peabody87

@run_bull_ Any suspension list that doesn’t start with Jokic is an abomination

We will find out how much of a hand Adam Silver has in who he wants in the next round We will find out.

@PDWolves Denver is ass. Wolves in 5

It'll be very hard to win another game in this series - certainly not ruling it out, but Denver will be ready to gameplan for a very different looking and backcourt-depleted Wolves team, with 2 of the 3 at home. But this was a really great and memorable performance tonight.

@wolvestwtsara Maybe my guy @KevinOConnor can write a 20 part thread about how this always a foul in the NBA and anyone who thinks otherwise doesn’t know ball. I’m ready for it Kevin

Ant should’ve just fallen to the ground after this maybe they would’ve upgraded it to a flagrant but my GOAT is too ethical

@catholiccom Where did he say the Pope didn’t have the right to speak?

@Jusoon3 "Stop acting like saying he's wrong is blasphemy." We aren't. This is a post about Vance's comments, not the Pope's.

This was rough to hear from a public Catholic. The pope has every right to speak on politics and public affairs, because politics concerns man and the common good, and every facet of those realities belongs under the judgment of God.

There are literally dozens if not hundreds of abhorrent things going on in the world where there can be no debate whether they are just or morally sound. (Many of them are perpetrated by the current Iranian regime, by the way) The pope isn’t preaching about any of those things. He’s preaching about this.

I think JD Vance’s response, unfortunately, misses the point. When the Pope says, “God is not on the side of those who wield the sword” (Matthew 26:52), he is not denying the Church’s Just War tradition. He is calling us back to the heart of Christ. In Matthew 26:52, Jesus says, “all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” He also teaches us to love not only our friends but our enemies (Matthew 5:44), to refuse retaliation (Matthew 5:39), and in the end, He submits to the Cross without violence. This shows a clear direction: the Kingdom of God is not built through force. As He says, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God” (Matthew 5:9). Christ does not present violence as something that reflects God’s nature. He allows Himself to be killed rather than defend Himself with force. That is central to the Church’s message. What is Just War Theory? Just War Theory was developed mainly by St. Augustine and later refined by St. Thomas Aquinas. It is not a justification for violence, but a strict moral framework meant to limit it. It accepts that, in a fallen world, the use of force may sometimes be tolerated, but only under serious conditions. There must be a just cause, such as defending innocent life or resisting grave injustice. It must be declared by a legitimate authority. The intention must be right, not driven by revenge, hatred, or conquest, but by the desire to restore justice and peace. War must truly be a last resort, after every serious peaceful option has been exhausted. There must be a real probability of success, so that lives are not wasted in a hopeless conflict. The response must be proportionate, meaning the harm caused must not be greater than the evil being resisted. And even in war, civilians and non-combatants must never be deliberately targeted. Even with all these conditions, the Church never says that God supports war. At most, it says that moral responsibility may, in very limited circumstances, tolerate the use of force to prevent a greater evil. Peace remains the goal. Violence is never the ideal. What I find difficult in Vance’s response is the tone toward the Pope. It comes across as though he is trying to correct theological language, as if the Pope is offering just another opinion. But the Pope’s role is precisely to speak into moral and theological questions, especially when they touch on real issues like war and power. At a deeper level, this seems like a clash between political reasoning and the logic of the Gospel. Christ is the standard, not political strategy, not historical precedent. Everything has to be measured against Him. So yes, the Church has wrestled with the reality of war. But that does not weaken the Pope’s point. If anything, it makes it more necessary. In a world that keeps finding ways to justify violence, the Church must keep pointing back to Christ, who did not conquer by the sword, but by the Cross.

@FeserEdward Iran has been attacking the US and allies for decades

While just war doctrine allows “preemptive war” (military action to head off an attack that is just about to be launched) it forbids “preventive war” (military action against a country that merely might someday attack). The pope and the USCCB are simply upholding this teaching.

I take a perverse pleasure in the way Jemele Hill gets under the skin of male sports fans. They detest the niche she occupies in the sports media landscape. What she represents. Outspoken knowledgeable Black female sports commentator.

Have we not already suffered harm at the hands of Iran? Have we not chosen to engage with them in a way that exposes our soldiers to more risk than by using other options at our disposal? Have we not chosen to engage with them in a way that reduces collateral casualties of innocents as compared to other options at our disposal? I think you’re taking a lot of things for granted here.

Even Augustine seems hesitant given human fallibility. The easiest resolution is also the hardest: imitate Christ in pacifism and if done in direct confrontation with evil you cannot go wrong (albeit the cost may be very steep!). From this we receive martyrs, MLK, Dorothy Day etc

I've taught Augustine's view of just war for over a decade. Not only has the VP failed to grapple with its basic features but he is missing something essential: for Augustine pacifism (Christ's own witness) is the most perfect fulfillment of conduct in any kind of human conflict.

@Geneezeus @CynicalPublius They only do it in response to things Republicans are doing that the don’t like, much less the Democrats or even bad actors worldwide. That is the issue

@CynicalPublius God forbid the leader of the Vatican, a country recognized by the UN, provides commentary and critique about the actions of other world leaders and governments just like every other political leader does

I have been pretty emphatic the last few days in condemning Pope Leo’s foray into American politics. My detractors are having fun stating that I am doing this out of allegiance to President Trump and that I have chosen Trump over God. WRONG. The biggest reason by far why I am so vocal on this is the damage Pope Leo is doing to the Catholic Church in the USA. I believe Pope Leo has done more to harm US Catholicism in just a few days than any other Pope of the past 100 years (even Francis). Pope Leo is literally causing orthodox, faithful American Catholics to flee the Church out of disgust over his leftwing politicization and his kowtowing to Islam. Moreover, he has opened the door for boundless criticism against Catholicism from certain Protestant denominations and churches, causing untold harm to Christian ecumenism in the USA. It is precisely because I care so much about the Church that Jesus founded in AD 33 that I oppose the havoc Pope Leo has unleashed in the US Church. (And yes, under Church doctrine and as a Catholic, I am fully entitled to hold such beliefs and express them.)

@MRHemon2024 @LeadingReport Yes

@LeadingReport If implemented, election logistics across all 50 states would need serious adjustments.

Supreme Court seems likely to side with establishing a single nationwide Election Day, requiring all ballots to be submitted and counted by that day.

What a community note.

@localghost @redsteeze “Mostly true” - @PolitiFact

"Man won't fly for a million years" – NYT 1903

@AaronGleeman We’re so back

Orioles 2, Twins 1. Well, that loss kind of played out as feared. Joe Ryan was good, the lineup was bad, and the bullpen allowed a couple runs in a tight game. Twins hitters had chances, but went 1-for-12 with runners in scoring position and grounded into three double plays.

Hello Representative Levin, I'd like to introduce you to an organization called the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs. NDI is one of the four core institutes of the National Endowment for Democracy, established by Congress in 1983. It is the Democratic Party's official international arm. Its board members include Stacey Abrams, Donna Brazile, and Michael McFaul. Its previous chair was Madeleine Albright, who served until her death in 2022. Also on the board: Eric Kessler, founder of Arabella Advisors, the largest dark money network in Democratic politics. NDI reported $181.5 million in revenue in fiscal year 2023, nearly all in government grants. NDI's mission, for four decades, has been to tell countries around the world how to run democratic elections. And what NDI consistently tells them, across dozens of countries, is that voter identification is a fundamental pillar of election integrity, and that proving citizenship is a basic prerequisite for participation. Here is what NDI has demanded of other countries: NDI's foundational guide, Building Confidence in the Voter Registration Process (2001), describes voter ID systems as standard democratic infrastructure. It states that voter registries should contain "voters' photographs and even their fingerprints" and that registered voters should be issued "a voter or other ID card that serves as proof of their right to vote." NDI explains that "issuing ID cards, either national or voting, requires a second point of contact between election officials and voters, which introduces an additional safeguard into the system." (pp. 10–11, 15) NDI's 2015 study of voter registration across the Middle East and North Africa goes further, laying out that voters must "prove their identity, essentially demonstrating that they are who they say they are" and must "affirm their citizenship and age." (p. 11) That same 2001 guide identifies married name changes as a routine voter roll maintenance challenge: "Election officials must update information about people who have moved or who have married and changed their surname." NDI also notes that voter lists "may omit information about changes of address or name for those eligible people who have recently moved or married." NDI's recommendation is not to eliminate voter ID. It is to maintain clean, continuously updated voter rolls that accommodate name changes within the system. In its 2009 Bangladesh report, NDI praised the country's new photo-voter list and national ID card system, noting that the ID cards gave "a sense of empowerment and belonging to the disadvantaged and marginalized people of the country, particularly women." Read that again. NDI itself called voter identification empowering for WOMEN! In every case, NDI's position was identical: marriage-related name changes are a solvable administrative problem. The solution is better record-keeping and updated systems. Not fewer safeguards. Not the elimination of voter ID. Your party's own international arm has already solved the problem you bring up. The answer is: maintain the rolls. Update the records. Issue the IDs. Accommodate name changes within the system, don't use them as a reason to have no system at all. The exact opposite of what you push here - refusing to clean voter rolls. By NDI’s own standards, by the standards of your own international soft power branch, YOUR position is the anti-feminist position. The SAVE America Act asks Americans to do less than what NDI demands of Nicaragua, less than what NDI praises in Morocco, and far less than the biometric fingerprint-and-facial-recognition system NDI supervised in Nigeria. Eighty-four percent of Americans support photo ID to vote. Two-thirds of Democrats support it. Jimmy Carter's own 2005 bipartisan commission recommended it. You voted no. Your party's international arm, funded with taxpayer money, chaired by your party's former Senate leader (Tom Daschle), staffed by your party's most prominent voting-rights advocate, says yes. For everyone else. NDI's guides are publicly available on their website. You might consider reading them before you spout mindless drivel to protect your own grift.

"I'm here to tell you that Supreme Leader Mojtaba is fine. In fact I can barely keep up with him. He's running rings around staffers half his age"

@DustBaker The only Christian Kirk I recognize

I know these things are never like clockwork, but I want to point out that Kyler Murray's best friend is free-agent WR Christian Kirk. The Vikings might need one of those with Jalen Nailor gone.

@elonmusk Can I have a category for Candace Owens talk?

If you’d like to see less politics or crypto, just select all except those ones. This is an “early access” feature, so expect it to improve rapidly.

@CynicalPublius Probably because nobody you associate with or desire the approval of would laud you for skipping it. They know they’re gonna get Yaas Queen’d and they want that

I'm catching some bipartisan grief from about 15% of the commenters on this one. Please allow me to offer my own personal take. If ANY President (including Barack Obama, who I believe is the Marxist Anti-Christ) invited me to be an honored guest at the SOTU, here is the full and complete list of the reasons that would cause me to not attend: 1. I am near death in the ICU. 2. My wife, a parent, a child or a sibling is near death in the ICU. 3. While enroute to the SOTU, I am killed in a fatal traffic or airplane accident. 4. Some Democrat sympathizer blew up the Capitol. That's it. That's the full spectrum of reasons why I would miss it. There are no other reasons. Why do the female Olympians not think the same way?

@redsteeze (D)ifferent

That was the good gerrymandering.