"it’s government’s role to provide a good public education,” he said.

That’s fucking rich from a Trump supporting Republican.

EDIT: Kept reading. "we need to be looking at how we’re preparing all students to be successful, not just my student.” Jesus, they are so close to getting it!

The ruling says that INTENT cannot be questioned. The President can say whatever he/she wants after the assassination, and it cannot be questioned by courts. The Pres can say that the killing stopped an imminent terror attack. They can say the person was in the middle of committing a crime and had a (totally not planted) gun on them.

I get what you are saying, that extrajudicial execution is not a faculty given to the executive branch. In the US, the judicial system is supposed to have the power over adjudicating crimes. And US citizens have the right to trial by their peers. But the government has shown repeatedly in the past that when it comes to terror that they are more than happy to waive rights. See: Guantanamo, drone kills of US citizens, cops killing people who are only suspected of being a threat, etc.

It was hung illegally on government property. Regardless what it said, this was not allowed. They are being prosecuted instead of simply fined because it was racially motivated like a hate crime.

I’m my grandmother had wheels she’d be a bike.

No, that’s not what they are saying, dipshit.

Nah, it’ll be around $6/year you were a subscriber while the lawyers will get $34/year.

Copy and paste from another post I made:

This ruling sounds good on its face, but it’s mixed at best and somewhat bad in the broad view.

1. It doesn’t define what is or isn’t an official duty or act. It gives some examples and then says it’s up to the lower courts to decide what is or isn’t on a case by case basis. It specifically said some of the current allegations are official acts that can’t be prosecuted and said some of the others are probably not official acts but the lower courts will have to rule on them. I’m sure that will be a speedy process that gets done before the election!

2. It also says it is the government’s burden to prove an act isn’t official, which will slow everything down and bring the cases back to SCOTUS again on a case by case basis. This also opens the possibility of political assassinations as being argued as official acts.

3. It mentions Presidents having limited immunity from having to make documents available. It does say it isn’t absolute, but it definitely leaves the door open to block current court cases from using many documents as evidence and also leaves the door open to claim immunity for the classified docs case. Evidence fights at the current criminal cases are about to be much harder for the prosecution to win. Now, it does say that former Presidents no longer have this immunity but isn’t clear whether that is for all docs or only docs for after they are former Presidents.

4. Maybe the worst is that it rules INTENT cannot be questioned. That is a core concept of criminal cases: intent matters! They are holding that it would bog down a President to be constantly asked about his/her intent when doing official acts, so therefor courts cannot question it. This REALLY opens the possibility of political assassinations, since intent behind the act cannot be questioned (e.g. it presupposes the person who was assassinated was committing treason or planning a terrorist attack and therefor the Presidential act was official). It does not say that former Presidents no longer have the Intent immunity, so this might be rough to clear in courts.

5. It specifically ruled that it is 100% OK to fire a person if they don’t do the illegal thing the President asks them to do, as long as that person’s job is something the President can hire/fire. It also ruled that if the illegal thing the President asks them to do falls within their job duties, then the President is immune from prosecution for asking for that illegal thing.

What you and most other anti-DEI people fail to realize is there inherent value in having people on the team from different backgrounds with different views and ways of finding solutions. The best person for the job is not necessarily the person who has the most training or experience in an area. Outside the box thinking often leads to better outcomes, so there is value in having people who think about/see the world in different ways.

This ruling sounds good on its face, but it’s mixed at best and somewhat bad in the broad view.

1. It doesn’t define what is or isn’t an official duty or act. It gives some examples and then says it’s up to the lower courts to decide what is or isn’t on a case by case basis. It specifically said some of the current allegations are official acts that can’t be prosecuted and said some of the others are probably not official acts but the lower courts will have to rule on them. I’m sure that will be a speedy process that gets done before the election!

2. It also says it is the government’s burden to prove an act isn’t official, which will slow everything down and bring the cases back to SCOTUS again on a case by case basis. This also opens the possibility of political assassinations as being argued as official acts.

3. It mentions Presidents having limited immunity from having to make documents available. It does say it isn’t absolute, but it definitely leaves the door open to block current court cases from using many documents as evidence and also leaves the door open to claim immunity for the classified docs case. Evidence fights at the current criminal cases are about to be much harder for the prosecution to win. Now, it does say that former Presidents no longer have this immunity but isn’t clear whether that is for all docs or only docs for after they are former Presidents.

4. Maybe the worst is that it rules INTENT cannot be questioned. That is a core concept of criminal cases: intent matters! They are holding that it would bog down a President to be constantly asked about his/her intent when doing official acts, so therefor courts cannot question it. This REALLY opens the possibility of political assassinations, since intent behind the act cannot be questioned (e.g. it presupposes the person who was assassinated was committing treason or planning a terrorist attack and therefor the Presidential act was official). It does not say that former Presidents no longer have the Intent immunity, so this might be rough to clear in courts.

5. It specifically ruled that it is 100% OK to fire a person if they don’t do the illegal thing the President asks them to do, as long as that person’s job is something the President can hire/fire. It also ruled that if the illegal thing the President asks them to do falls within their job duties, then the President is immune from prosecution for asking for that illegal thing.

One justice put that out there during oral arguments, but I’ve read the majority ruling and it doesn’t mention assassinations. The dissenting opinion does mention the question of what acts fall within official duties, including political assassinations.

Barely noticed it. The only time most people would use that are on long road trips, which I only take about twice a year (most of my road trips are between 100-200 miles one way, which can be done with filling up at the destination). So if I used L3, it was for 30 minutes while grabbing lunch on the road and getting half the charge “filled.” 99% of my charging was L2 at home or at destinations.

The interesting thing about Pete is I know life-long Republicans who said they would vote for him. Maybe it’s one of those, “he’s one of the good ones” situations.

AOC turns 35 before the election, so she’s eligible. She might be “too young” to vote for but not too young to run.

While I preferred MW2 to MW, I still really liked MW and thought it was better than all others besides MW2. I just got really good at cheesing certain class combos in MW2, which was the only way for me to be good at those games. I’m only OK at FPS games and was able to make use of things like the riot shield for holding points or heartbeat sensor and reload perks for C4 to get good K/D ratios. In MW I got a decent percentage of my kills from Danger Close because I died a lot, and goddamn that was a funny way to kill someone. I also felt MW2 was less sniper-friendly, and I suck both as a sniper and against snipers.

I was pleasantly surprised how good the Bolt was and still liked it after 3 years of leasing it. I was ready to get another one after the lease was over, but the pandemic changed my decision (working from home meant I didn’t really need a nice car and definitely wasn’t driving enough for the price plus-up for EV to make sense, so I got a used beater).

The headline is very misleading.

This is NOT just about build quality of EVs or engine problems or problems inherent with EVs, it includes minor annoyances that aren’t quality problems. Also, this is from reported problems on a SURVEY, not actual problems taken to a dealer to fix. Dodge has the worst rating here while Ram has the best, because Ram owners don’t report problems on surveys and not because Ram has better quality (though it likely does as well).

And most of the issues are with tech that is included in higher end cars (rear collision avoidance, rear seat safety belt alarms, lane keeping assist, automatic braking assist, etc), and almost all EVs in the US are higher end cars that are chock full of these up-sells. People are also complaining about entertainment system software and phone pairing, which isn’t different from EV to ICE.

Finally, Tesla is one of the worst on the list while also making up the majority of EVs. So the company that has notoriously bad quality and bad design choices strongly skews the metric, since they ONLY make EVs. If Tesla made an ICE it would be just as bad.

Thanks!

So the alternative would be chaos with the hope that a good candidate emerges.

This is the thing with a primary season. If something happens late in the season, then how do you go back and change the results from earlier in the season?

Let’s say for instance Biden listens to all the “sky is falling” pundits and retires now. How does the DNC choose its candidate? I’m not very familiar with procedures for a closed system like that. Do they do an open convention and let the delegates vote on whoever they want? Do they have a list of candidates to vote one at the convention? Who makes up that list?

I also missed the joke, but after Monkey with a Shell explained it I think it’s honestly hilarious.

Whoosh!

The point of that post was that tax cuts for businesses is NOT the key issue for the black community