lawyering doesn't look like TV lawyering
How am I only just now learning that this exists?!? Amazing. Immediately to the top of my watchlist!
The word 'argue' does not exclusively mean oral argument." - GRISWOLD CAMPAIGN
I mean, she did... To this organization, before they ran this thing that feels like an unfair hit piece. (To be clear, I have no opinion on Griswold, her opponents, or the Colorado AG race. Just noting that this smells like a BS non-story to this objective outsider).
Cool stuff
It's not like she expressly claimed (or even clearly implied) that she appeared before the court in oral argument.
The context matters here though. She made an initial legal determination as Secretary of State & she (through the Colorado AG's office) continued to advance that underlying legal argument through subsequent legal challenges, all the way up to SCOTUS. This feels like a real nothing-burger.
This is some *serious* stretching you're doing to mischaracterize what she actually said. The idea that, to any lawyer, her statement is clearly "false" doesn't ring true to this former lawyer. Unless there's some compelling context to her remarks you're omitting, her claim is, at worst, ambiguous.
I know nothing about Griswold, but this, standing alone, seems like some awfully thin gruel. The notion presented in the report that, from a lawyer's perspective, there's no room for ambiguity strikes me as a pretty extreme exaggeration (unless there's some additional unreported context).
Hold up. Trump officials are saying Israel went something like “we’re totally gonna attack on our own, but then Iran might shoot back at you, so really you’re under imminent threat and should start the war with a big attack,” and the White House bought it, and this is supposed to be a *defense*?!?
For sure. It's unexcusable on his end. (But also doesn't also mean he's a [secret] Nazi who is going to pull some super-charged Fetterman nonsense).
Yes, and yet if he's the nominee, I'd still obviously rather have a bumbling, politically-incompetent politician in the Senate than another vote enabling Trump's fascism. I don't think we'd be here if it were not for decades of political malpractice by the Democratic Party.
Your analogy makes no sense. Trump has a decades-long track record of racist comments & support for racist policies. The analogy would be if Platner had a long record of anti-Semitic statements & someone was defending him on the grounds that he can't be anti-semitic bc he has Jewish friends
Just reading about this. While still not necessarily clear evidence that Platner himself is an actual anti-semite (sounds like they didn't discuss any of the podcaster's anti-Semitic conspiracy theories), it's obviously dumb as hell even if he wasn't already dealing w/ *waves hands at all the rest*