If the top actual PAY is about $75k/yr, then are they getting $100K/yr in benefits? WTF benefits could cost that much? Are they flying everyone to the Mayo Clinic for checkups every year? Gold toilets? wtf?
Theyre adding every single little thing that they can to reach that value. 401k matching, employer’s health insurance, vision, dental, paid time off, those are all big easy ones. But they probably have idiotic values for all the fine print benefits too. Think of free legal advice, financial advice, personal counseling, reimbursements for education opportunities, travel, uniform cleaning, etc etc.
Should it all add up to 100k and be boasted about? No… But of course they will anyway.
My company used to also include social security and Medicare taxes in my “benefits”. They also included things like “office space” and other things I had to have for work like my work computer.
Man, that’s a lot of words. If I read it right, the base rate for a full time driver with more than 4 years in the position is $35.xx/hr. With most good benefits packages in the 20-40k range, and allowing for a few adjustments, I’m guessing that the 170k is probably something like 2600-3000 hours a year. Most 40hr jobs with benefits are only about 1850-1900 hours/yr, including holidays and paid leave.
It’s actually 40 something now. If you pull the UPS Teamsters National Agreement for 2018-2023 there’s cost of living language in there that put them over $40. So let’s call it $50, plus the $2.50 raise that was just negotiated is $52.50. $52.50x40=$2100.00 x 52 = $109,200. Factor in benefits if you’d like on top of that.
That’s about in line with what I figured. Iirc they are all hourly, not salaried, and there are (anecdotally) very few weeks that are under 40 hours. 170k less $30k in benefits (ex- my fam healthcare for 3 ppl costs me $22k/yr - add disability, life, retirement contributions…) is 140k in direct pay. At $50/hr, that’s 2800hrs.
The Top Rate shall be $35.94 plus the general wage increases provided in Section 1 above.
Increases are:
2023 two dollars and seventy-five cents ($2.75)
2024 seventy-five cents ($0.75)
2025 seventy-five cents ($0.75)
2026 one dollar ($1.00)
2027 two dollars and twenty-five cents ($2.25)
So that means in 2027, it’ll be $43.44/hour, which at 40 hours a week comes to $90,355.20/year. To reach $170k/year, they’d have to work 75.26 hours a week, I know drivers do a lot of OT, but I’m not sure about that much!
Edit: To put more perspective on this, 170k/year at 40 hours is $81.73/hour, not too far from double their $43.44/hour
This is the same shit my place is going through right now (we find out if it will be ratified today actually) we don’t have any paid sick days and the new cba has a whopping 3 in there, the company is tacking that on as more money in your pocket like as if it’s somehow more per hour
As I clicked to load comments, I thought to myself that there hasn’t been a single article that presented anything he’s done with Twitshit as positive. I wondered if that’s bias or whether he’s fucked up on every change. But you’re right. I’m ready to stop hearing about it. It sucks when children are billionaires.
I’m really looking forward to having content filter options. I don’t want to block technology or news, I just want to filter out anything that mentions Twitter, Elon, Musk, and quite a few other key words. I think connect for lemmy has this option, I just couldn’t stand the UI.
Because Twitter is something many people use and is part of our lives. The terms tweet and retweet is in our lexicon and a lot of breaking news appear on twitter. It’s clearly important to us and as evidenced by Mastodon, Blue Sky, and Threads, we humans want a form of twitter. I agree and it has some utilitarian use. There’s something “internety” about short blips of info with quick vids if necessary that anyone can access.
It may not seem important, but with Google trying to push DRM browsing, their search algo shitting itself, reddit crapping itself, Youtube being Youtube, etc. the old internet as we knew it is dying. The old internet being the free one we knew that wasn’t centralized, full of forums, and felt a different kind of alive. I think that’s why the news for Twitter is important.
Now, do we need to know about the people complaining about the X sign? Maybe not, i kind of don’t think so, but it is nice to have a record of it for future reference. It most likely didn’t need to reach my all/local page but people upvoted it.
Are you referring to The Legend of Rah and the Muggles? That was found to be bullshit the second people read the book. It’s an extremely weird story about nuclear fallout, talking animals, and a shit ton of meandering filler. The only similarity was use of the word “muggle”, which doesn’t even mean the same thing in both stories. JK may be a TERF now, but she is not a plagiarist.
Maybe? I just remembered some thread from ages ago where people were saying that some guy had written a book that wasn’t popular, and she reworked it. This may have been pre-reddit, it was that long ago.
Hence why I said rumors. I didn’t remember anything that was a smoking gun, or a conclusion to that rumor.
Almost none of the ideas in any of those books are original, they’re all cribbed from somewhere else, but that’s always the way art is created whether the creator knows it or not. The premise of a kid discovering he’s special and entering a secret world of other special people is not something new to childrens’ literature
She’s not a plagiarist per se, but the idea of an elite school for wizards is not exactly original to her. There’s The Worst Witch series of books. The first one was published in 1974. They were a huge hit, especially in the UK, leading eventually to a TV movie with a very impressive cast list in the 1980s, which, you will note, was decades before Rowling wrote any Harry Potter book.
There’s absolutely no way she was not aware of those books. In fact, considering she was nine years old when the first one came out- the exact age for those books- she almost certainly read it and treasured it and it almost certainly inspired her to write Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone.
On top of that, there was Ursula LeGuin’s Earthsea novels, the first of which takes place in large part at a boarding school for wizards where a poor boy who is from a non-magical family is sent after showing that he has magical powers and ends up being the most powerful wizard in the world, fighting the ultimate magical evil.
That was published in 1968 and I would be very surprised if Rowling hadn’t read it before she wrote her books, because that is just too similar.
What we see from the outside, is that a lot of people (poors, rednecks, trailer park people, etc) voted for him to gut ObamaCare, not knowing they were on it too… All those people don’t want to pay for others healthcare even if they themselves don’t pay a penny in taxes and get them for free.
Osho was right. Successful democracy relies on the people’s collective intelligence. Unfortunately, some demographics are running on a deficit of intelligence and/or factual information.
It starts with the press. The reason they have the first amendment is to maintain a well-informed populace. And they fucked it up.
They’re still fucking it up! If it was doing what it’s supposed to do people would be freaked out because it would be so different from the propagandized sludge we get now.
That sure is part of it too, but an education system that helps people digest the news in a healthy manner is essential to actually consuming the news. Being able to see the bias and value different sources of information is a cornerstone of the media landscape.
Absolutely. I just think that the news media are perfectly aware how to reach all kinds of audiences and that a certain baseline of honest, unbiased-as-possible information is accessible to any adult who just fell off the turnip truck.
That is, we shouldn’t need, as such, to “learn” how to understand it.
Just out of curiosity, I asked chatgpt how a hypothetical 2nd amendment might have been written if it focused on ensuring the US has a robust public education system:
If the U.S. Founders had decided to focus the Second Amendment on ensuring a robust public education system, it might have been written in a way that reflects the values of education as a fundamental right and necessary for the maintenance of a free and democratic society. Here’s a hypothetical version of how such an amendment could have been worded:
Second Amendment (Hypothetical):
“A well-educated populace, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to receive a quality public education shall not be infringed. The government shall ensure the establishment and maintenance of a public education system that is free, equitable, and accessible to all citizens, providing the knowledge and skills necessary to participate fully in the democratic process and contribute to the common good.”
This hypothetical amendment echoes the structure of the original Second Amendment but replaces the focus on a “well-regulated militia” with a “well-educated populace,” emphasizing education as a cornerstone of a secure and free society. It also includes the government’s responsibility to maintain an equitable and accessible public education system.
If the Second Amendment had focused on ensuring a robust public education system rather than the right to bear arms, it would have fundamentally altered the course of U.S. history in several ways. Below is a thought experiment exploring how such a shift might have influenced various aspects of society:
1. Education as a Constitutional Right
Immediate Impact: With education enshrined as a constitutional right, there would have been an early and sustained national effort to establish and maintain a robust public education system across the country. This might have led to more uniform and higher-quality education from the earliest days of the Republic.
Long-term Impact: Over time, disparities in education quality between different regions, particularly between wealthy and poor areas, might have been less pronounced. The federal government would likely have played a more active role in funding and regulating public education, ensuring that all citizens, regardless of their background, had access to a quality education.
2. Social and Economic Development
Economic Growth: With a strong emphasis on education, the U.S. would likely have seen more rapid advancements in technology, industry, and the sciences. A more educated populace could have driven greater innovation and economic growth, potentially making the U.S. an even more dominant global economic power earlier in its history.
Social Mobility: Education as a constitutional right would likely have increased social mobility, giving individuals from all socioeconomic backgrounds greater opportunities to improve their circumstances. This might have reduced income inequality and helped to create a more equitable society.
3. Civil Rights Movement
Earlier and Broader Reforms: The focus on education could have accelerated the civil rights movement by empowering marginalized groups with the tools needed to advocate for their rights. If education had been a protected right, efforts to desegregate schools (as seen in Brown v. Board of Education) might have been pursued more aggressively and with greater success earlier in U.S. history.
Integration and Equality: A constitutionally guaranteed right to education might have led to more integrated and equal schools earlier, potentially reducing racial and social tensions and fostering a more cohesive society.
4. Political Culture
Informed Electorate: With education as a constitutional right, the electorate would likely be better informed and more engaged in the democratic process. This could lead to more thoughtful and effective governance, as voters would be better equipped to understand complex issues and hold their leaders accountable.
Civic Education: The emphasis on public education would likely include a strong focus on civic education, fostering a deeper understanding of the Constitution, the government, and citizens’ rights and responsibilities. This might lead to a more active and engaged citizenry.
5. National Priorities
Education over Military: The shift in focus from the right to bear arms to the right to education might have led to a different national priority structure, with less emphasis on military preparedness and more on building a knowledge-based society. The U.S. might still have a strong military, but the cultural and financial focus on defense might be less pronounced.
Budget and Policy: Federal and state budgets might allocate more resources to education, possibly reducing funding for other areas, such as defense or law enforcement. This could have resulted in a more peaceful domestic environment with less emphasis on policing and incarceration.
6. International Influence
Global Education Leadership: With education as a constitutional right, the U.S. might have positioned itself as a global leader in education, exporting its model to other countries and playing a significant role in international education policy.
Soft Power: The U.S.'s commitment to education could have enhanced its soft power, building influence around the world not just through military might but through cultural and intellectual leadership.
7. Gun Culture
Different Second Amendment: Without the Second Amendment focusing on the right to bear arms, the U.S. would likely have a very different relationship with firearms. Gun ownership might still be prevalent, but without constitutional protection, there would likely be stricter regulations, and the cultural significance of guns would be diminished.
Public Safety: This could have led to lower rates of gun violence, fewer mass shootings, and potentially a different approach to law enforcement and public safety.
8. Modern Society
Higher Literacy and Education Rates: Today, the U.S. might have higher literacy rates and a better-educated population overall, with more people holding advanced degrees. This could lead to a more competitive workforce and greater innovation in various fields.
Less Political Polarization: A better-educated populace might be less susceptible to misinformation and political extremism, potentially leading to a less polarized and more cooperative political environment.
Conclusion
This alternative history, where the Second Amendment focused on education rather than arms, paints a picture of a U.S. society that might have prioritized intellectual and social development over military and individualistic pursuits. The potential for a more equitable, informed, and peaceful society is significant, though it’s important to remember that such changes would also bring their own challenges and complexities. Nonetheless, the emphasis on education as a constitutional right would have likely led to a profoundly different American experience, both domestically and on the world stage.
Is it? Or are you mixing up “demographic” with “ethnicity”? People who are raised in an environment that does not promote individual thought (like overly religious or politically one-sided groups, or any setting where tribal mentality is dominant) will not have access to the same quality of information, and will likely be subjected to some kind of indoctrination. Adoption of the group’s ideals may be forced by societal pressure, and resistance may be met with punishment. A child exposed to a constant rhetoric about how “those dang dirty democrats are stealing our tax dollars and lying about everything, believe your daddy” and no way to confirm or deny it will likely grow up to be an adult repeating that rhetoric. I know because I used to be like that, and it took massive conscious effort to unlearn it.
Also, I literally only know of Osho from that one clip and have no interest in researching a religious leader, reason above.
No… just that generalising like this, and saying some groups are “intellectually deficient”, even if you don’t mean race or ethnicity, still is unscientific and unhelpful.
The mistake of race and racism wasn’t the specifics of discrimination on skin color. It’s discriminating whole groups based off of vibes and arbitrary boxes.
If you were chatting with them and you used the proper name “Affordable Care Act” or ACA to describe Obamacare they would immediately think it is a dog whistle for communism and that it was just a way for liberals to rebrand Obamacare. Their entire universe is backwards, inside out, and upside down.
Bigotry and hatred are all about confirming your own status, even if those confirmatory actions hurt everybody, including you. As bigotry and hatred are illogical, however, you just say “but [outgroup] is being hurt more than I am!” and laugh it off, even as your family suffers.
In 2017 the Republican led House and Senate passed and Trump signed into law legislation to give $1.7 trillion in tax breaks to the billionaire class that you and your children will have to pay for. Today, debt relief for hard-working families was blocked by those same Republicans. Don’t you think it’s time they got fired? Harris/Walz. On the side of the working class.
Republican messaging is that it’s a government handout, to the liberal elite, the leftist woke mob, and we paid our fair share to go to college, so they should too! You took the loans, you pay them back!
Or at least that’s what I see whenever I feel masochistic enough to look at the comments on broader social media. Those are the points that need to be countered.
He’s mad as hell and he’s not going to take this anymore.
There are many news segments with high degree of truth. Each and every journalist that makes a such a stand risks their career and often their life and the lives of their family to bring us the truth.
I’d never really thought about a journalist as a human being before I watched the movie Network (1976): Howard Beale, a prominent newscaster, perceives that he’s nothing to lose. Harrison’s Flowers (2000) does a great job depicting the risks associated with reporting a war and likely is the reason Adrien Brody was cast in The Pianist.
Exactly this. It makes no material difference, and it’s more cost effective to dissolve the org and refashion than play biggest dick with a roid-raging billionaire on ketamine.
Usha Vance, 38, addressed an overwhelmingly White crowd on the convention floor that tittered uneasily as she joked about her husband learning to cook Indian food and audibly gasped when she mentioned her vegetarian diet.
In case anyone didn’t remember what color most snowflakes are 🤦😂
I’m actually rather surprised the evangelicals aren’t revolting over a Catholic/Hindu couple being on the ticket.
Me too, but at the same time I’m not. I guess their inherently blasphemous worship of Trump is stronger than their bigotry.
Which is kinda ironic since his bigotry (and thus him validating their own) is one of the main reasons why these idiots consider him the savior of (white, Christian) mankind 🤦😄
Plan would be simple. Resign from the Presidency for health and personal reasons. This would immediately promote Harris to the Presidency, who could inherit the campaign cash and pledged delegates, and begin to sharply campaign on continuing the Biden legacy and attacking Trump with every skill at her disposal.
Wouldn’t be perfect, but it’d avoid a big, chaotic, inter-party fight with no prep time, and would preserve the sense of incumbency. Harris could even pick an actual progressive as her running mate, maybe a Katie Porter, and help shore up some support on that flank as she fights for the moderates.
Pete has dropped his ice cream in every race he’s been in. He’s snakebit for some reason that I can’t reckon, and I’m not sure it’d be wise to run him unless he can really show that he’s figured out a secret sauce to get people engaged. Not a bad vp pick, though.
Yeah, he’s a policy nerd. I like policy nerds, and I’m mostly happy with the job he’s done in the FDOT, but policy nerds don’t tend to fare well in our elections.
So lie to voters more and say it is for health and personal reasons when he’s been saying he’s fine this whole time? What a final FU that’s be and what a way to energize your base with another big lie. He should admit that he was wrong and has decided to step aside cause he thinks it’s best for the voters and best for the party and best for the country. PERIOD. Nothing else needs to be said.
I think there is a difference between messaging and denial. I feel like the Biden campaign often goes so far overboard when presenting the positives that it comes across as dismissive and tone deaf. Kind of like how it’s frustrating when someone in a debate doesn’t actually answer the question but instead just pivots to talk about whatever.
Yeah, there’s been a lot of team Biden messaging that’s reminded me of HRC16 messaging, and that’s been giving me the willies. Hillary and her campaign came off as hugely tone deaf, and ultimately relied on just bashing people with “just shut up and vote or we’ll get Hitler”, and that’s kinda what the Biden messaging has been lately as well. It’s not a happy thing to see resemblances in.
Most people really don’t like Harris though. Keeping Biden is the better option at this point… The Dems have just royally fucked everyone by playing this “emperor’s new clothes” game with Bidens dementia.
Yeah, she’s far from perfect. But, it’s better than a big, chaotic, unprecedented free-for-all. Everyone was expecting 4 more years of this administration anyway.
Closed conventions weren’t the worst. I’m honestly fine if the DNC were to just pick someone at the convention after backroom conversations. Def too late for there to be any sort of election. I’m personally hoping Gretchen Whitmer somehow gets the nomination
Yeah, I don’t want them to do it that way normally, and I think a mini-primary could generate hype, but this is a unique situation and I can tolerate them doing it not-right to try to respond to a disaster. My expectations for a replacement are very low.
If Biden could prove the debate was a one off he would have done so. His continued lack luster perform after the debate shows what the road to November looks like with him. Dems lose. Because most people who would vote blue will do so anyway. It’s the 1 in 100 on the margins that will decide this thing. If Biden nominee = Trump 2nd presidency = all of the terror that comes with it, then who gives a flying fuck if Kamala right now polls even with Biden.
Tbh, I think that Harris is a big ol nothingburger of a candidate. Fox news got conservatives to hate her easy enough for the crime of being a [black, woman] Democrat, but that doesn’t mean anything to independents. Harris is disappointing to more libertarian minded and further left folks (like me) because she was kind of a stupidly aggressive DA, but I don’t think that really bothers independents either. Harris herself had a middling debate performance in 2020, but still managed to beat the pants off Biden, who appeared DOA on the 2020 primary stage. She’s never espoused any especially strong policy positions that I know of, either, besides being another authoritarian centrist.
All of this kind of wraps up into a very boring, plain vanilla candidate, which could well work to the democrats’ advantage in this election cycle. Here’s my opinion: Harris has several key advantages over Biden.
People are tired of feeling like we’re on a cursed timeline, a normal candidate without obvious sundowner’s or a serious case of fascism would likely be welcomed. Harris is about as average as they come, imo.
She can actually talk. Let’s face it, the Biden of 2020 and 2012 is mostly gone, he can’t communicate like he used to, and pretending otherwise isn’t helping. Harris was a DA in her past life. Lawyers, and especially DAs, have to be able to communicate effectively. My guess is that if you put a little polish on her, an absolute bull of a speaker/debater will shine through. It’s just that the democrats haven’t really given her a chance to shine. That or the possibility that same as they’ve been hiding Biden’s condition, they’re hiding that Harris is a truly wretched communicator who has wound up here through a comedy of errors, but I’m relying on Occam’s Razor here.
The one time she stood out at all in the primary debates was when she put Biden on absolute blast for his record with regard to the black community. It wasn’t smooth, it was obviously rehearsed, but it still landed a haymaker. It’s not a stretch to think she could do the same to Trump.
Being a nothing candidate could actually be advantageous because, I mean, how do you attack that? She has almost no real baggage compared to Biden or Trump, and it wouldn’t be hard for her to just set up a smorgasbord of different policy choices without sounding like a hypocrite or flip flop.
I really wish the democrats had had the foresight to prepare for this moment by picking a much better VP, or having an open and honest primary, but we’re here now and there’s nothing we can do about the past. Imo, Harris is the best chance we’ve got of keeping the fascists out for the next four years.
Yeah, I wouldn’t vote for Harris in a primary, but there’s nothing egregiously wrong with her. My biggest complaints in the primary were her prosecutor-history and her unreliable policy positions. I don’t even think she’s a centrist, I think she doesn’t really have much in the way of policy at all. A blank slate willing to tack to the center if the progressive lane is full, or tack to the left if that’s where the energy is. And the law and order history is basically no worse than Biden and kind of useful when one of Trump’s big issues is all his court cases.
I wish we had a primary, I wish Biden hadn’t effectively chosen the next nominee, and I wish that, if that was the intention, he would have put some effort into building her up rather than dumping shit jobs on her, but if we need to do an emergency replacement, she’s fine.
Play up her former DA status. This year the election is between Law and Lawlessness.
Harris: “I would be happy to prosecute the case against the felon in the next debate, let’s just see if he shows up for his court date or if he’s too busy taking bribes from his rich tech bro friends.”
Most people don’t like Biden. More than don’t like Harris. There was some early idea that Harris was uniquely disliked that people keep propagating for some reason. She’s not a superstar, she lost the primary for a reason, but she’s not some especially toxic politician. At least not for anyone who would say “keeping Biden is better”.
Yes, I’m sure you think you’re a great proxy for the average American voter. Too shrill maybe? Maybe too much vocal fry? Or maybe some other vocal feature that only applies to women?
Trump’s got the stupidest fucking voice there is and dumb vocal mannerisms to boot. Biden whispers half his press briefings. Her voice is fine. It’s a normal woman’s voice.
Someone gave a specific thing they didn’t like and it was immediately dismissed as misogyny and the person was told “her voice is fine” like that’s going to change anyones mind.
LOL, fuck off. The specific thing was “her voice was annoying” which both isn’t a real complaint and is a common complaint of women in general. And it’s being applied to a woman who has a really normal voice. Dude deserves to be dressed down and Democrats lose when they duck and cover to try to accommodate vague fears about how everyone but them is actually unshakably sexist/racist/homophobic, so just run a straight white dude again.
Eh, we need to stop pretending like the only gettable votes are closet Republican racists. There are a lot more Democrats than Republicans, and Trump has turned off even more. Obama won twice and Clinton still beat Trump by millions of votes, and Clinton had a whole host of other issues more relevant than her gender. Non-white and women candidates are viable. Yeah, every vote is valuable, but Biden’s been losing basic Democratic groups that Harris (or really any replacement) can reconnect with and juice turnout.
She’s a former prosecutor, she’s not the best communicator, she isn’t particularly charismatic, and she doesn’t have a history of generating good legislation.
We can shore Biden up with a good Neuralink for the short term. Offload more and more functions to ChatGPT, but trained on someone articulate like Snoop Dogg.
With Biden’s political experience and Snoop’s ability to complete a sentence, we could keep this administration going. Let him google stuff too, in real time. Then he’s got an excuse for zoning out.
If Biden resigns as president, yes Harris immediately becomes president. That means that Speaker of the House Mike Johnson is only one heartbeat from the presidency until January 20.
There’s no way for Harris to appoint and get confirmed a replacement vice president, and it would be impossible anyway because replacing the vacant VP slot requires a majority of both the House and Senate.
It doesn’t when work for becoming the new nominee. Becoming President due to a vacancy has exactly nothing to do with becoming the nominee for the election for president.
Becoming President in this case is by the Constitution. It’s the law, it’s how our government works.
Becoming the nominee is internal political party, legally private non-governmental business.
What does work, whether or not one wants Harris as the new nominee, is this:
Biden drops out as the Democratic nominee for President, while remaining in office as President saying he must put all his energy and attention into governing these remaining months.
Then,
IF the party wants Harris. Harris aggressively campaigns to be President ELSE
Harris states she has to put all her energy and attention into helping Biden govern so will not accept a nomination.
Open convention occurs, but likely with a lot of prior discussion and alignment towards one or two best candidate.
Dems control the Senate. For the House, would just need a couple repubs to flip. Otherwise it would have to be left vacant I suppose. Mike Johnson being next in line does not worry me.
Correct, Harris would not automatically become the dem nominee. However, assuming Biden’s chosen delegates are loyal to him, I think it’s reasonable to guess they would honor his chosen successor and voluntarily vote according to his wishes.
A convention is a possibility, and I’m not completely against it. It complicates matters severely though, and not for very significant gain since citizens can’t really vote again in such a short timeframe.
A couple of Republicans flipping to replace a Republican VP? That would absolutely never happen. Ever. This is less likely than the Sun rising in the West.
That happens if Biden slips and falls in the bath tube, too. Its not an argument for keeping him at the top of the ticket.
No that is not what happens. I’m not arguing to keep him at the top of the ticket. Exactly the opposite: I’m arguing to drop him from the not yet official ticket, but for him to stay on as president until his term ends. That keeps Johnson still only second-in-line for the presidency, with Harris still first-in-line.
If Biden (referring to his governmental role as the current President) dies, Vice President Kamala Harris immediately becomes President.
Whereas referring to his nongovernmental role once (IF) he becomes the official nominee of the Democratic Party, nobody is automatically elevated to be the new nominee of the party. If it’s before the election, the executive board of the DNC determines the new nominee. Harris would very likely become the official nominee, but that’s not their only choice.
But Biden is not yet the official nominee no matter how many times he and his supporters say he is. He is only the presumptive nominee. So if he died, was incapacitated, or dropped out as a candidate for the nomination now, before the convention roll call, it becomes essentially an open convention and the nominee is chosen the way it used to be, by the convention. Which might take multiple roll calls, behind the scenes favors trading, and all sorts of “fun” drama.
In none of those cases is Speaker of the House Johnson elevated to anything.
Random musing related to US gun control, but at least from this particular rando Finn’s perspective the American mentality regarding guns is sometimes just really fucking puzzling. I mean yes I get the historical whoop-te-doo that led to things being how they are now and what the rationale is behind US gun culture & laws and so on, but even given the context it doesn’t make sense to me. It also seems like lots of Americans agree that things are… well, not optimal right now and would want tighter controls, but by all appearances gun control is such a political minefield that it seems to be hard to get things fixed, and I’ve understood that eg. Republicans have a real tendency of being really pro control when it comes to restricting the ability of “unwanted” people to own guns. And then there’s how the culture around guns plays into all this, of course.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.