This seems a rather vile line of commentary. Kinda shocked to see it here. Perhaps you’d like to say what you actually want to say? Why do you suppose this white/non-white disparity exists? Do you believe it is genetic? Cultural? Perhaps there are other factors?
Renewables being a good thing is not an "extreme left" viewpoint, it's just reality. That being said, I'm going to guess that extreme left supports renewables near 100%.
> Elon has publicly stated that he cares a great deal about safety.
Elon lies more often than he tells the truth; why would you believe anything he says, especially if what he is saying indicates concern for anybody else's well being? He doesn't care about other people and likely is incapable of doing so.
Personally, I blame the abuser over the abused. He has created an environment of extreme anxiety for many because of his words AND actions. The man is unhinged and prone to following his various whims, telegraphed or not, so, who can blame people panicking when a chaos monkey is loose in the house?
My viewpoint is that Trump ALWAYS behaves in a fashion that he BELIEVES will benefit him the most. Often times he is wrong, but short-term financial gains, he's pretty good at, so him abusing the market with BS to make a quick giant pile of cash fits him perfectly well, which makes him semi-predictable. He knows how to manipulate others into buying/selling, so that's what happens. It's the one skill he has, bullshitting guillable / fearful people.
Impeaching without conviction won't do jack. We need 67 senators to convict. I honestly don't know what it would take for that many rep senators to vote to convict.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. ... And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
> Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for a majority of five conservative justices, said the federal law that generally shields the Postal Service from lawsuits over missing, lost and undelivered mail includes “the intentional nondelivery of mail.”
Sooooo the entire postal service could just decide to not deliver any mail at all and that's a-okay? How about stealing the contents of mail and keeping/selling them? How about opening mail and stealing valuable information and then not delivering it? How about deliberately not delivering mail ballots to/fro the voter (this is the real real this is happening, and destroying USPS)?
The ruling is strictly limited to whether a private citizen can sue the federal government for money damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). It does not legalize the intentional withholding, theft, or destruction of mail, all of which remain federal crimes under 18 U.S.C. § 1703 and § 1709 and are subject to investigation and prosecution by the Postal Inspection Service. Additionally, the decision does not apply to constitutional challenges, which fall under different legal frameworks and can still be addressed through court injunctions or civil rights litigation (i.e., the right to vote or equal protection). Essentially, the Court held that the government is immune from being sued for cash in these specific civil instances, but it did not grant postal workers immunity from criminal law or constitutional oversight.
Totally with you on the corruption angle. I was just pointing out that loaning businesses money isn’t inherently evil. I’m also unconvinced anyone I lent to actually wants to go through the trouble and political risk of fighting for a refund.
reply