Because it isn't against the rules. Not just according to him, but according to the entire supreme court -- all 9 justices.
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Letter%20to%20Chairman%20Durbin%2004.25.2023.pdf
Advocating that everyone throw away the rules the moment someone you don't like is doing something you don't like is becoming increasingly common, and it's an existential threat to any ideology advocating for it.
Let's say that you get this one. Let's say that they bend the rules to punish someone for something that wasn't against the rules this time. How long until people you do agree with are getting punished for things that aren't against the rules that you don't think are worth punishing someone over?
Eventually, giving up on fairness and rule of law will bite you. Hard.
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Letter%20to%20Chairman%20Durbin%2004.25.2023.pdf
Advocating that everyone throw away the rules the moment someone you don't like is doing something you don't like is becoming increasingly common, and it's an existential threat to any ideology advocating for it.
Let's say that you get this one. Let's say that they bend the rules to punish someone for something that wasn't against the rules this time. How long until people you do agree with are getting punished for things that aren't against the rules that you don't think are worth punishing someone over?
Eventually, giving up on fairness and rule of law will bite you. Hard.
Did voice assistance really take that much money? I didn't find mine changed all that much over the years I've owned mine, they're basically glorified music player UIs at this point
England had a huge problem with adulterated food in the 19th century. These adulterants included things like alum, chalk, and even sawdust. As a result of this, there were laws passed that specifically defined exactly what bread was and what could go into it.
https://www.victorianweb.org/science/health/health1.html
https://www.victorianweb.org/science/health/health1.html
In the 1970s a bunch of hippies moved to nature communes. It turns out they hated nature almost as much as they hated communism.
I think it's awfully neat that certain things like a fairly obscure science experiment from the 1950s have extended so far through cultural osmosis.
Ontario is nuclear previously backed up by gas with a mix of some hydro, but the big problem with hydroelectric isn't that it can't be done up here, it's that the greenies decided hydroelectric didn't let you destroy capitalism so they oppose it.
If bloody Manitoba can have primarily hydroelectric, there's no reason why the much larger and much less densely packed Ontario couldn't as well. But if we did that then the dams would be built and people have cheap power and you can't stick your nose in other people's lives anymore.
If bloody Manitoba can have primarily hydroelectric, there's no reason why the much larger and much less densely packed Ontario couldn't as well. But if we did that then the dams would be built and people have cheap power and you can't stick your nose in other people's lives anymore.
Manitoba and Quebec have had adequetely inexpensive electric, by having hydroelectric. It's relatively common in those regions to have electric heat because the electricity was cheap enough to justify it.
By contrast, Ontario had reasonably priced electricity, and "went green" with the latest new thing and now people are moving to gas heat because they can no longer afford their heating bills.
By contrast, Ontario had reasonably priced electricity, and "went green" with the latest new thing and now people are moving to gas heat because they can no longer afford their heating bills.
A lot of us who used to be fully on the social left have had this same moment.
Makes it easier when the people who were supposedly open-minded and liberal just call you a Nazi and try to punch you for not following the orthodoxy.
Makes it easier when the people who were supposedly open-minded and liberal just call you a Nazi and try to punch you for not following the orthodoxy.
Tbf, assault and fare evasion are quite different things and the ratio would be important.
If they wanted to increase the use of electricity, they need to make a lot more of it so it's the cheaper alternative. They're liars though, so they keep saying things like "this is the cheapest form of energy" when it's not true because otherwise everyone would just use that, and instead just ban the cheaper alternatives.
"I ate coffee maker chicken on the business trip to save the company money"
"Jesus Christ, you're fired if you ever even *think about thinking about* doing that again in the name of the company!"
Imagine if this guy died eating his grody coffee maker chicken and that made it to court that someone at the company was aware he was doing to "save the company money".
Hell, imagine if someone else got salmanella from a contaminated coffee maker and it made it to court that the company was aware of this?
"Jesus Christ, you're fired if you ever even *think about thinking about* doing that again in the name of the company!"
Imagine if this guy died eating his grody coffee maker chicken and that made it to court that someone at the company was aware he was doing to "save the company money".
Hell, imagine if someone else got salmanella from a contaminated coffee maker and it made it to court that the company was aware of this?
And if you're on android, there's also an app called hoot that gives a nice experience for scrolling on your phone
https://lotide.fbxl.net/posts/20805
https://lotide.fbxl.net/posts/20805
These frauds are so used to their echo chambers that they just freesociate whatever they want, intellectual rigor be damned. Why wouldn't they? It's what's always worked since they're in echo chambers that doesn't demand anything but loyalty.
Forget about claims not supported by sourced evidence there aren't even claims made -- just conclusions that it's assumed everyone will agree with because everyone else is in the same echo chamber and agrees as a matter of cult affiliation.
The idea that the Republicans have become super radical just doesn't stand up to scrutiny, particularly when compared to the Democrats, destroying the core conclusion of these people. Since it's an unsupported conclusion, destroying the conclusion destroys the unsupported conclusions that are built around the core conclusion.
In 1992, the Republican view on abortion is that it was morally wrong and should be banned. In 2023, the Republican view on abortion is that it is morally wrong and should be banned. In 1992, the Republican view on gay marriage is that the constitution should be amended to ensure it was banned. In 2023, the Republican view on gay marriage is that it is settled law and shouldn't be banned. In 1992, the Republican view on borders was that they should be secured. In 2023, the Republican view on borders is that they should be secured. In 1992, the Republican view on taxes is that they should be cut across the board. In 2023, the Republican view is that they should be cut across the board. In 1992, the Republican view on reparations for slavery is that it's an absurd idea and the past should stay in the past. In 2023, the Republican view is that the past should stay in the past. In 1992, the Republican view on crime is that it's bad. In 2023, the Republican view on crime is that it's bad.
Meanwhile, in 1992 the Democrat view on abortion is "safe, legal, and rare" while the Democrat view in 2023 is that abortion to the moment of birth is acceptable and should abortion should be celebrated. In 1992, the Democrat view on gay marriage is that while the constitution shouldn't be amended it shouldn't be legal (And in 1996 Bill Clinton signed a "Defense Of Marriage Act" into law defining marriage as between one man and one woman) and that was the stance until Obama came out as in favor of gay marriage in 2012. Today, the Democrat view on gay marriage is that if you keep gay porn out of school libraries or think schools shouldn't be bringing kids to drag shows you're a hateful bigot. In 1992, the Democrats generally agreed that the borders should be secured. In 2023, the stance is to abolish ICE and give illegal immigrants the right to vote. In 1992, the Democrats view on reparations for slavery was that it was an absurd idea. In 2023, the Democrat view is that there should be serious consideration given to the idea of reparations. In 1992, the Democrat view on crime was that it's bad. In 2023, the Democrat view on crime is that maybe it isn't so bad after all -- many Democrat jurisdictions are effctively legalizing crime on a statutory level, and many DAs are refusing to prosecute crimes.
Does this mean the Republicans are great? Nope. Maybe their viewpoints are wrong -- and in a lot of ways they are. But it does mean that they really haven't changed their views all that much over decades and decades besides becoming more moderate, while especially in the past years the Democrats have gone loco.
A great party probably wouldn't look like either one, but this is what the Americans have, and unfortunately it's what the rest of us end up inheriting since they're the biggest bull in this china shop.
Forget about claims not supported by sourced evidence there aren't even claims made -- just conclusions that it's assumed everyone will agree with because everyone else is in the same echo chamber and agrees as a matter of cult affiliation.
The idea that the Republicans have become super radical just doesn't stand up to scrutiny, particularly when compared to the Democrats, destroying the core conclusion of these people. Since it's an unsupported conclusion, destroying the conclusion destroys the unsupported conclusions that are built around the core conclusion.
In 1992, the Republican view on abortion is that it was morally wrong and should be banned. In 2023, the Republican view on abortion is that it is morally wrong and should be banned. In 1992, the Republican view on gay marriage is that the constitution should be amended to ensure it was banned. In 2023, the Republican view on gay marriage is that it is settled law and shouldn't be banned. In 1992, the Republican view on borders was that they should be secured. In 2023, the Republican view on borders is that they should be secured. In 1992, the Republican view on taxes is that they should be cut across the board. In 2023, the Republican view is that they should be cut across the board. In 1992, the Republican view on reparations for slavery is that it's an absurd idea and the past should stay in the past. In 2023, the Republican view is that the past should stay in the past. In 1992, the Republican view on crime is that it's bad. In 2023, the Republican view on crime is that it's bad.
Meanwhile, in 1992 the Democrat view on abortion is "safe, legal, and rare" while the Democrat view in 2023 is that abortion to the moment of birth is acceptable and should abortion should be celebrated. In 1992, the Democrat view on gay marriage is that while the constitution shouldn't be amended it shouldn't be legal (And in 1996 Bill Clinton signed a "Defense Of Marriage Act" into law defining marriage as between one man and one woman) and that was the stance until Obama came out as in favor of gay marriage in 2012. Today, the Democrat view on gay marriage is that if you keep gay porn out of school libraries or think schools shouldn't be bringing kids to drag shows you're a hateful bigot. In 1992, the Democrats generally agreed that the borders should be secured. In 2023, the stance is to abolish ICE and give illegal immigrants the right to vote. In 1992, the Democrats view on reparations for slavery was that it was an absurd idea. In 2023, the Democrat view is that there should be serious consideration given to the idea of reparations. In 1992, the Democrat view on crime was that it's bad. In 2023, the Democrat view on crime is that maybe it isn't so bad after all -- many Democrat jurisdictions are effctively legalizing crime on a statutory level, and many DAs are refusing to prosecute crimes.
Does this mean the Republicans are great? Nope. Maybe their viewpoints are wrong -- and in a lot of ways they are. But it does mean that they really haven't changed their views all that much over decades and decades besides becoming more moderate, while especially in the past years the Democrats have gone loco.
A great party probably wouldn't look like either one, but this is what the Americans have, and unfortunately it's what the rest of us end up inheriting since they're the biggest bull in this china shop.
Realcaseyrollins? I don't think so. I think he just disagrees that trump is the best candidate, but he's been pretty consistent ideologically as long as I've seen him around.
I can see both ways of looking at it.
There's no jaywalking (at least enforced) where I live, and it's really annoying when people just randomly cross the street and you're like swerving because it's like "are you stupid? I'm going to hit you!"
There's no jaywalking (at least enforced) where I live, and it's really annoying when people just randomly cross the street and you're like swerving because it's like "are you stupid? I'm going to hit you!"