“One thing I cannot stomach, or support is a bully,” she said. “I did not stand for bullies before I voted for Chairwoman Granger and when I voted for Speaker designee Jordan, and I will not bend to bullies now.”
“… I mean, I’ve supported bullies every single day of my life until today, when I was the person being bullied. And I will go back to supporting bullies tomorrow, because I have learned nothing from this experience.”
She knows exactly who he is, she just doesn’t care because he never attacked her before. She’s a conservative, and like all conservatives, she does not perceive her own narcissism.
Exactly. So damn many of them are all fine until it happens to them and then the selfish nature of your typical conservative kicks in and it’s suddenly something to be upset about.
That’s really the defining characteristic of conservativism. There is no objective conservative idealism, only the defined self and its interests. Conservatives claim to favor low taxes and small government, but have no problem raising taxes on people who aren’t them or their donors, and will abuse government power to invade privacy or control economic influences to benefit themselves. Conservatives claim to be the party of “traditional morality” (which of course means whatever they happen to personally believe) but they will lie, cheat, fuck, steal, and kill as much as any other group, and will defend their members as long as they themselves are not victims of the transgressions.
I could write a book, but it boils down to egocentrism. If something benefits a conservative, it’s an important tradition, and if it does not benefit a conservative, then by golly we should get back to a time when it did.
Regardless of what you believe about him being a purple heart veteran, at the end of the day he was one of the very few people that called out the President’s abuse of power and provided honest testimony that ultimately cost him his 20+ year career. That qualifies him as a hero in my book.
The agency said that it is taking “urgent” steps to increase compliance such as auditing more high-income taxpayers as well as businesses and partnerships.
Which begs the question why this is a new thing, going after the bigger fish. I'll bet part of the answer is lawyers, i.e going after lower income is easier because they don't have ways to defend themselves. Or access to methods in hiding the money.
I’m a little more cynical, so I’m guessing it’s because rich people and businesses have more influence of politicians, and politicians have influence over the IRS. I doubt it’s a coincidence that conservative media has targeted the IRS so aggressively over the past year or so.
I'm more cynical because I think that high up are safe. Somewhere in the middle, the millionaires and small business, are probably the new targets. The change could also be simply because the lower end that are easy to do also more and more can't even pay the fines, so it's dried up.
It’s because the IRS has constantly had their funds cut, yet they still have to collect money. So, go after the big dogs and spend a load of money and get nothing? Or, go after the little guys who will shut up and just pay?
I’ve literally heard that they’re on record about this—they simply don’t have the resources to take on big fish and their extremely well-funded legal protection, so they default to low income and middle income audits. It’s a total joke.
The IRS has been struggling with funding since the GOP took power in the House in 2010. They defunded the IRS, and for millions of sadly-voting idiots in the US, "Fund the IRS" sounds scawwy.
Yes, it’s always been people making 400k and up. This has been know since they hired more IRS agents and it’s the main reason Republicans had a shit fit about it.
I like them saying they’ll do it. I’ll like it even more if they actually do! There’s a reason they target lower income people without scummy lawyers on retainer: doing the right thing (and funding our government) is hard. We’ll be watching…
The entire US culture that the world sees is a lie. Anyone who lives or has visited is aware, but all these other people watch movies and think American is some magical land.
Nah, wealth is just built on slavery and opression.
Modern day slavery in jails and low wages tied to healthcare.
I’m planning on starting the emigration process within the next few years because it’s starting to become obvious that the US will never get its shit together. Too many selfish hypocrites holding things back. I understand that the grass isn’t always greener, but I’m confident that it will at least taste better with those sweet sweet European social services.
Sure, cause the ex president with the most federal charges is in business attire and he is an upstanding citizen. Let’s focus on how people look instead of actual issues.
It’s only ever about appearances with the repubs. They want the appearance of propriety. If they start dressing like their lessers, then The lessers might realize they are equals.
So then why does a priest who penetrates and comes inside of children’s rectums, using blood as lube, day in, day out only get 2-5 years in the same state?
People like you help the problem survive because you can’t stomach crime and try to smooth it over from afar but you probably haven’t been alive for 50 years and have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re too afraid of problems to actually solve them and wait for the pedo to fuck your kid, toss him in jail after he’s finished, pay thousands to preserve his life, and dust your hands and say “job well done!”
How would you feel if your rapist buggered you and got less a year, you see him at the store after he’s released, walking about? Would 45 years be too few as well? Isn’t death merciful by comparison?
I’m sick of bad faith operators who have never actually dealt with crime and punishment. They think they’re so strong using words of power, but they keep the monster alive, under they’re bed, and never solve the problem; they’ve never even fought for good in their life!
Videos are there. You can point to it and say “here”. Victim memories are often multiple years of not decades ago. It sucks, it really does but physical tangible evidence is very hard to argue against vs someone 30 years old talking about what happened when they were 11.
Besides, the church has the resources unlike this guy.
No. How do you say they should get the death sentence? How can you be sure you have the right person and that they’re truly guilty? You could potentially frame someone with abusive material. Too risky giving the death sentence in this situation, and actually most situations. I don’t agree with the death penalty anyway. Let them suffer in a cell for life.
You are completely right on that one. I had totally forgotten that incident.
As a rebuttal, I really should have put a /s for sarcasm. My comment was based on the disproportionate amount of these incidents happening to minorities and people of color.
Tell it to Russian protesters. Before they were drafted. Or poisoned. Or imprisoned. Or being shot on bridge near Kremlin. Or poisoned and then imprisoned. Or not protester, but 20-years old programmer who was beaten to death for jogging. Or woman who got force abortion by her stomach being kicked with reinforced boot.
He will NOT be appointing officials for an organization that kills people until the government stops allowing abortions. Just let the logic sink in for a while. The guy’s a POS, and nobody should be surprised that a single issue candidate is only interested in a single issue.
Not to mention that because of the standing rules of the Senate, all you have to do is send an email saying you’re filibustering and any one person can bring to halt something all the other 99 Senators just want to move on to the next topic.
Literally this guy stands alone on this and the brain dead rules allow him and him alone to bring it all to a halt.
And the rules won't change because most of the Senate loves that someone else can halt things, take the heat, and then they won't have to deal with unpopular decisions.
Not in this case, but they're literally willing to force the military fuck over career professionals so that they can keep their cushy plausible deniability.
So many self-serving rules. And honestly, if we held any of them accountable to their campaign promises we might actually have a functioning congress. But here we are.
It funny/sad that allowing the Senate to function in the absence of a supermajority is seen as a desperate measure. Too me it seems like the only reasonable thing to do.
This is the real problem, and it’s infuriating. Not only because of the way it stops the Senate from doing so many things, but because so many people now believe it’s how the filibuster had always worked. And so people hate it.
But, in fact, the filibuster, in its original form, is a powerful tool the minority can use to make its voice heard and perhaps even effect change. It needs to come back - make Tuberville stand up and talk for hours on end for each of these appointees he opposes. Make McTurtle totter to center stage and wheeze for as long as he can the next time he wants to block a Democrat President’s Supreme Court Judge.
As much as I’d like to laugh as any Russian military stupidity, the aircraft in the picture doesn’t appear to have propellers attached, so it’s likely in some form of maintenance. Without the weight of engines and props, any strong wind over the wings is likely to move the plane around quite a lot. Putting tires on the wings disrupts the lift and helps keep the plane from moving around in storms.
That feels like a better explanation then the other theory that they are used for some form of anti-drone tech.
Would the tires do anything to protect them other than blunt the damage? Ignoring the fact that each tire conveniently has a bomb sized hole in each section?
I would imagine shrapnel would have an easier time going through a tire then through the exterior of the plane. And those bombs already do that.
Tires are very tough. Aircraft skin is very thin. I think tires would help reduce damage from shrapnel, but agree that weight and airfoil disruption is also a very plausible expansion.
Oklahoma is the only state in America without any blue counties. In the 2020 election, every county was red for every single race. The state sucks and I feel bad for the blue voters in it.
His entire campaign in 2016 was ‘locking up’ Hillary. If he wasn’t able to accomplish that in 4 years, what makes him think he can follow through with this promise now that he has numerous enemies on both sides of the aisle?
Nothing short of a full-blown Shutzstaffel will fulfill even a fraction of his current campaign promises.
Playing devil’s advocate, the Trump team didn’t expect to win and quite frankly had no clue how to pull the levers of power for a large portion of his presidency. If, God forbid, he is reelected that will not be the case. They will know how to play the system much more effectively than they did last time.
They learned some of what didn’t work. That does not translate to being able to any better ability to lead a nation. Authoritarians always fail on the fatal flaw of believing their own BS, and sycophants reaffirming that delusion. Kings, Popes, Hitler, Putin, Dear Leader, and now Xi all were inflicted with that delusion.
Furthermore, they’ve been bleating about the left doing exactly what he’s saying despite it not being the case, so his followers and acolyte will 100% back him when he does it for real. Another Big Lie
Haven’t most abandoned him and bad mouthed him. It will be new incompetents and deplorables. Some will be the same, but they are the background people.
I wonder if seeing the problems some allies now have seeking alternative employment or opportunities will give them pause. Then I remember they are not great critical thinkers.
The more moderate Republicans stayed away and rightly so. I don’t think they will be tempted to rejoin. Luckily, he’s got much less chance. His base is shrinking, albeit at a much slower rate than it should. People are more aware of what a terrible person and president he will be. Those paying attentiyalready knew.
He’s never believed that he’d be able to lock up anyone other than PoC and migrants. His base bought into it. I don’t thing this promise is going to hold nearly the same support as last time. Sure, they’ll still love him to death and try to elect him but I don’t expect that they’ll be so sure that he’ll make this happen. But it’s a re-run and americans are famous for watching garbage television, so who knows.
I still don’t understand what business the government has defining sex. How is that in any way the government’s job?? If anything, it could be up to medical organizations, such as the AMA, if they had sound arguments. But, the government? I really try to at least understand everyone’s logic even if I don’t agree with them, but this is just so insane. I don’t get it.
That’s because there is no logic, the people that want the government to define sex have a purely emotional reaction to the very existence of trans people… and most things that don’t align with their narrow life experience and worldview
Except the healthcare needs of trans gender people who have medically transitioned to any degree are often closer to their gender than their sex assigned at birth. The body chemistry differences between men and women are primarily affected by hormones. Unless you’re specifically looking at the organs that are different, you probably need to go by gender.
Again, why is the government involved instead of a letting a leading medical body. Did physicians have a large protest over the lack of a legal definition that is forced outside of medical settings, and the government heard their concerns based on rational logic and ethical medical standards? Does the government define eye color, cancer, gingivitis, premature birth, high IQ, major depressive disorder, and how organizations outside of the medical system can use those terms?
Not that I agree with what is happening but they are defining it in legal terms, which is absolutely their job. A simple example might be killing someone is just killing someone, and the government defines what is murder and what is manslaughter.
Maybe that was a bad example to use, that is my bad. It was just the first thing I thought of. The government needs to define all sorts of things, not just criminal acts. You say it’s being human. They even define what a human is.. Laws have to be written in such a way as to include explicit definitons so they can be enforced without loopholes. (Or in some cases create loopholes like with the rich and taxes)
Are you implying it requires a law degree to understand that the government defines what terms mean for legal purposes? If you don’t understand that you have a lot more to worry about than my certifications.
The fact that laws often define terms does not justify a law defining sex or gender. There’s nothing implicit to concepts of positive law or legislative authority that require legal definitions of gender.
There are so few occasions in law where it’s not a violation of equal protection to discriminate on the basis of gender that there really is almost zero need for law to define it.
Most of those rare occasions are related to reproduction, and even then there’s no inherent reason to define genders, the law could just refer to pregnancy or pregnant persons.
You would have learned all about this if you had studied law. I’m sure they must have these concepts where you’re from.
It’s actually quite important. Your sex are what your chromosomes are, your gender is what you identify as.
Your sex doesn’t change, your gender does.
That’s literally the definition of it.
This is important especially for medical purposes, medication, surgery, emergency care…etc all has variations based on your sex, because different sexes are predisposed to different classes of problems and interactions. This also applies to REPORTING, reporting that a medication affects someone born female different than someone born male is an extremely important distinction.
Incorrect reporting literally costs lives.
It should to be standardized, just like everything else that has significant consequences on well being.
Politics are ruining what should be completed apolitical.
There’s like 8 comments in this topic my straw-chewing friend. You don’t need to copy and paste yours again as if trying to get every iota of value out of typing so much pointless tired Facebook wrap-around sunglasses rhetoric.
Chromosomes don’t even determine sex. Biological essentialist already moved that goal post after the medical/biological community educated them on the complexity of chromosomes. Now they’re saying sex/gender (they can’t tell the difference) is determined by proportions of gamete cells. They’ll eventually have to settle on some new arbitrary metric once enough people realize not even gamete cell proportions satisfy that position.
It’s because they want to incentivize long-term, stable relationships and households because doing so statistically leads to better outcomes for society. The barrier to entry for getting divorced is quite high, so in general people tend to stay together more often if they are married than if they are not.
That all being said, the system is far from perfect for sure. Incentivizing marriages also incentivizes people to stay in bad marriages, among other issues
So they’re being charged with two counts of murder because conservatives have consistently ruled that fetuses are people, right? They killed an innocent person by killing the mother. Even if the mother was guilty, the baby was innocent.
Oh wait, they only want those rules to oppress women, not to oppress the oppressors.
It was a joke about how conservatives are anti-abortion to the point of charging miscarrying mothers with murder, while simultaneously being okay with cops killing a pregnant woman.
We need to abolish right to work laws. Or at least restructure them. I shouldn’t be able to be fired for literally any reason they can come up with. Even fast food jobs should have contracts with certain clauses to protect the workers. You sign it when you start and you can’t be let go until it expires or you break it.
Not that I disagree with your premise, but that’s an “at will” law area, not “right to work” (can’t be forced to join a union/pay union dues in a unionized workplace).
To add, some argue at will is fair because it goes both ways, but it definitely doesn’t. If your employer fires you suddenly for no reason, there’s no real consequences. If you quit suddenly for no reason, you can get blackballed.
Yeah I knew it wasn’t the right wording I just couldn’t remember exactly what it was called.
But that’s exactly what I was bringing up. I’m supposed to work a 2 week notice but they can fire me instantly because I didn’t smile at the manager when walking into work.
If your employer fires you suddenly for no reason, there’s no real consequences.
Depends on the industry and location. If they do that a few times in relatively small industry, or in a captured but small market, word gets around and suddenly that company has difficulty hiring in the future.
That’s true. I work in a somewhat “small” work world for my area of expertise, and word does get around about bad employers. People seem to have a short memory once they start offering higher salaries, even though they never keep those up with inflation. A few years later, and they’re working for a shit boss with average pay.
I was fired earlier this year because they manufactured some drama after I needed a sudden comprehensive additional surgery when a planned one round something alarming that demanded specialist surgeons. I feel like we really should not be in a country where a company can decide to screw your life at time of firing and then screw you for future jobs by not providing anything truthful about your time there. I’m still struggling months later, including the general anxiety of knowing I could go bust my ass for someone and have them do this to me all over again. Fuck this predatory atmosphere we seem to just celebrate.
The question I have about people who are against at will is the flip side, which is being locked into a hellish job for some set period. I have had jobs that deteriorated my mental health. With at will I can just walk out the door whenever I want. Not so if both employer and employee are bound by some cool down counter clause.
Even without abuse there is opportunity cost to staying at your company. I’ve seen family members on the spot quit to care for people they cared about, but not people anyone would consider close enough to be covered by anything like FMLA, like your best friend’s child. I quit jobs that interfered with my college education.
It sucks to be let go, but I don’t think people consider if it might make more suffering yo be forced to stay. I can’t see a situation where companies have to give notice, but employees don’t. Sure I guess employees can sabotage their workplaces to be sent home with pay, but what a fantastic way to catch a charge and screw yourself over forever.
That’s why I brought up a restructuring. The ability to quit whenever should always be an option but being fired without notice for anything that isn’t just gross incompetence/negligence should not. I should be able to quit because my manager pissed me off. I shouldn’t get fired because I pissed the manager off.
It’s not that I disagree, it’s just that I can never see a scenario where both sides don’t have the same power. If you can quit at any time, then rhe employer can fire at any time. If you the employer has you give notice, so do you. I’ve never hear any stories online in different countries of the notice period not being both ways. And despite what one dude said to me sometimes weeks long, not a week. That would be actual hell.
The difference is the employer has inherent power by being a money providing service as well as providing whatever other service/product they provide.
When you employ that many people the power naturally rises to the top. That’s why we need legislature to prevent that massive gap in power. Of course no one at the top will support this but the needs of the many outweigh the few regardless of how much money they have.
Remember corporate bailouts? “wE bAiLeD tHeM oUt BeCaUsE tHeY pRoViDe JoBs!!!”
The “cool down” period in many cases is just a few days when it’s the employee resigning. If your job sucks so much that you can’t stomach being at it for another week, you’ve got other problems.
That’s kind of my point? That some workplaces are toxic or you otherwise need to abandon your job because of external reasons. Maybe it’s just because I’m older (mid-30s), but I don’t know a single person who hasn’t run into a fuck this job moment for whatever reason. Either because it was deteriorating their mental health, or they prioritized their personal life. My life fell into a coma and I literally got on a plane thr moment I knew. I told my boss I wouldn’t be in and he could fire me or not, I don’t care. My brother had no one in that moment. I was lucky my bosses allowed me to keep my job while I acted as his advocate to get him care until the rest of my family could get there, but what if I wasn’t allowed because of some BS notice contract? Which at will I can just quit fuck it. With no at-will there would definitely be some punishment. This scenario may not overcome the good of getting ride of at will, but I think people should consider it. Consider what it would be like to trapped in a place you hate with a hostile work environment.
Lol we’ve got protections for all those cases which mean that you don’t have to lose your job because of temporary issues. Also if the circumstances at your workplace are serious enough you can resign with just cause without any notice period.
What’s more, if you have left over PTO, when terminating your contract there are two options: either the your employer pays you for the PTO you haven’t used, or you use it. In my case for example I have enough PTO saved to cover the notice period.
I don’t know about the rest of the EU, but in my country the employee can ALWAYS walk out, they just lose the pay for the non-worked days.
In practice, employment contracts are always good for employees and usually bad for employers. You don't want to be locked into a job? Then don't sign a contract that locks you in. Just refuse, as just about any sane person would.
Employers WOULD refuse to be locked in, except sane governments force them to. Sane governments do not force regular citizens into indentured servitude.
Are you saying that in countries where employers can’t just make up reasons to divest themselves of employees without repercussion or paying unemployment that the employees themselves are somehow bound to their employer and can’t just walk out?
Unless you’re under some contract, I don’t see how that would be enforced other than having laws on the books in individual countries about a minimum required notice.
Even if a country DOES have laws on the books stating all employees in all full time jobs must provide x weeks of notice before quitting, if the same country has a bunch more clauses to protect employees from employers than the U.S. currently does I have to imagine there are protections in place for the employees in cases of hostile work environments or whatever.
I can’t see a situation where a country that protects employees from the sort of hostile, predatory, dehumanizing behavior we see carried out consistently by U.S. companies wouldn’t have continued to take said employees into account while also protecting their country’s employers from things like large scale business-wide walkouts or whatnot.
I obviously don’t know for sure, but I do see stories from people from those nations talking about how they have to say for whatever amount of time for a notice period. This is the thing where I have questions about abuse. I’m not saying at will is great, but I also don’t think it’s 100% awful and I think people should consider what it would be like to not be able to leave a job when you want to.
At least in the states that I’ve worked in (NY anf CA) if you’re terminated without documentation proving cause, you qualify for unemployment benefits.
Yes, but the point is this costs the company money. It’s not a great system but I’ve been in management for 20 years and I’ve never worked for a company that would allow me to fire without cause due to that.
Why do you hate capitalism?! /s But seriously, I agree. Government regulation is the only thing that can force a corporation to do something that hurts profits like respecting workers’ rights.
Makes you wonder what challenges women will face in future space exploration missions. Long periods of isolation with groups of coworkers with very little personal space. Not like a belligerent party can be ejected out the airlock (It’'ll probably happen who am I kidding)
there's no doubt that sexual predation would be a big issue and that women would be the first victims of any violence, but it's just part of the greater concern over authority in such a small society.. who is in charge, how are rules enforced and misbehavior punished.. i'm not optimistic that a Mars outpost would be able to survive its own judicial system, for example.. or any of the prepper compounds.. they're sort of all guaranteed to descend into really barbaric circumstances socially..
You wouldn’t want to be stuck for a long time in a society made up exclusively of people with severe anxiety and personal issues who reject society? I can’t imagine why.
Not any violence. Men are the vast majority of murder and assault victims in the West, I don’t have data for undeveloped countries. Makes sense when you realize we all had “you never hit a woman” beaten into us. Even criminals would rather harm a man than a woman.
Yes, it is. On a long mission, even a few kg can have big differences in fuel consumption. Also the mean difference of reaction times between men and women is around 20-30ms, which is miniscule. Idk about the differences in resistance to space, but I highly doubt that men are significantly more resistant than women.
I’m not saying men are better than women in those aspects. I’m saying a very limited amount of people, both men and women, have the physical and mental fortitude to withstand a space mission, and there is virtually never going to be a situation where two people have the exact same qualifications and weight has to be the “tiebreaker”. It’s pretty much a non-factor.
TL;DR female astronauts have, according to the study:
a higher risk of cancer (a 45-year-old man has a 344-day limit in space versus a 187-day limit for a 45-year-old woman)
more orthostatic intolerance
more UTIs (which makes sense as women on earth are also more likely to have UTIs)
less vision impairment compared to male astronauts (no clinically significant cases of VIIP syndrome)
less hearing problems (men show a more rapid decline in the left ear and in general as well, but this is the case on Earth too)
Keep in mind that this data is not the best because only around 20% of people that had been on the ISS at the time of the study were women and because male astronauts are more likely to come from a military background.
I personally think this means we should send an equal amount of both sexes (maybe more women as it would help get more data on the differences). Sending all-men or all-women missions sadly won’t fully solve the problem as sexual assault isn’t always between men and women, that said, it is less common so it’s not a bad idea.
Anyways, more investigation is required. If you find a newer/better study please tell me (or if something I wrote is inaccurate), I don’t want to spread misinformation
Just FYI that username may get you some hostility. It’s far too close to Ace of Bass which is a band from the 90s that were neo-nazis. The Base of Aces was a Nazi submarine base in WW2. I’m not assuming anything here, the lead singer and guitarist both confirmed separately that was what their band name was referring to, just before they lost all their fans.
Yeah, that’s stretching it a little (probably based off the Cracked article from a while back). Ace of Base was named after Ace of Spades (a song by Motorhead) as a reference/homage, anything beyond that is purely speculation as the band have categorically denied it.
And yes, Ulf was indeed in a band that wrote some pretty heinous stuff but he has both repeatedly apologised for that, made clear he no longer believes in any of this, and made explicitly clear that Ace of Base never shared these ideas.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.