Introspective articles like this one are incredibly important for a party to remain at the top of their game. As you mention, there is often this push to want to tell voters what to think rather than listening to them and acting on what they want. I remember this being a large issue in 2016 as well, with many voters wanting a candidate more like Berine Sanders, or at least a candidate that took up some of his (and the voters’) ideas for the future of the country.

Many, including myself, are interested/paying more attention to the presidential race after the first presidential debate of the season. This article does a really good job analyzing some popular arguments I have seen recently.

Telling one to stop hiring individuals based on their race isn’t pushing back against racism, it’s just racism.

Good thing there’s absolutely no evidence of racism when it comes to hiring people

“1 in 6 Hiring Managers Have Been Told to Stop Hiring White Men”

“48% have been asked to prioritize diversity over qualifications”

-Source

I have now shown you evidence of racism when it comes to hiring people. I would appreciate if you would not make such a statement in the future.

Company after company have made statements they will have x% of certain positions filled by people of specific races. You don’t achieve that without taking race into consideration when choosing people to work there.

Dropping DEI makes sense. Just hire the best person for the job, regardless of skin color.

The few times I have tried a more impressive game on my phone, my overriding thought is ‘why am I not playing this on my PC?’. Phone controls, screen size, and processing power suck, so all but the simplest games meant to hold your attention while you are waiting at a doctor’s office don’t optimally work there. And for a doctor’s office lobby, I want something I can have fun within seconds of starting and feel satisfied with only minutes of play.

Yeah, during those reviews they are going to get their liquor license renewed. Why? Because those businesses have not abused their liquor licenses and have followed all appropriate laws.

The article sites a law that licenses cannot be issued to those convicted of ‘a crime involving moral turpitude’, but then does not follow up by demonstrating the license is being issued to Trump. It merely claims he would benefit from it being issued to the business. The law quoted does not state it can’t be issued to person x if some other person would benefit who has been convicted of such a rime.

Both candidates suck. Nobody wants to watch them.

I value free time very highly and a 9-5 job that doesn’t demand constant OT results in a nice work-life balance, IMO. I personally found the transition very pleasant. Main negative was getting time off for chores that must be done during work hours. But, many places are pretty chill about that.

The Government’s theory would also criminalize a broad swath of prosaic conduct, exposing activists and lobbyist to decades in prison…And the Government’s interpretation would give prosecutors broad discretion to seek a 20-year maximum sentence for acts Congress saw fit to punish with far shorter sentences.

From the decision.

In short, the prosecutor used a non-applicable charge against this individual. The case was remanded back to lower courts to continue.

Or Biden is showing his age and needs to let someone else take the helm. Being left doesn’t mean yes-manning everything the party does.

I heard no end to the complaints while Trump was president about how he was able to do dozens of things and Chevron was a big reason for them; the judiciary simply letting the executive do what they want via creative interpretations of the law.

They just gave themselves a huge amount of extra power…If you want any proof that the court is corrupt, there it is.

Interpreting the law is a power the courts have always had; it’s their core function. It wasn’t until Chevron when the courts willingly gave a portion of this power to the executive. Now they are simply taking it back; a power they always had that the executive abused.

The decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf

courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is overruled.

Before it was common for the executive to put their own creative interpretation on a law, and the courts would just go with it. Now judges actually have to do their jobs and rule on the law, not simply defer to the executive. This is a big win for reducing administrative overreach.

Is this odd? Most cars have had several recalls, and if you have never taken your car in for recall work, you need to go look up what work was (not) done on your VIN and take care of it. Lots of cars are still out there with claymores for airbags, make sure your car isn’t among them.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls

rather than just being normal and evaluating the law on ‘does it seem normal or moral to ban this’

This is the job of the legislature. To make law based on norms and morals, as well as a dozen other factors.

almost like ConStITuTUiOnALiTy is a dumb fucking way validate the law

The job of the judiciary is to rule based on what the various laws say, which obviously includes the Constitution.

Do you really want the judiciary ignoring the law and legislating from the bench? Remember, your preferred group isn’t the one in the majority.

It’s good they are continuing to stamp down on corruption. It is what you want to see.

Note how we are talking about how large of douchebags the activists are and just how much they damaged a cultural heritage site.

Fuck these people.

Even Level 1 charging is pretty notable, means the vast majority of your daily miles still come from charging at home. This should be achievable if you have an outside plug and an outdoor extension cable.

Though, I suspect from your statement even that isn’t possible due to ownership issues.