Would it matter? If they died living well according to Jesus’s teachings they’d be rewarded in heaven. Their mortal death would be inconsequential.

That said, they could probably survive as many homeless do through donations and begging.

It doesn’t necessarily have to, but then you have someone like Trisha Cotham in NC who switched parties to give the GOP a veto-proof majority and has been voting with them in lockstep ever since.

If they weren’t planning on acting as Republicans they could just as easily become independents.

“Person we hired to say things says the thing” more at 11.

Really irresponsible reporting, to be honest.

I was interested in it but at the end of the day Dorsey got Twitter into its initially mediocre state, and he’s endorsed RFK Jr. as well as Musk’s purchase of Twitter. So should I really expect it to be any better? I’ll keep an eye on it but my expectations aren’t terribly high.

The problem with those panels, in my opinion, isn’t the defense of free speech itself, it’s ending the conversation with a defense of free speech. This shifts the discussion away from how awful those other ideas are and instead distracts people with a debate over free speech itself.

If you truly want to support a free marketplace of ideas you have to be an active participant, you can’t expect others to pick up the bullhorn for good in your place.

The goal isn’t to create successful states, it’s to create politically safe states. Doesn’t matter if the state crumbles as long as that crumble is red.

This principle exists to shield the people from their government. It is not intended to be (and has never been) a protection for someone’s social status or reputation.

The real question is how much would I accept in payment to use Twitter. It’s probably not a lot, but it surely is not negative.

I don’t think it’s that simple. Heinous allegations can make that business relationship untenable. YouTube has an image to protect as well as other partnerships to maintain. There are people (not just wealthy executives) whose livelihood relies on those things,.

If a person’s reputation, fair or not, creates a risk to those things, why should YouTube be forced to assume that risk on their behalf?

Not just US interests, but European and Ukrainian interests as well. There was a multi-national effort to remove Shokin. You think Joe Biden orchestrated all of that to get his son a cushy board membership? It’s laughable.