I believe that tedd cruz along with mitch mconnell and lindsey graham all cheated in their last win. All three were in what look like tight races but all three ended up winning by big-ish margins given the polling. I have no evidence other than a feeling but I just can't shake that feeling is somehow not completely wrong.
If any of my completely unfounded conspiracy is right then Allred ain't going to win .
The suit describes de la Torre as having a "distinguished career, bedecked by numerous accomplishments," while accusing the senators of painting him as "a villain and scapegoat[ing] him for the company’s problems, even those caused by systemic deficiencies in Massachusetts’ health care system." If he had appeared at the Congressional hearing, he would not have been able to defend himself from the personal attacks without being forced to abandon his Constitutional rights, the suit argues.
Translating the bold part - I want all the money and power of a CEO I just don't want or deserve the responsibility when things go wrong.
What an ass
Well he convinced me!
I not going to vote for Taylor Swift for President.
I think "they" are oil and gas executives
I really think most 'journalist' are "news influencers"
Because that is what churches are supposed to do - promote politicians 🙄
These scams are effective because of a thing called Amygdala hijack which
"is an emotional response that is immediate, overwhelming, and out of measure with the actual stimulus because it has triggered a much more significant emotional threat."
You can get any human to do dumb things if you can by-pass their logical brain and have them work off the lizard brain.
I can see a future where the Internet is completely run by bots and AI to the point where no human actually uses the Internet anymore.
It's like an island that gets overrun with rats - there are just too many to deal with so you leave.
I think Jake Tapper and many others shouldn't be called a journalist but a "News Influencer"
my feeling is, is if you are going to be selling a product and you use certain words or phrases like "scientifically proven" or "research shows..." that you need to reference your claim.
It sets both the technical requirements and recommended best practices for determining the validity of methods used to authenticate digital identities online. Organizations that interact with the federal government online are required to be in compliance
My argument is that if this document (and others) are requirements for companies shouldn't there also be a more approachable document for people to use?
Sure, have the jargon filled document that those in the know can access, but without an additional not so jargon-y document you've just added a barrier to change. Maybe just an abstract of the rule changes on the front page without the jargon?
I don't know, maybe it's not a big deal to compliance officers but just seems to me (someone that isn't a compliance officer) that obfuscating the required changes behind jargon and acronyms is going to slow adoption of the changes.
His way of making the government efficient will be to just have no bid contracts go to all of his businesses.