Peanut Windmill

@YALiberty That's not very damned funny.

🚨 BREAKING: Congress has passed a bill to abolish the Federal Reserve and mandate a balanced budget starting in fiscal year 2027 to prevent our eventual economic collapse. It's a miracle!

@TheFungi669 The obvious implication is that your initial premise is false. There must be some other issue with immigration that is not based on hate.

I don’t understand why Trump and JD Vance hate immigrants when they’re both married to immigrants.

Justice Alito brings in a key point… You can’t establish a legal permanent domicile somewhere you are illegally present and subject to removal at any time.

Wow

@RepShontelBrown We don't, thanks.

Sharing this in case anyone needs to see it.

@Getinwithgame This is a really complicated April fools joke, quite certainly. Well done.

Before sex, your brain is clouded by horniness, fantasy, and the chase. You can easily mistake strong lust for genuine liking. After you f*ck her, especially if you f*ck her well, the fog lifts & the truth comes out fast. You’ll usually feel one of two things:

@LibertyCappy Guilty 🤷

What

This young man was asked if he thinks racism is okay. His response is PERFECT!

Y'all want the God of the Bible to be pro gay so bad and I think that's so odd. If you don't want to believe in what it actually says, then just stop claiming to be a believer rather than trying to make it say what you WANT it to say.

As a youngish White man in a western nation I've never heard a politician in power propose anything that will directly benefit me. Not once in my entire life. Most people don't know what that feels like.

@TheTrekCentral Well that's a way to spoil the fun. 🫪

🚨RED ALERT - #StarTrek Fans! A Reminder, it is April Fool's Day! Don't believe any "News" or announcements you see today. 🖖 LLAP

An infinite number of modern Trek writers typing for an infinite amount of time could never come up with something as great and inspiring as Kirk's 'Risk is our Business' speech.

@GovPritzker Nope it's not. Try another tired, worn out talking point.

This is unconstitutional. Voting is a fundamental right for every American. Illinois will keep administering free and fair elections – and what Donald Trump puts on a piece of paper will not change that.

Wrong. The Elections Clause gives states the initial role to set time, place and manner, but expressly authorizes Congress to enact nationwide rules for federal elections (House and Senate races), including voter registration, list maintenance, fraud prevention, and ballot procedures. The Supreme Court has interpreted “manner” broadly to include “notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices,” etc. The Help America Vote Act imposes mandatory minimum federal standards on states (e.g., statewide computerized voter registration lists, provisional ballots, and election administration improvements) and provides federal grants (“requirements payments”) explicitly conditioned on compliance. States must submit plans showing how they meet these standards to receive funding. The National Voter Registration was also enacted under the Elections Clause. It mandates that states maintain accurate voter rolls (“list maintenance”), offer registration at certain agencies, and accept a federal mail-registration form. Courts have upheld NVRA provisions as valid under the Elections Clause precisely because they target voter eligibility verification and roll accuracy. Trump’s EO explicitly cites both HAVA and NVRA as authority. It does not create new substantive rules from scratch; it directs federal agencies to implement and enhance existing federal statutory requirements using federal databases (SSA records, DHS’s SAVE program). Moreover, Congress’s power under Article I, Section 8 to tax and spend for the general welfare includes the ability to attach conditions to federal grants to states. This is classic conditional spending, upheld in South Dakota v. Dole (1987): conditions must be unambiguous, related to the federal interest (here, integrity of federal elections), and not coercive. - HAVA already does exactly this—grants are withheld or conditioned on states meeting federal election-administration standards. - The EO (Section 5) authorizes withholding “federal funds from noncompliant states/localities where authorized by law.” This is not a new commandeering of state legislatures; states can decline the funds (and the attached conditions) if they wish. Precedent confirms Congress (and the executive administering congressional appropriations) can use the purse to encourage compliance without directly dictating state election codes. Finally, Trump’s EO’s core mechanisms operate through federal entities like the post office, not state legislatures: - USPS rulemaking directs the Postmaster General to require barcoded, trackable “Official Election Mail” envelopes and to transmit ballots only to voters on the federal/state-verified Mail-In/Absentee Participation Lists. USPS is a federal agency; the President may direct its operations via executive order. States are not forced to change their own mailing processes—they simply cannot use federal postal service for non-compliant ballots if they want the service. This avoids the anti-commandeering doctrine (Printz v. United States, 1997), which prohibits the federal government from forcing state officials to enforce federal law. Here, the federal government is regulating its own property (mail) and funds. Once Congress has acted (via HAVA/NVRA), federal requirements preempt conflicting state practices for federal elections. The democrats are toast.

Gay people are not the issue. They’re responsible for their own decisions and lifestyles. However, the agenda, and it being imposed on society, is the issue. The federal government, the school system, Hollywood, and the sports industry all play a role in it. The same way people don’t want religion to be imposed on them is the same as people not wanting LGBTQ agendas to be pushed on to them.

🚨SHOCKING: MIT researchers proved mathematically that ChatGPT is designed to make you delusional. And that nothing OpenAI is doing will fix it. The paper calls it "delusional spiraling." You ask ChatGPT something. It agrees with you. You ask again. It agrees harder. Within a few conversations, you believe things that are not true. And you cannot tell it is happening. This is not hypothetical. A man spent 300 hours talking to ChatGPT. It told him he had discovered a world changing mathematical formula. It reassured him over fifty times the discovery was real. When he asked "you're not just hyping me up, right?" it replied "I'm not hyping you up. I'm reflecting the actual scope of what you've built." He nearly destroyed his life before he broke free. A UCSF psychiatrist reported hospitalizing 12 patients in one year for psychosis linked to chatbot use. Seven lawsuits have been filed against OpenAI. 42 state attorneys general sent a letter demanding action. So MIT tested whether this can be stopped. They modeled the two fixes companies like OpenAI are actually trying. Fix one: stop the chatbot from lying. Force it to only say true things. Result: still causes delusional spiraling. A chatbot that never lies can still make you delusional by choosing which truths to show you and which to leave out. Carefully selected truths are enough. Fix two: warn users that chatbots are sycophantic. Tell people the AI might just be agreeing with them. Result: still causes delusional spiraling. Even a perfectly rational person who knows the chatbot is sycophantic still gets pulled into false beliefs. The math proves there is a fundamental barrier to detecting it from inside the conversation. Both fixes failed. Not partially. Fundamentally. The reason is built into the product. ChatGPT is trained on human feedback. Users reward responses they like. They like responses that agree with them. So the AI learns to agree. This is not a bug. It is the business model. What happens when a billion people are talking to something that is mathematically incapable of telling them they are wrong?

@OGRicky305 @NathanChester24 Love tells the truth. Even when it might contradict someone's personal beliefs, opinions, or feelings. If all love does is affirm, then it just lies to people. Which isn't.....love.

@NathanChester24 John 13:34-35: “Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” and 1 John 4:20: “Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar.”

If you don’t like Christianity’s teaching on sexual morality, that’s fine. I don’t judge you. That’ll be between you and the Lord. But what I have no tolerance for is people trying to twist Christianity to fit a 2026 progressive sexual ethic.

@NathanChester24 This is what Satan does.

@girldrawsghosts Speak for yourself.

To properly understand the religious mania that has gripped America requires understanding that it was born in these exact same haunted non-spaces of congregation I’ve been in these rooms. They are places of anxiety and pressure and judgment and anger So, so much anger.

@saturnine_grace 😂😂😂😂 what an absolutely clownish take

The vast majority of people have premarital sex so if you say it's sinful you basically have to say that everyone around you is evil which seems obviously false? Not sure how to square this