So, obviously, people don’t generally change their legal gender for an advantage somewhere. But if they do, that’s a pretty good sign, not that it’s too easy to change your gender, but that there’s a gender bias in the law.
So arguably, the easier it is to change your legal gender, the less of a problem gender-based affirmative action is. Conservatives must love this! End liberal overreach in one easy step!
This is why I don’t take family photos with a hat or flag that announces my political affiliation.
But it’s not SA it’s SAC or SAP.
He somehow monetized being a Trump reply guy back in 2016, every Trump tweet you’d see this guy with a snarky little “well actually I prefer an X that WASN’T Y” or whatever. Within seconds.
The actual reason why is that everyone was expecting Hillary to win and she had vowed to “end private prisons.”
So everyone was calculating in a 90% or whatever chance Hillary wins, with some percentage chance she actually fulfilled her promise. Instead they got a 100% chance they would stay around for 4 years and probably get a tax cut. Pretty big adjustment is appropriate.
(Also old 2016 articles about Hillary are so quaint. They even mention Obama closing Guantanamo lmao)
Yeah the guy who was going to pass permanent corporate tax cuts and temporary individual tax cuts, funded by chaining individual tax brackets so taxes go up for individuals after 10 years, won. That’s great for corporate profits. And great for the 10% who own 90% of stocks.
It’s horrible tax policy and detrimental to the majority of Americans but it absolutely should make stocks increase.
With hindsight 2008 Obama/McCain and 1992 Clinton/HW were the only two presidential campaigns in living memory with decent candidates on both sides.
(Depending on your opinions of Dukakis and whether or not 1988 was in your living memory I suppose)
I don’t think anyone would notice on the cloverloop.
Non-politicized decisions are wacky, the Sackler decision had Gorsuch and Jackson in the majority and Kavanaugh and Sotomayor in the minority.
“Coincidentally,” the abortion and gun rulings are all exactly the same 6-3 teams based on who appointed them.
It’s pretty much settled fact that this Supreme Court puts ideology over impartiality.
It’s a very progressive district, that’s how she got elected in the first place. This is not a surprise.
I bet my politics fit closer to the other guy, but I’d still vote for AOC between the two because she has a national influence and disproportionate power in the Caucus. If you’re actually voting to influence Congress towards helping your district in particular, AOC might get that done even if it’s secondary to her national political project. Some moderate guy in a safe D seat would absolutely never get anything for your district.
Dumb framing. They aren’t panicking, they’re framing the results so they can fit them to their narrative no matter what happens. Biden wins = he was on drugs, no way senile and incapable Biden could win otherwise. Biden loses = full proof he’s senile and incapable.
There’s no economic reason the nominal GDP of any country or the world in general has to continuously increase. The important metric is per capita production. As long as people get continuously more productive through innovation, standards of living will continue to increase.
At the national level, vying for long term economic power in the world, a higher and younger population is going to be a huge advantage very soon and countries should be trying to get as many immigrants in their borders as they can. But instead they are…going a different direction.
How often do you wear a suit? Dry clean as necessary, hang it up between uses. I’ve never ironed a suit.
The post isn’t saying Trump is worse. Trump is worse, but this isn’t why.
I disagree with the implication that the Bible or even Jesus’ teachings as told by the New Testament, are left wing or right wing. It doesn’t map to modern politics at all because it’s ancient, their politics were just different, and also it’s not univocal, it’s hundreds of authors who all had different politics and different willingness to import their politics into their religious text.
Because of that, you can easily read it to confirm your biases, no matter what they are. Apostles went out as married pairs to spread the Gospel in early Christianity, that’s in the Bible, so women are equals and should be allowed to be priests? But also women should cover their heads and be silent in church, that’s in the Bible too. So who should we listen to? There’s no “right” answer except whichever confirms your biases.
Even if you are trying to read it historically, I’d argue the historical Jesus (from the Q source sayings and implications from what different authors added or subtracted from Mark) was remarkably egalitarian for the time but he was doing it from the perspective of an apocalyptic preacher, eg he said his followers should give up all their money to the poor, but it was because the world was going to end during the current generation… which was 2000 years ago. So does that even apply as a life lesson in the modern day if the world isn’t ending?
So the religious right may well have read the Bible, and come to a different conclusion than you, and they’re not necessarily wrong, and neither are you.
I feel like weight class doesn’t do it. Women have higher body fat %. Is a welterweight woman athletically equivalent to a welterweight man? I don’t think so.
An 87 year old man using a slur, I feel like you get a slight pass sometimes for being old and not knowing a formerly-commonly-used word has become derogatory.
But he used it, got called out, issued an apology, and then used it again. Yikes.
Metric has been legally “preferred” in the US since 1975. We just don’t use it.
Also while I was looking up that year I came across this wild factoid:
In 1793, Thomas Jefferson requested artifacts from France that could be used to adopt the metric system in the United States, and Joseph Dombey was sent from France with a standard kilogram. Before reaching the United States, Dombey’s ship was blown off course by a storm and captured by pirates, and he died in captivity on Montserrat.
Literally the only answer to this question, though. He can’t say he will pardon him, politically it would be terrible and it might impact the trial itself. And he can wait until after the election and pardon him then, even though it will mean he was lying now.
I don’t think this comment is particularly newsworthy.
The “spandrel hypothesis” is the front runner explanation. Essentially we didn’t evolve to have chins but rather evolved other things that are helpful, and the chin is a byproduct of that other evolution. Not harmful so it didn’t get selected away, but not helpful.