Ironically what you wanted was her to politicize her position. She was above that
That's great for her and all, but it was a choice that had the disastrous outcome of allowing Trump to replace her with Barrett. Ginsberg doesn't have to live with that, but we all do. Thanks RBG.
Did anyone think we couldn't? We regularly elect people to do that job.
The board has given no real reasoning for why they fired him. Until they do, there's no reason anyone should consider this anything other than an internal power struggle that resulted in a coup.
And Sam didn't have a job anymore. Why shouldn't he go work for Microsoft? He was pushed out of OpenAI, is he contractually bound to never do something different?
Did musk hire expertise? Or do the actual engineering?
It sounds like your actual argument is that neither he nor they founded the company.
I guess it just sprang into existence on its own...
What's your solution for the people that live there?
Trump is a maniac but it's pretty clear he says "Take a stand against tyrants AND support the one and only..."
Not "Take a stand against tyrants that support..."
If this is the best the Biden team has... Yeesh
And thanks to you as well!
Sorry, what are the *arr apps? Not familiar with that stuff..
No, the rules have always allowed them to consider promotions individually. It's voting on promos as a bloc that requires unanimous consent.
Because that's not the whole story.
Yes, they can (and have) done a few individually.
The reason they've resisted doing that for the most part is two-fold:
They don't want to normalize what Tuberville is doing. If they "give-in" and start considering promotions individually, then they signal that any senator can use this as a tool.
They think that what Tuberville is doing is ultimately harmful to Republicans and will help Democrats win more seats in the next election. They will run ads saying that Tuberville and his fellow Republicans are hurting American military members and weakening our military readiness.
What you're saying is a nice thought, but it's a game theory failure.
In a perfect world, yes, America would not have elected a narcissistic maniac. But in the real world, we did. And Ginsberg, who knew she was in poor health (had cancer like a bazillion times) opted to take a chance.
Maybe she just calculated poorly, or maybe this was a magnificent act of putting principle above pragmatism. Either way, Roe v. Wade was still overturned and so much for RGBs legacy. The smart move for an 80 year old woman with colon cancer is to find an offramp that lets her preserve her legacy.
I get it if you disagree, but I don't think it's hard to understand why people blame her at least in part for this mess.