It's populism. You have to see if someone's policy positions are consistent over time, that they have a specific ideal they are following, vs what they think is the most popular policies.
Granted, it's a huge pain with new politicians when they don't have that history, but I think Tulsi had a pretty clear history that showed she wasn't progressive.
I wouldn't recommend this if you fly very frequently, but you can take some ibuprofen or acetaminophen at the start of the flight / part way though and it should be active around the time you start getting sore.
Yea, as a sort of reverse tax credit, it would be interesting. But as a profit driver, it's nice and dystopian.
It's called a "faithless elector" and what happens depends on the law of the state the elector is representing. Some states void the vote without penalty, some void it with some penalty, some allow the vote but with penalty, some allow the vote with no penalty, and some have no law at all (which seems like no difference from allowing with no penalty).
It's entirely conceivable that enough faithless electors from states that do not void the vote could swing an election, though there's never been enough to do so before.
I saw someone complaining that the old X-men show was at least subtle and not in your face about how it approached social issues.
This was in response to a clip from the old X-men show of a bunch of anti-mutant brownshirts in armbands getting mad that a filthy mutant was touching a human woman.
I think it's safe to say that person was not arguing in good faith.
You're moving goalposts here. You said millions of Russians would die if Ukraine was given aid and I asked how you determined that number. By the same token, Russia should simply surrender.
Because the millions for Ukraine accounts for civilian casualties, not purely military. For anything similar Ukraine would have to counter invade Russia and launch artillery at residential areas.
Even if we assume the worst of Ukraine's intent, they wouldn't have the capability to go beyond securing their borders.
How did you come to the calculation of millions of Russians?
As horrendous as this ruling is, I'm also pissed at the pro-forced birthers that are upset by this ruling. It's so intellectually dishonest to object to this ruling when it uses the same justifications they use to oppose abortion.
These people pick issues to be passionate on but never actually put in the effort to research. And not just whether their position makes any sense, but what the downstream effects of the position would mean.
The politicians who write these anti-abortion laws are even more lazy. This is literally their job and they should have seen this coming. They could have put in exceptions for IVF from the get-go but they didn't, because they are more interested in winning points than writing effective legislation.
If Elon Musk is looking for more money pits to throw cash into, baseless law suits against Disney is certainly the way to go.
Good explanation, thank you. It looks like fair use is a lot more limited than I had thought. And obviously not worth the risk for the average person to try and use as a defense.
There's not much to it. They simply believe that as the strife causes conflict over resources the factions will "naturally" align along racial lines. They also believe that people "naturally" cohabitate better within their own race.
This does require ignoring all of human history and the brutal conflicts that have occurred within racially homogenous regions. But I'd never accuse white supremacists of being intelligent or genuine.