I still remember how, as people on the ground in Michigan were seeing it coming and begging for more GOTV volunteers, her campaign flatly refused, instead sending volunteers to Iowa thinking she could win a red state and dunk on Trump. After all, the info on the ground couldn’t be better than their New York polling.

She thought she could just with by being not Trump (which, sure, should have been enough), but decided to not provide anything to vote for, rather than just voting against Trump.

She wins, we still have Roe and a bevy of other positive SCOTUS decisions from a 5-4 liberal court (maybe even 6-3). But she and Ginsburg screwed us over.

This case isn’t about a fed, it’s a local official.

There are other rules governing most federal employees. This is only one specific federal criminal law.

People are way overreacting to this. This decision was 100% about a federal statute. Unaffected are the MANY, MANY state and local laws preventing state and local government employees from taking gifts.

Edit: for y’all downvoters, even the linked article states

In any event, the decision in *Snyder *is narrow. It does not rule that Congress could not ban gratuities. It simply rules that this particular statute only reaches bribes.

Yet another thing that tens of millions of people across the country would instantly lose their job for

Would they? Vendors in the private sector are constantly handing out goodies to clients. Sports tickets, food, gift baskets and more. Hell, I’ve seen vendors pay for vacations in the private sector.

Also, as the case states, these things are largely illegal to varying degrees at the state level for state and local employees. This decision just said the Feds can’t pile on with additional charges.

Or, better yet, do we need to embrace the idea that infinite growth isn’t possible, and adopt economic systems that do not rely on it?

Always someone else’s fault.

I paid attention. I just don’t agree and in your reasoning poor.

We can save more infants, so that means no more meat. That is some non sequitor.

So you want us to somehow magically have the greenhouse gas emissions of an Indian, but think we can just have a high standard of living by having Soviet-style housing blocks (famous for being bleak and depressing)? That does not seem grounded in reality.

Edit: and meat is one of the few things I can eat. Not giving that up. Humans have eaten meat since before civilization. It’s a clear sign that overpopulation is a major issue that something that humans have done for eons is suddenly a problem.

Have you seen how people in the slums of India live? No one wants that life. It is not unreasonable to want a fair standard of living.

Science

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_population

It’s amazing how many people I talk to about overpopulation simply that we get 50% of the land (or more!) and the rest of all other animals get to fight over the rest.

Those places are also inhospitable to most life, period. Just because the TD habitable to humans doesn’t make it ours, either.

You can still find a few Rax in the southern part of Ohio

Which, as the article states, they are starting to end that practice.

Purchase price, higher maintenance costs (EVs eat tires due to the increased weight and higher torque), installation of charging infrastructure (some us need expense electrical service upgrades and added wiring; we don’t all have 200 amp panels and garages with 30 amp 240v service already wired in)

I’d love an EV, but I won’t be afforded Int one for a bit. And used ones, even if cheaper, will have massive battery degradation cutting range way down.

“Modest?” $14 a month? $5 would be modest. I literally pay less for whole as streaming services.

I wouldn’t go near Russia. But she is a tad bit biased.

Wasn’t worth it.

If only he was a WNBA player vaping THC.