Any. For example, my sister is locked in. She calls everything that doesn’t come from Fox, OAN, or Truth “corrupt liberal media.”
Any. For example, my sister is locked in. She calls everything that doesn’t come from Fox, OAN, or Truth “corrupt liberal media.”
With every House seat up for election, as well as 33 Senate seats, Democrats need to vote hard this fall for congressional majority if we want to put SCOTUS in check.
He cannot. The Republicans have House majority.
The Constitution does not stipulate the number of Supreme Court Justices; the number is set instead by Congress. There have been as few as six, but since 1869 there have been nine Justices, including one Chief Justice.
You’re absolutely correct. This is the part that has been left out of every news article I’ve read, and is undoubtedly the most concerning:
And some Presidential conduct-for example, speaking to and on behalf of the American people, see Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U. S. 667, 701 (2018) - certainly can qualify as official even when not obviously connected to a particular constitutional or statutory provision. For those reasons, the immunity we have recognized extends to the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.”
So it’s not just acts committed by the President, but also ordered by the President.
It’s also vague enough that charges can get bounced around lower courts indefinitely.
Thank you again for the link. I didn’t see it when I first searched.
You’re right. This won’t convince a Trump voter to vote for Biden. They dismiss anything from “liberal news” which is every outlet besides the far-right. It’s been my experience that talking to a Trump supporter is kicking water uphill.
I wrote that to do what Biden’s campaign is failing to do, speak to all of his accomplishments next to Trump’s “accomplishments,” in hopes of informing the discouraged, disengaged, and disenfranchised.
deleted by creator
No. It’s new, and I haven’t seen the full transcript. I’m repeating what I’ve read in the news. Do you have a link so I can learn more?
I understand how the President could theoretically order an assassination then pardon. That was a good point I read in another thread.
That only applies to criminal prosecution. You really think Biden is going to off a dozen or so House members?
He can’t. His only power over SCOTUS is nominating Justices in the event of a vacancy.
Congress can, but Republicans control the House.
They each served one term. Just compare their actions.
Biden rejoined the Paris Climate Agreement, revoked the Keystone Pipeline permit, created a 13 million acre federal petroleum reserve for Alaskan wildlife, greatly increased oil site lease cost, signed $7B in solar subsidies, invested $66B in passenger rail, enacted the Inflation Reduction act to support clean energy, increased energy efficiency standards on cars, appliances, and industry, created new permitting rules to streamline transmission lines, leveraged the NLRB for an FTC ruling that eliminated non-compete agreements, capped credit card late fees, reduced or outlawed junk fees in several industries, forgave billions in student debt from predatory loans, created the CHIPS Act to improve reliance on domestic technology, reenacted Net Neutrality, repealed Title 42, ended the Muslim Ban, reinstated the law prohibiting Israeli settlement on Palestinian territory, signed the Equality Act for LGBTQ+ rights, restored gay rights to beneficiaries, pardoned thousands of gay veterans from being convicted based on their sexual orientation, reenacted trans care anti-discrimination law, signed the Respect for Marriage Act, enabled unspecified gender on US Passports, rejoined WHO, banned medical debt from credit reports, currently rescheduling marijuana, is actively reducing drug costs with the American Rescue Plan Act…
Trump repealed 112 climate regulations, left the Paris Climate Agreement, disbanded the pandemic response team stalling national pandemic response, left the WHO, repealed trans care anti-discrimination law, repealed gay rights to beneficiaries, enacted Title 42 and the Muslim ban, repealed the law prohibiting Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory, repealed Net Neutrality, provided tax cuts to the wealthy that further widened our already exploitative wealth inequality, increased tariffs on goods costing the consumers, seated the conservatives in SCOTUS that repealed Roe v. Wade…
Your name will need to be changed in three places.
Change your Apple ID name here:
https://support.apple.com/en-us/109353
Change your device name here:
https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/change-the-name-of-your-iphone-iphf256af64f/ios
Change your name in Contacts.
You also will want to log into any email accounts through their web interfaces, go to account settings, and change your name there as well.
It’s true. Laugh tracks were used since the 50s to sweeten the audience sound, but sets didn’t close and become exclusively hired laughers and laugh tracks until that incident.
They started using laugh tracks back in the 50s, but they became the standard in the 80s due to the attack on Fran Drescher. At that time, sitcoms were still commonly recorded in front of a live studio audience.
In 1985, she and her husband were brutally attacked in their home by two men who had stalked her from a live taping. In response, the studio went to a closed set for security and hired Central Casting “laughers,” that were eventually replaced by a laugh track. Other sitcoms followed suit when studios saw the ratings and cost benefits to a laugh track over taping in front of a live studio audience.
It’s already banned in Afghanistan, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Taiwan, Denmark, European Union, France, India, Indonesia, Netherlands, Nepal, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Somalia, and United Kingdom.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/these-countries-have-already-banned-tiktok
A hypothesis requires no evidence. It’s then tested through repeatable controlled experiments. The events leading to the Big Bang have no evidence. If science can hypothesize, why can’t religion?
Have you read string theory? It’s no different than Spinoza’s god.
It doesn’t work on mobile apps.
You’re going in circles now. I linked a conversation where Communist explicitly stated people are wrong to believe in god without proof. It’s one of many on this post.
I’m not taking another lap with you.
Good luck always being right.
Take care.
Then we are in agreement that string theory is simply a belief until any evidence has been found. That doesn’t stop them from writing books, holding lectures, and convincing others to participate in the field. I don’t go around telling ten-dimensional physicists to stop believing in, and speculating about, a theoretical field that’s devoid of evidence. I’d consider that pretty arrogant. Just because there’s no evidence, doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Sound familiar?
Again, regardless of how strongly someone believes in religion, it’s still a belief, just like string theory. Why are the atheists in this thread qualified to tell them they are wrong to hold it?
You keep circumventing the main point that I’m making. The religious commenting here were not telling others to believe. Most were not even citing dogma, only how faith affects them positively. Atheists were imposing their own beliefs on the religious through unsolicited critical condemnation.
How can you not see the arrogance in that?
I’m not claiming that the Big Bang is theistic. I’m stating that there is no explanation for the creation or momentum of the two masses that collided, and proposing that it could have been accomplished by a divine creator just the same as ten-dimensional physicists believe that time was non-existent. If you don’t think scientists hold beliefs, you haven’t read enough about string theory. Religion is a belief, not a fact. Some may believe more whole-heartedly than others, but that doesn’t change the fundament.
Again, this was a post asking religious people why they are religious. There was no solicitation of god to atheists, yet many atheists took up arms to discredit the religious using the “burden of proof” argument. That argument only applies if someone is trying to convince another of an idea. A belief, by definition, is holding an idea without proof.
I absolutely respect rebuttals if they try to convince you of god’s existence. If not, it’s absolutely arrogant to tell them they’re wrong to believe in the existence of something that science is also only hypothesizing.
Pro tip- you can get soda water with lime for the same price in most bars. Still looks like a g&t but with that vitamin C.