It's as if they all think that they'll be rewarded for their loyalty to him.
It's pretty okay. Lots of engagement, also there's something of a 'block early and often' culture that seems to have a way of really reducing the drama and nonsense
Yeah I still can't get over how a couple of days later his right ear didn't have a mark on it. At his age, even with the best of plastic surgery, he wouldn't have clean skin on an ear for at least a week if he'd actually had a bullet pass through any part of it. I don't believe things he has to say about his health- he has a pretty solid track record when it comes to not telling the truth about his height, weight, bone spurs, being a stable genius, etc
Ahhh, the "continental shelf" toilet
Assault? Felony assault? For glitter?
Oh, yeah, glitter is a pain to clean up and the inconvenience involved can for sure be considered when weighing the liabilities involved, but the idea that he was in danger of any real harm is going to be a high bar to meet in court- almost certainly the charge is trumped-up to produce a chilling effect.
Also, those that want to ban the teaching of actual history are for sure the people that want us all to repeat it
Ehhhhhhh. 😒
For the 'but sport has to be fair' people, stop. Sport will never be fair, there are always people with better genetics, and with better access to training and equipment and the time to devote to developing their potential, bla bla bla.
The people trying to lawyer about who is or isn't a woman here aren't here to make sport fair, they're using the fact you'd like sport to be fair as a way to get you to support their demand to be able to reduce sport into a thing they can pick winners with by disqualifying people on arbitrary standards they get to invent.
I mean, the people that have been insisting 'you're a woman if you were born with those parts' are now insisting 'you're not a woman if I feel like you're not a woman'. Your takeaway here is that the pretexts will continue to change in order to get or keep your support, the underlying thrust is they want to discriminate against people that don't fit in to their ideas of what being a woman should mean.
It's ABOUT TIME
Srsly, watching grocery chains consolidate and regional prices for staples like butter and cheese go up by 50% in a matter of months got me pretty mad- I mean, on the one hand those things didn't become 50% more attractive or more expensive to make, they just didn't have to compete on price. It was really the fact that they could do it and get away with it that hurt the most.
Well, an economy that prices more and more people out of specific markets (like, the average person can't afford the median home any more and the cost of necessities like food, fuel, clothing and housing has gone up much faster than return on labor) might involve a rising stock market but it is objectively worse if you make your money by working.
Yes, that was the wording then, it was the qualification to vote (male, citizen, over 21). Since the adoption of the 19th Amendment (which happened after, and supercedes this text) that standard has included women and today you just need to be a citizen and over 18. The proportionality of loss of EC votes and congressional seating (these are apportioned on the same basis, after all) was about states like South Carolina and Mississippi, whose population of enslaved people exceeded that of white citizens- if these states didn't respect the new citizenship and voting rights of most of their citizens, they'd lose more than half of their federal representation, and that in turn would cost them and their confederates influence in the resulting federal government.
My prior comment, made in the context of a Kansas court declaring that voting is not a right according to the Kansas constitution, was intended to point out that if nobody has that right in Kansas, that may be well and fine in Kansas politics, but if Kansas conducts itself in that way it will cost them influence federally, and that sets the stage for another round of Voting Rights Acts that can be used to guarantee voting rights federally even if states don't want to do it themselves.
The US Constitution, on the other hand, does not oblige the federal government to recognize the electoral votes or congressional delegates of a state that does not enfranchise its citizens and submit to their will in the form of their votes.
The Guarantee Clause (article 4, section 4) of the constitution requires that state governments take the form of a republic, versus that of a theocracy or monarchy or dictatorship. (All republics involve some degree of democracy). Section 2 of the 14th Amendment says that if states deny citizens the right to vote, those states shall lose their representation at the federal level- that is, if you're not a democracy that submits to the will of its voters, you can do that but in the process your electoral college votes and ability to send congressmen to DC goes away- and your state will lose its ability to influence federal law and to elect federal officials.
Of course, the current SCOTUS is likely to find some way to assert that anything giving the GOP political advantage must be what the framers would have wanted no matter how many ways they told us unambiguously they fucking wanted government derived from the consent of the governed.
This is actually an area that's developing quite quickly. In 2023, California managed to put almost 14mw worth of storage on the grid; if they keep building out at that rate, peaky/transient power sources like wind and solar will have someplace to park until someone needs that energy. Almost 12mw of that was utility storage; it's like the utilities have the chance to get out of the business of producing power themselves and into the role of renting storage (or buying surplus energy then selling it later when it's needed)
Granted, 14mw isn't a lot in the scale of California, but the rate of growth in grid-storage over time is humongous