“I’m so rich I could just buy the presidency- and that’s a good thing because then you know I’m not selling out to russia or something”… “now give me money so I can get elected!”
I assume you’re talking about Regan, but while I think he and Biden and Trump are/were too old to be president, the latter two don’t have obvious signs of Alzheimer’s.
They’re not so bad compared to McConnell or Feinstein.
In any case, Trump has a serious mental illness that is understated because of ethics rules. It’s just not solely cognitive decline. (It’s not that the 80 yo’s don’t have signs of decline. It’s that trump has a much worse and more obvious issue).
Trump had to go to the bail bondsman just like the rest of them did. What does that say about Trump’s ability to pay for other’s legal fees? If he can’t front the cash for bail directly himself, what makes these clowns think they are special?
Mean while kids getting shot everyday in strict gun law Chicago and no one cares. Accidents happen. Kids die taking swimming lessons. Statistically this is a non issue.
You know, for a while now, I’ve just been ignoring the absence of a downvote button on this website because it never seemed that important to use one. But now I have to ask; WHY IS THERE NO DOWNVOTE BUTTON?
To be clear, a prescription is still technically needed, but most states have laws in place that allows the pharmacist to write that prescription. Vaccines are done similarly.
During the evidentiary hearing, the Court asked the State’s expert, Mr. Allen, whether he believed Snapchat met Act 689’s definition of a regulated “social media company.” He responded in the affirmative, explaining that Snapchat’s “primary purpose” matched Act 689’s definition of a “social media company” (provided it was true that Snapchat also met the Act’s profitability requirements). When the Court asked the same question to the State’s attorney later on in the hearing, he gave a contrary answer—which illustrates the ambiguous nature of key terms in Act 689. The State’s attorney disagreed with Mr. Allen—his own witness—and said the State’s official position was that Snapchat was not subject to regulation because of its “primary purpose.”
Something has got to be done about this recent flood of vaguely worded (selectively enforced) bills.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.