Austill Stuart

Javier Milei giving a shout out to my undergrad macro professor!

@SouthDallasFood Everyone Gets Laid

What is your favorite fictitious band? Mine is without a doubt Citizen Dick.

@CodifyBaseball Stan Musial

Who is a baseball player that everyone agrees is genuinely a good person?

@BohmIsKing @Braves

@Braves NOW SHOW ME THE FINAL SCORES FROM THE 2022 & 2023 NLDS 😭😭😭😭🤡🤡🤡🤡

Series W! #BravesCountry

@esjesjesj Do you honestly think they're running towards the shooter as opposed to away from him? Because that assumption forms the entire basis for your theory here.

Using your pregnant wife as a human shield is honestly so vile

@JVMonte2 Harvey Danger youtu.be/wYsMjEeEg4g?si…

What’s a great one-hit wonder?

A movie that's in your top 25 list but unlikely to be in anyone else's?

@AmusedCynic1982 @tbonier I read what I responded to. Your insults telegraph your insecurity as an anonymous Mets fan.

@WeagIll @tbonier Of course you don't read and ignore readily provided facts, you're a magatard

Funny, I don't recall GOPs protesting the new map in Texas, where one fun feature is that it splits the Houston metro area up between 11 different congressional districts.

@AmusedCynic1982 @tbonier He makes no mention of the how in what I responded to, only that it was split into 11, as it has to be. Enjoy your Mets!

@WeagIll @tbonier He posted the map showing exactly what he meant, you happily ignored that part.

@AmusedCynic1982 @tbonier Tell that to the person to whom I first responded, as he doesn't appear to understand that.

@WeagIll @tbonier No shit Sherlock, there are always 11 districts for 7.8M people, everywhere. The "how it's done" is literally what gerrymandering is about.

@AmusedCynic1982 @tbonier My only point is that there's no way to split up 7.8M people into fewer than 11 Congressional districts, regardless of how it's done.

@WeagIll @tbonier They split up the urban core specifically in 11 different wedges to dilute Democrat votes rather than keep the city whole in a few districts that would vote for Democrats. That is literally what gerrymandering is.

@ick_real Gladys

I'm looking for a ridiculously old-fashioned girl's name for our new born . Think great-grandma name. Very old and rare. Any suggestions asap pls?

@TheEconomist "it’s free to register" Opportunity costs say otherwise.

Rich countries are in a selfish mood. Failure to act on the risk of an impending food shock looks baked in. In the face of an avoidable disaster, that is shameful. Read why (it’s free to register) economist.com/leaders/2026/0…

Eric Swalwell ending his bid for California governor is, among other things, a testament to the power of investigative reporting

@kreamlord7 @AAByrumBrown @Novig '92–'93

@AAByrumBrown @Novig Charles Barkley never won MVP

Did your school produce a pro MVP? 🏆

@hunterbrantley8 I can't go for that.

Imagine Hall with Oats coaching him… could he have been a first round draft pick???

@amblingrambler @Si_Ro_Nin @Thomas_A_Berry @jrhuddles I'm still pretty sure I can read, thanks for the correction on "appositive," though. In not using the term for decades, I had convinced myself it could mean a clarifying descriptive subordinate clause as opposed to just more or less a synonym.

@WeagIll @Si_Ro_Nin @Thomas_A_Berry @jrhuddles "No, I can read." Clearly, you can't. "Who belong to" is not an appositive. "Aliens" is. "… who are foreigners [] who belong to ambassadors…" vs. … who are foreigners, aliens, [] ambassadors or foreign ministers…" The latter dishonestly wholly negates the "birth" aspect.

I just got out of oral arguments in the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship case. Chief Justice Roberts had the line of the morning when he said "It's a new world, but it's the same Constitution." That really does sum up why the government's policy-based arguments had no bearing on the constitutional question. Today's oral argument focused on the original public meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment's text, which is the correct approach. And a clear majority of the Justices were unconvinced by the government's argument that this meaning has been misunderstood for over 150 years. As multiple Justices noted, the government's argument is very difficult to square with the reasoning of the Supreme Court's Wong Kim Ark decision from more than a century ago. Yet the government did not even ask the Court to overrule that decision if the Court interpreted it to protect traditional birthright citizenship. Based on today's argument, it seems that the most likely outcome is a simple opinion reaffirming that the Court meant what it said in Wong Kim Ark: those born on U.S. soil are U.S. citizens, with very rare exceptions for those who are to some extent exempt from following U.S. law. I expect the challengers to the President's order will receive somewhere between 6 and 8 votes in their favor.

@DoobLontonder @Thomas_A_Berry @jrhuddles By that same token, ands/ors might have been excluded, either spoken or through transposing.

@WeagIll @Thomas_A_Berry @jrhuddles It was a verbal proceeding on the floor of the Senate, it’s not always going to be the most eloquent and concise thing.

No, I can read. I am aware the "who belong to" is most likely an appositive, as I have noted elsewhere. But while similar, the term foreigners was often seen as broad while alien was more technical. Including both could suggest a distinction. People in the 19th Century also didn't forsee people crossing into our country for the sole purpose of giving birth to persons who would be deemed citizens, much less taxpayer bring used to facilitate the act. If you were to ask the Representative of such a hypothetical, would they approve? No way to know, but I wouldn't take their approval as a given. Bear in mind that I'm not even making a normative argument against birthright citizenship as it's understood now, just pointing out why the thinking at the time might not embrace the practice of people moving here just to give birth to citizens.

@WeagIll @Thomas_A_Berry @jrhuddles No he didn't. You're just bad at reading. "Foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families" is not a list. Foreigners and aliens are the same thing. He was talking, the commas are pauses. "Who belong to" isn't a separate list item.

@DoobLontonder @Thomas_A_Berry @jrhuddles Maybe, but that appears a bit verbose. I can see the appositive applying to aliens, but additionally including the word foreigners appears to warrant some distinction. Granted, it was the 19th Century, and concise language wasn't as common.

@WeagIll @Thomas_A_Berry @jrhuddles “Foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families” is one item. It’s foreigners who belong to the families, and aliens is a synonym for foreigner that he inserted parenthetically. Think about it: “who belong to the families” is not a complete noun phrase. It needs a noun.