I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
The argument is that the word “support” isn’t explicitly there. Therefore, the President is not an officer of the government, and therefore Trump isn’t barred from being President under the 14th Amendment.
This argument is dumb, of course. Scalia once made a similar one, noting that punishments must be cruel and unusual to be constitutionally banned. Cruel or unusual on their own is fine.
Why stop at that word? Why not complain that every synonym for every word isn’t included? Just turn the whole thing into a thesaurus? (eta: like, the insurrection act doesn’t apply because you’re calling it a coup! Totally different word! I said I killed that guy, but the statute says ‘murder’ not ‘kill’. Checkmate atheists!)
Every time I think they’ve hit maximum daft, they climb back in the hole and dig up some more. Amazing.
Why Is Red Dye No. 3 Allowed in Food but Not in Cosmetics? The short answer: Bureaucracy, it seems. As the recent petition to the FDA puts it: “There is no scientific or public health justification for permitting the use of FD&C Red No. 3 dye in food while prohibiting [the dye] in cosmetics and externally applied drugs.”
Instead, it’s largely the result of complicated internal processes at the FDA. The list of color additives the agency allows in food, supplements, and ingested drugs (like pills and liquid medicine) is separate from the list for cosmetics and applied drugs (like prescription lotions). That means the FDA has had to make decisions about the safety of each type of use at different times.
The agency approved the use of Red Dye No. 3 in food and supplements before it approved its use in cosmetics. By the time the FDA had to make a decision about whether to permanently approve its use in cosmetics, in 1990, the agency had enough evidence from scientific studies to show that it caused cancer in lab rats. So the FDA then banned Red Dye No. 3 from all cosmetics. But at that point, the color was already on a permanently approved list for food.
So then what happened? At the time, the FDA said that it would “take steps” to ban it from food as well, but then … it didn’t. When CR asked the agency to explain its lack of action in 32 years, officials didn’t answer directly but wrote: “The FDA evaluates and approves color additives for certain uses, based on the most current science available at the time. Following our initial evaluation, our scientists continue to review relevant new information to determine whether there are safety questions and whether the use of such substance is no longer safe under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.”
“Regardless of the reason why it’s taken this long, it’s absurd that it’s taken this long,” says Thomas Galligan, PhD, principal scientist for food additives and supplements at the CSPI and one of the authors of the group’s petition to the FDA. “In 32 years, there’s millions and millions of children who have been exposed to this chemical who didn’t need to be.”
It is. There’s evidence of its use in the Old Babylonian period, evidence in 1800 B.C.E Egypt, India in 700-500 BCE, China during the Han Dynesty at least.
It’s very simple to prove, and anywhere you find squares or triangles in architecture, it was used.
The Romans built off of Greek culture, Europe built off of Roman culture, the US built off of European culture. US math is very much based on Greek math (and US education in general). You may remember doing Greek proofs in school. Greek math was by no means superior to any other culture’s, it just so happens that US culture descends from Greek culture.
to be fair, being “city folk” vs. being “rural” doesn’t really qualify as an excuse for different levels of education. if it is the case anywhere (and admittedly it seems to be) that’s a testament to the need for improvement of the education system.
being “city folk” vs. being “rural” doesn’t really qualify as an excuse for different levels of education
Availability of schools and ability (or willingness) to pay for good teachers very much does correlate to levels of education available in different places.
At some points it was “superior”. Elements was used as a textbook throughout Europe and the Arab world, because it was one of the first and few books with rigorous proofs. If course it was probably compromised of previous works, but there was really nothing else like it.
People can re-invent and re-discover things. It still happens all the time in this day and age of worldwide massive communications. I’d be surprised if the right angle theorem didn’t get discovered thousands of times throughout history.
Browsing the wikis, I got the impression research is unconclusive. We don’t know if he had a role regarding the theorem, and what it was.
There is debate whether the Pythagorean theorem was discovered once, or many times in many places, and the date of first discovery is uncertain, as is the date of the first proof. Historians of Mesopotamian mathematics have concluded that the Pythagorean rule was in widespread use during the Old Babylonian period (20th to 16th centuries BC), over a thousand years before Pythagoras was born.[68][69][70][71]
The German version also talks about the various roles Pythagoras might have had or not had regarding the theorem, and how research is unconclusive. One such possibility is that this older Clay Tablet applied the theorem without being able to prove it, and Pythagoras or one of his students could have found a proof.
Also:
The history of the theorem can be divided into four parts: knowledge of Pythagorean triples, knowledge of the relationship among the sides of a right triangle, knowledge of the relationships among adjacent angles, and proofs of the theorem within some deductive system.
So there were lots of meaningful steps one could achieve without actually deriving the theorem. Maybe people were happy to just use math because it works, and a thousand years later someone bothered to prove why.
I can’t find any source of the spelling or meaning of the phrase that does not have an accent over the e other than Wikipedia, which has both depending on who made the edit. You sure 'bout that?
Jokes aside, I swear they really do walk around with baguettes in hand. 3 days in Paris, sitting at multiple cafes, and we saw it in the morning, at lunch, in the evening. Men, Women, Children, well dressed, poorly dressed (for a Parisian), black, white, brown, blue, green, every combination in between, we’d see someone walking around with baguettes. I’ve lived in multiple cities and visited even more in the US and Europe. Never have I seen so many people walking around with bread!
People eat bread and pick it up from their local bakery then walk home with it instead of stuffing it in the trunk of their SUV to drive two blocks. What do you expect.
You’re right of course, nor was I making any judgements. I loved seeing it! It made me smile. As did the quintessential “scowling french waiter” standing 15ft in front of us on the other side of the side walk, with apron and and all. And despite a previous poster’s comment about their infamous cultural rudeness, these slightly overweight, non-french speaking Americans didn’t experience any overt rudeness at all. If they were bad mouthing us quietly in french they did a great job of hiding it. [shrug]
I would visit Paris again in a heartbeat; though I would never fly Air France nor pass through CDG if you paid me. Such a horrible experience. Guess we’ll fly BA into LHR and take the chunnel or a ferry for the experience.
[shrug] we really didn’t experience the rudeness they are so famous for. But I’m not denying it’s a thing. Either way, I enjoy both styles of bread very much.
No, it’s more that the boomers/older Gen X treats any sign of even polite disagreement as attacks on their very character. Many of them simply cannot accept that their views are outdated, and any challenges to their view is a disrespectful slight.
It’s very telling that many of them still complain about millennials as children ruining everything to this day, when the oldest millennials are in their early 40s, and they are somehow shocked that Gen Z is even more progressive and vocal about their views than us millennials.
Republicans will protect him from any referendums regarding his fitness to be president. They don't care about his crimes, gaffes, lapses in logic, childish outbursts, anti-intellectualism, open racism, hate, stochastic terrorism, boorishness, fascist tendencies, Russian asset-like behaviors, or antidemocratic coups. They sure as shit won't care about this.
Trump himself has threatened to start WWIII with nuclear missiles over twitter on more than one occasion, and often floated assassinations of high-ranking members of nuclear states like Iran.
I’d rather not phrase it this way because it’s true. The point of this structure is that it was always bullshit.
It’s not straight up murder. I might have some (limited) sympathy for Elon in this case. But he should be able to see past the first action in that series of events. I believe he was dumb enough to not think of more than the surface (more on that later). If he’s not that dumb, then he truly is evil. Those submarines are not defensive.
I think he’s managed to surround himself with alt-right grifters* who have him truly believing most of the absolute bullshit they spout. This doesn’t excuse him for what he’s doing to the world on their behalf.
*These grifters don’t necessarily go after money directly. They also grift to direct his influence and money to their causes.
The right isn’t stupid. They use a stupid message to maintain control of the conversation as a diversion tactic that is very effective. The whole point of this is to ensure no legitimate reforms and legislation are put in place. We fall for it every time we get enraged by the bullshit. That is the joke, we are the joke, and there is no way around the fact we will spend the next 2 weeks pushing back before the next prescribed side show drops into the circus. The outcome is fixed and calculated well in advance. This entire thing is planned out. I doubt they expected this one to have quite this big of an impact, but it will disappear just like all the rest. If a supreme court justices can be openly corrupt, there is no question the oligarchic prince will walk away completely free. We have entire states like Georgia fighting against justice for the biggest coup attempt in this country’s history. The perpetrator at the center is still free years later. King Musk is invincible because of Republican Russian Red team and their oligarchy.
Some of them absolutely are. Just like the Russians used r/the_donald to attract real, grassroots Americans to their cause. The ones who are using the stupidity as a strategy attract the true believers. I can’t tell you how many, but I guarantee the was at least one or two true believers in Congress. (Maybe they’ve been set straight by now.)
Marjorie Taylor Greene is probably the craziest of the bunch. She is following the Russian/Putin playbook to mobilize convenient idiots just like Trump. Lauren Boebert was a call girl, and is still turning tricks just for a higher end client. All of these people are acting their prescribed roles. They are all just actors playing roles. It has been reported that they all act completely different behind closed doors. Mobilization of convenient idiots is how Putin gained so much power. This is exactly what Republicans are doing. Most are being advised directly by Russia.
I suspect at least one, if not both, started out as true believers. And then this stuff became their job while they were being briefed on classified intelligence. Because, you know, the “deep state” does in fact try to give the legislature the information they need in order to do their jobs well.
r/the_donald I believe started as a psyop, but the strategy they used of getting people in on a joke and then making it real kind of applies here too. I think at the start they were true believers, spouting the idiotic bullshit while fully believing it. They found they were rewarded by that behavior and intentionally escalated it and kept it up. At some point they believe most of it, but still use all of it. Now, even if they no longer believe because they’ve spent the last several years getting educated for the first time in their lives, they absolutely have to keep the act up.
They’re following the playbook because they were recruited by the playbook. Every time they touched the MAGA button they got a treat. Now they’re millionaires. A fucking rat can do that.
As an aside, I don’t think Trump’s much different in many ways in playing to a crowd. One difference is that I do think he was directed by Putin early. But he’s not a political rally savant. He just goes to these rallies and likes when people cheer for him. So he pushes the “cheer for me” button. Evidence of that is when he got booed for promoting the vaccine. He’s not a genius at controlling the narrative. He just uses the narrative that works (even if much of that narrative was handed to him). He’s not the first person who can identify what people want to hear. And he has help. He, like any politician, has advisors doing polls and telling him what his people want to hear.
There exist smart Republicans who have been acting the entire time for grift and were never true believers. Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, Michael Flynn, Michael Cohen, Jim Jordan. The problem with acting in bad faith and using stupid bullshit is that you do attract those true believers, and those true believers eventually advance. I bet a good chunk of the Republican caucus actually believes in trickle down economics. Because the people they see are the ones that benefit from it, and they’re heavily incentivized to rationalize their bullshit however they can.
These stories about how much of a piece of shit Musk is have been piling up for years now. I think people driving around in Teslas are going to get some damage done to their cars soon.
If say the Proud Boys opened up a car manufacturing plant and started producing cars, would it also be wrong to do “violence” (lmao) against people driving their cars? Where do you draw the line? Musk is much more damaging to society with his mainstreaming of fascist, machismo, white supremacist takes than the Proud Boys are, but I bet you’d have no problem with that.
And do you really think making people second guess buying a Tesla wouldn’t hurt Musk whatsoever?
I think it would behoove you to stop with this kind of negative thinking. Yes, Musk is bad. Yes, he owns Tesla. But promoting acts of violence like that will not make the world a better place, nor will it discourage people from buying Teslas
You just keep saying violence, no matter what, is bad, which I know you and no one else believes. You’re lying to defend Musk and people supporting Musk. What reasoning do you have that acts of violence against Tesla and Tesla owners won’t make the world a better place? You seem to be relying heavily on the childish idea that violence is bad no matter what, which again you don’t believe. And of course if violence is directed to people who drive Tesla’s or their cars, people would absolutely be discouraged from buying Tesla and in return hurting Musk. We all know this, but here you are lying again.
You’re arguing in bad faith because you have nothing to counter anything I’m saying.
A lot of Teslas are old enough that some of the people driving them probably bought them used. Also while id be perfectly fine with people for example smashing the screens on tesla charging stations cause I find it funny, it is rather counter productive to attack car owners. I drive a Jeep, Jeep is owned by GM and GM is a shit company would you damage my car even though its old enough to drink and GM saw none of the money from me buying it.
Irregardless if you wanted to damage Tesla park a faulty model S near their factory, its libel to explode and that would be a PR fuckfest.
Honestly there are enough non-critical thinking reactionaries these days that would rush out to buy Teslas the moment they heard they could upset someone on the other side for doing it that the impact to sapes might not be as high as you would hope and the increase to service requests for Teslas would probably generate a lot of revenue as paint and tire replacements tend to be way higher on lrofit margins than you think
There aren’t even close to enough of them. They’re not going to trade in their Ford F-900 for a “wimpy, girly” Tesla no matter what Musk does. They’d much rather be seen as manly and tough than backing Musk. He doesn’t have the cult leader following like Trump does.
Mmmm maybe… I know that honestly his right wing pushes in policy have impacted sales but I wonder if it would be enough to actually tip any scale or just be a rounding error that gets people fired and jobs compressed to save more money
Lol. No they won’t. It will just confirm their world view. They will see it as persecution because they know the truth. And they will find another way to make a living. One that doesn’t rely on the opinions of the public and doesn’t care for its own image.
That’s fine though, if you’re too busy trying to make a living being a human piece of shit you’re too busy to tell the world you are a human piece of shit.
I mean if the police wanted to enjoy their job they each would get a day to park a cruiser up the street … and then change into civilian clothes and sit in a lawn chair up the street drinking a beer smoking a cigar holding a sign saying “speed trap ahead” and then calling in anyone that ignores it with it being tracked by the squad car’s camera.
that would be how you police if you want to have fun.
(this is my most brilliant idea ever. and i yield it freely to law enforcement)
Pretty telling that they’re not really about safety when officers will speed after someone at 100+ cause they got their feefees hurt in the exact same area the speed trap is.
People hate it, but as someone who leans towards fuck-cars, well sign-posted automated traffic cameras remove this problem. Stop cops from chasing people in cars like some dumb movie, and endanger both parties by parking on the freeway - just mail them a ticket.
So an automated speed trap is the solution? That’s just a flat tax. And for the wealthy it’s not even an inconvenience, just the cost of driving as they please.
it is, yes. I don’t think that’s an issue because a lot of countries that use it also couple it with a system that if you continuously break the law there are further sanctions
Meanwhile in reality they can craft these traps to maximize revenue by doing things like changing speed limits for specific sections of the same road for no apparent reason other than to charge people for speeding.
What you’re describing may be an issue. I suspect it is a tiny minority of the speeding tickets written. The above poster is advocating for well advertised limits and automated ticketing. I think this is a very reasonable solution to an undeniable problem: driving is dangerous, speeding more so.
The situation your describing a contrived edge case and is not a valuable contribution to the discussion at this stage.
“Just don’t speed” is, by and large, a very reasonable thing to ask of drivers.
Just because you can’t see the obvious issue of deriving revenue (and thus eventually relying on it) from traffic violations, doesn’t mean it’s a contrived edge case. Here are a couple of articles to help you along: nytimes.com/…/police-ticket-quotas-money-funding.…
I read the article second article, the first is paywalled. I still think cameras are a good solution. The argument in the article sounds a lot like “some police are bad, we shoud disband the police” or “some government officials are greedy, we should disband the government”.
Frankly, it sounds like the real issue if that they have privitized the production and configuration of the traffic cameras. If there was legislation in place that ensured fair and consistent implementation of the devices much of the issues identified by the author would be moot.
Any system that we put in place to enforce rules can be abused by those in power, but that doesn’t mean the system is bad or wrong. The reality again is that cars are dangerous, and I argue we should prioritize protecting the public.
It’s easy to hop in a discussion and say “no that’s bad”, but a lot more productive to say “here’s an alternative”.
Privatization is an issue, but also cities or police departments that rely on such revenue will also push for systems that drive revenue since it is a significant portion of their budget. Here’s another piece that explains it: npr.org/…/paved-paradise-examines-how-parking-has…
It’s a pretty long piece which covers other aspects of parking, but if you start reading from this excerpt: “GRABAR: I think so. Essentially, parking enforcement serves as a subset of what is now known as revenue-driven policing. And the idea here is that cities take advantage of these parking laws to try and get as much money out of people as possible, but not in the way that you would think, right?” and onward, it covers how underlying problems aren’t solved because the revenue derived from the existing situation is too convenient for the city. They even build around that by giving certain companies discounts on parking tickets because of how often they get them from just trying to do their job.
In addition to your point, there are certain places (I’m looking at you, Houston) where a whole lot of people just have paper tags. They’re all faked. So where are we sending those tickets?
There are also a load of unregistered motorcycles with plates from three owners ago. It’s not their fault that no one bothered to register after that.
TXTag tried sending me bills for someone who bought my car after I traded it in. I proved it was no longer mine. They dropped those charges. Then it started over the next time whoever owns the car drove on their tollway. Went on for two years.
I’m sure long-term they will improve the system and things like this will happen less and less. I’m sorry that happened to you, but it doesn’t mean the idea as a whole is bad.
I’m literally arguing against privatization in the adjacent post. Again, this is not productive discourse. “Burn everything down” isn’t a realistic or helpful suggestion.
the residents and the police are both happy with this solution and it exactly describes my proposal, but it seems like you’re using this as proof it’s a bad idea?
the only criticism is someone saying “it’s a bit of a money grab,” which - yeah, isn’t that the point of capitalism? So is selling bread, water, electricity, internet, books…
but why I’m proposing it is because it decreases confrontation - in the context of someone being extra judiciously killed by police, so - which would you rather lose, $100? or your life?
It does nothing to increase safety. Mailing someone a citation after the fact does nothing to stop the crime as it is being done. And, as is the case in Lindale, it doesn’t even make any money as a large majority of the recipients just throw them away.
i dont mean to be rude but are you absolutely sure you’re speaking from a place of “I want to increase road safety in general with methods that actually work” and not from a place of “I don’t want to pay a $100 fine?”
Are you not reading what I said? It doesn’t make the area safer. Receiving a ticket WEEKS after the fact does nothing to prevent or curtail the dangerous behavior WHEN IT IS OCCURRING. And it doesn’t make the actual street any safer because people slow down for that 100yd stretch then speed back up. Never mind the fact that a huge number of the tickets go straight into the trash.
Ive admitted it three or four times. So for clarity, again, yes it is predicated on money. Yes, it is a cash grab. Yes it is a tax. It is a tax grab, it is a cash tax. It is a cash grab. I personally feel the term “cash grab” is a little loaded emotionally and isn’t necessarily the best and most accurate way to describe it. But it seems you care a great deal about me saying the words, so I have said them. it is a cash grab.
All transactions are a cash grab. Name something that isn’t. I have said from the start that the “cash grab” “tax” etc is part of the deterrent, but, to me, at least, that is better than death.
Furthermore - cops issuing tickets is a cash grab. Cops arresting people and them going to court and getting fined is a cash grab. Forfeiting your car is a cash grab. Paying to attend remedial driving school is a cash grab. We live in a capitalist society, everything is a cash grab.
I have from the start said that prevention (the cash grab) is part of the desired outcome, it is in my original comment. It is good to fine people who do bad things because it makes them do it less- as evinced by the sources I have provided - and it helps repay the cost of their antisocial behavior back to society.
Now that we are very clear that we both agree
it is a cash grab
why I think that cash grab is a good thing
that the good thing is the decrease in speeding
I am curious to hear why you think the cash grab - or to use my preferred nomenclature - a deterrent - is a fate worse than death?
Have you read anything I’ve been writing? It is does not deter speeding. Outside of the 100 yards the camera it’s business as usual. People receive tickets AFTER THE FACT. It would be more effective to have actual police enforcing limits ON THE SPOT. They do not care about safety, they are literally just trying to generate money for themselves and their cronies.
according to your unsourced opinion with nothing to back it up except that you “live near there” - it doesn’t. I’ll change my opinion when you can provide some facts like I did. (although I retain the right to scrutinize and offer my opinion on those facts).
it would be more effective… to enforce… on the spot
I disagree. You can enforce for every car with a camera, you can enforce 1 car with a person in another car - so by what metrics of efficacy are you holding this to? It seems like you’re saying it’s better to stop one person now than it is to stop thousands of people regularly.
If they don’t care about safety, why is the person who doesn’t care about safety better in person, with a gun, giving chase in a dangerous location?
If a person is speeding and unknowingly gets tagged by a speed camera, it doesn’t stop their speeding at the time. Hence it is not about safety.
If someone is speeding then slows down just long enough to avoid getting tagged by the speed camera, then resumes speeding, it is not about safety.
If the tickets can be literally thrown in the garbage without a second thought and the issuing party can’t do a thing about it, it is not about safety.
There are better ways to make people aware of their driving habits. A shitty unmanned speed camera is not one of those ways.
a) only true if not signposted, and I specifically said it should be. isn’t cops stopping you also only a deterrent if you get caught at that time? if a camera is there permanently you know not to speed after getting caught, if a cop is there on Monday they might not be on Tuesday
b) we disagree, that’s exactly what safety is to me. I don’t wear a condom if I’m not having sex, and you don’t need to slow down if you’re in an area where you can go fast — are you assuming I mean to make people slow down on the freeway? i am not, i am talking about accident prone areas where slowing down would save lives
c) so don’t make the tickets be able to be thrown in the garbage?
A government agency is using a flimsy excuse to extort money from it’s citizens, accusing people of a crime without due process… and you’ve made it clear that you think it’s a worthy trade off for the illusion of safer roads.
In this interview, the subject of the Kansas Newspaper raid speculates that the motive comes from "a confluence of personal animus from the mayor, a personal attempt to intimidate us from the police chief, and basic incompetence from the judge and the county attorney." Judges and county attorneys/district attorneys being rubber stamps for corrupt cops have caused needless deaths and trampled on folks rights plenty in the past.
Is this a case where she was fired because the book didn’t have anything to do with the class she’s teaching? Or because a bunch of parents went Karen and it made the school district look bad?
If a history class references passages from the bible, I think that is inappropriate in general but it depends on context. If it’s using the bible to explain say the history of the Holy War, that makes sense. Having the context about the why does help.
If she was teaching Sex Ed and talking about gender fluidity, in that context it makes sense to me.
Like you can’t talk about Hitler’s philosophies without being up Mein kampf even at a shallow level. And to ignore it is disingenuous to education.
She’s insubordinate by reading a children’s book to children? What?
If it's "insubordination' then it's safe to assume either (a) she was explicitly told not to do this by a superior, or (b) there must be a rule or regulation against it in the school district.
The thing is: You need the kids to have this information before puberty really starts to take off so they know what's going on with them when they start to feel things that are related to gender fluidity/homosexuality/whatever, so they grow up without the self-doubts and such but with the feeling that what they are is just another human being.
Things related to sexual attraction (e.g. homosexuality) might start around puberty, but things related to gender itself can start even earlier than that. This source claims that about ¾ of folks with gender dysphoria first experience it by age 7.
Applying logic to bigotry is a waste of time. It’s just ingroup loyalty. The rest is mouth noises. They won’t be clever noises, and they won’t be consistent noises.
I mean they have a very logical point, it’s probably unlikely but for example you would have to admit if it was a maths class and there was an important standardized exam coming up, such unrelated material would be a highly unusual waste of time and in contempt of the time sensitive curriculum. We can’t just politicize every headline and grab our pitchforks before we get the full picture - details and nuance are important for categorizing things like this. Perhaps it is though, the headline sounds bad but the actual article provides very little further context. Did she know it was a violation of policy and opt to be fired anyway? Why?
Everyone says this but I remember my teachers wasting our time pretty often. I can still tell you about my 7th grade English teacher’s time he met his future daughter-in-law but not the difference between an adverb and a verb.
Except it isn't a fucking logical point, it's whataboutism and an army of strawmen.
And by playing devils advocate with these empty fallacies (and admitting you haven't even bothered to read the details, or know anything about this book that has you running scared), you are actively (and to my personal impression, deliberately) contributing to the problem.
there is a nuanced difference between transphobia and not wanting to discuss topics that cause arguments in a school
It’s still transphobia, the only reason it’s viewed as a political topic is because of transphobia. It’s pretty cowardly to say we should avoid talking about gender/trans issues just because it makes people uncomfortable, and might cause arguments. Trans people exist, but you’re arguement kinda says to me “They aren’t worth the trouble, id rather sideline them to avoid disagreements.”.
Abortion is a rough comparison, it’s a heavy topic and I think it would probably be inappropriate for more reasons than just being a “Political” topic.
I did some digging to see if she was teaching a particular subject or anything. She was a teacher in the schools gifted program and per her Wikipedia page “According to the Cobb County School Board, Rinderle read the book during a time block that was supposed to be dedicated to mathematics instruction and enrichment, but Rinderle denies this allegation.”.
I’m going to keep looking but it seems like their schooling is structured differently than I have any experience in. When I was in 5th grade we had 3 teachers that we rotated between for different subjects. It seems like she was responsible for several subjects or the entire curriculum for her students. Either way, the school boards intent is clear and malicious.
Republicans are awful people. Not every Democrat or leftist is a good person - just look at Lemmygrad and Hexbear, or turds like Anthony Weiner. But every Republican has chosen to support a party which revolves around anger and bullying those who are vulnerable.
Both parties are garbage. Not necessarily the people. To say one side of shit is better than the other side of shit just means your not looking at the shit the right way.
100 percent. ‘Enlightened centrist’, they’re either a kid living with their parents who doesn’t really understand or a person born into privilege that refuses to see the reality of the world.
If the Democrats are like a flood of sewage that comes unbidden into your home, the Republicans are like you constructed a sluice specifically to pipe it in.
No. Democrats are like having to eat mushy vegetables with no salt because they’re healthy for you. Undesirable, but necessary.
Republicans are like being paid to eat something gross from the back of the refrigerator. And only rich people get the money. If you’re poor, you just have to eat the garbage. Both unnecessary and disgusting.
“MuH bOtH sIdEs” as you’re in a thread about hateful right-wing politics and people driving an objectively good teacher out of her state. You’re not very bright.
In quite a few ways they are similar. Both parties get money from the rich, attack those that have different view points, believe themselves more enlightened than the other, don’t keep most of their promises, lie to get what they want, throw fits when they don’t get what they want, try to divide people on issues, have zealots, and start to do stuff right before elections come up. Ultimately they are the same with minor differences in views that are taken to the extreme by few loud people.
Abortion rights since one party thinks they shouldn’t exist. LGBTQ rights since one party thinks they shouldn’t exist. Labor rights because one party doesn’t want unions to exist or workers to get things like paid vacation or sick time. Child labor laws, because that’s it’s own category because one party thinks that 14 year olds can work 40+ hour work weeks. Free school lunches since one party thinks children in poorer familes should starve. Public education, since one party wants to siphon public funds to private schools through school vouchers. Public education again because one party supports book bans and defunding libraries. Healthcare because one party’s stance on vaccination caused twice as many of them to die during the pandemic. Healthcare again because one party’s stance is to allow insurance companies to be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason by repealing the ACA. Environment because one party has no plans of acknowledging climate change, let alone dealing with it. Environment again because one party wants to dismantle protections that limit pollution emitted into our air, water, and land. Healthcare a third time because one party wants to dismantle protections on food and medicines that would stop people from being poisoned. Labor rights again because one party wants to dismantle protections on workers that would stop them from being injured or dying.
I love how you don’t specify which party but everyone knows. Everyone always knows. The people in that party know and get mad when they’re called out and start their whataboutism.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.