Unless you're asking them to cater a gay wedding.
He's not hiding from the media. He's being hidden by the media. The man says something unbelievably stupid every time he's allowed to speak. No amount of coaching, prepping, and scriptwriting has been able to stop him for his 50+ year long career in politics, and his growing dementia is just making it worse. Their only solution is to just not allow him to speak.
Bills are written by the "non-profit think tank" types in big academia and various other corporate and industrial interest groups. Our government is corporatist in nature. The legislative branch hasn't actually written a law in generations.
Big corporate lawyers and professors write the laws and then hand them off to the lobbyists to "wine and dine" (purchase) a representative or senator to "sponsor" the bill.
Even petty things like daylight savings time and the food pyramid were created by corporate corruption of the legislature.
"The Press" in the Constitution is NOT about some corporate advertising agency. It is an individual freedom. The career "journalists" and talking heads have NEVER been the press. Freedom of the Press is for everyone equally as a corollary to freedom of speech.
Convincing people that Freedom of the press was a special carve out that granted an industry extra rights was one of the national con jobs the corporate media moguls pulled.
This guy has always sucked at writing fiction.
Yeah, I seem to recall a lot of people implying it was a bad thing if Putin supported a particular candidate for President.
But it's got the word "capitalism"in it so it CAN'T be communist.
Don't forget government employees not working at all but still drawing the exact same salary.
Been saying this since March. The problem is that the vast majority of people have no idea what normal actually is. They blindly assume whatever Big Scary Number the news spouts off must be extraordinary or the news wouldn't be talking about it.
The mandates force people to act like there's a scary pandemic, and everyone is so isolated and uninformed that they all assume they must be the lucky ones because everyone they know who "tested positive" only had mild symptoms.
They all just assume there's something really bad going on somewhere else just over the horizon.
I've been in the Navy for going on 19 years now. I weep for whatever unit this tragedy of a Sailor is eventually assigned to. All politics aside, President Trump is the CiC. If you can't muster basic respect for the highest position in the military whose orders you are SWORN to obey, then you have no business in the military.
You've misread it. Those were the two that dissented and said that the case SHOULD be taken.
Pretty serious typo in that bottom text. It's spelled "China". China bought what they were selling.
The problem here is that this is for purpose of lying to citizens in a video. He's not doing the bare minimum compliance to get by. He's trying to create the false impression that government is taking this seriously and he's been wearing it all day.
It's the number of letters in the word "arithmomania".
Still no requirement to learn basic personal financial management, interview skills, resume writing, simple tax law, or anything about how their own government actually works and how to succeed within it.
The political divide is almost completely a result of real lifestyle differences between overly dense urban population centers and rural or suburban areas.
Life in a city relies more heavily on authoritarian government and does not allow self reliance. A city dweller is therefore more likely to perceive a benefit from increased government expenditure and feel less of a loss due to restricted freedoms.
Take gun control for example. A city dweller has no place to use a firearm, and thus is less likely to own one, but they do see police on a regular basis.
A rural person has space to hunt and shoot cans with their kids, but likely lives several miles away from police so the idea of police helping in an emergency is laughable.
So the city person feels no loss if guns are restricted and does see benefit from taxes to pay for the police while the rural person would perceive a lot of loss if guns are restricted and sees almost no benefit from the taxes paid for the police.
This is just a statement of fact.
It means they are urging the court to take the case and make a determination without claiming to agree that either side is right.
Yeah, that's a big part of what I meant by "political apathy". I've met a lot of "conservatives" in the last year that are super pissed about the way things are going, but haven't voted in a single local election, can't tell you who is on their school board, have never been involved in their local Republican party, and know more about the Representative of New York's 14th district than they do about their own rep.
Too many people have wanted a "set it and forget it" government for years, but when that goes wrong want to jump straight to big talk about "civil war" and the "blood of tyrants" rather than let the Constitutional process play out as intended.
That's what refusing to take a case means.
Florida. America's wang.
This is going to work brilliantly. There's going to be a huge reduction in reported shootings and carjackings once there's no police to take the reports.
It's not retarded. It's the original intent of the Union. This is not a democracy. The Electors have ALWAYS been chosen by state legislators in the manner of their choosing. The fact that states' legislators choose to do a straw poll of their states citizens is a courtesy that too many have mistakenly decided means that popular majority opinion should be the deciding factor of our elections rather than the rule of law.
If you have a problem with your state's inability to ensure the veracity of the outcome of your state's straw poll take it up with your local politicians. There's no reason for the rest of the country to be brought down by the actions of fraudsters in one county and the mechanisms currently in play that have been a part of our legal system baked into the Constitution for 230 years is designed explicitly to prevent just such a miscarriage of justice.
Aside from the electoral malfeasance, the most alarming revelation of the past few months has been that the vast majority of Americans seemingly have no clue how our government is supposed to work. I can only hope this forced civics lesson wakes up enough people to turn the tied of willful political apathy that has lead us to this shameful situation in which we find ourselves.
That wasn't advice to Joe. It was a threat. If Joe doesn't play along, he'll be arkancided.
I don't want to argue it, but I've seen it argued. A decent chunk of modern "psychiatry" is built around the idea that unpleasant personality traits are inherent medical conditions. Just being an asshole is unironically called "borderline personality disorder" or "Asperger's syndrome".
Therein lies the divide between what you want to be true on a philosophical level, and what's actually happening in the real world. Stores routinely have to deal with assholes, and even issue public apologies and fire employees for having kicked out assholes.
Whether we choose to call something a "right", a "privelege", a "freedom", or a "liberty" while idly chit-chatting about political theory is ultimately irrelevant to the point that the people who get what they want are the people that fight to have what they want without regard to whether it's fair or proper to anyone else.
Meanwhile, self-described conservatives have spent the last generation giving away our freedoms under a misrepresented guise of "free market" principles. The ideals that make sense when you're talking about private entrepreneurs deciding whom to serve don't scale up to multi-national crony corporatist conglomerates.
When you establish that government can't restrict speech but giant corporations can, then the people who want to restrict speech just leave government and take over the giant corporations. The end result for the oppressed is the same. Who really cares what the oligarchs call themselves? Is it genuinely better when the people in power to choose what can or can't be public discourse are NOT subject to public oversight and election processes? Is a corrupt board of directors somehow morally preferable to a corrupt legislature when you're the target?