It’s a bigger economic problem than people are talking about. I have a manager who works from Houston. He can’t work right now. Several other coworkers as well.
At some point, employers will have to consider the liability of employing someone in Texas, simply because a power outage could seriously impact them.
Florida rebounds really quick after a hurricane. I do have coworkers in Florida, at most they are out for a day or two.
It’s been 4 so far for Houston. And I’m not talking a hurricane which won’t impact most of the state, I’m talking about any power outage across the state.
Florida, all the craziness aside, is actually part of the national grid and, like the other commenter said, usually rebounds quickly.
Texas OTOH keeps insisting their independent unconnected grid is superior, even though the evidence is stacking quite tall against that claim. If it’s not a hurricane, it’s the heat. If it’s not the heat, it’s the cold. If it’s not the cold, it’s the wind.
It’s always SOMETHING with their grid, but I’m sure it has nothing to do with their insistence that their grid be independent. It’s all the WoKeNESs that’s the problem!!! /s
Although being disconnected from the national grid is a problem. This isn’t the problem this time.
This was poor preparation and response by the city and power company. We haven’t had proper tree trimming around power lines and there weren’t repair crews staged for this. Not to mention trees dying off from extreme heat/cold then being blown down.
“A tree” didn’t “take the entire grid down.” A hurricane and thousands of trees took thousands of power lines down, and there are many localized outages interspersed between areas that still have power. “The grid” is fine, individual neighborhoods’ connections to the grid are not.
The grid is only fine right now because of decreased load due to outages. When everyone has power again and the load increases they’ll have a different set of problems they’ll end up blaming on FEMA, green energy and hurricanes.
That makes no sense. The Texas grid hasn’t had any issues with balancing electricity supply and demand since the winter storm in '21 that took a bunch of generating facilities offline
A whole 4 years of stability! I stand corrected that’s a such a long and outstanding record that I should feel shame for doubting or capability after being involved in several deaths then and several more now.
No argument from me that what happened in '21 was at least partially avoidable with more effective regulation, but you’re on here talking about this outage in Houston that has absolutely nothing to do with that, because a fucking hurricane knocked down thousands of trees and power lines.
Their point was that Texas because it’s unregulated is generally unprepared and have been for most “freak” incidents that were predicted in advance. Sure the hurricane changed paths, they do that so you prepare anyway.
People are downvoting every comment that recognizes this has nothing to do with ERCOT. They heard about ERCOT in 2021 and eagerly blame it for every power-related issue in Texas, apparently
At the same time, let’s recognize this was a hurricane, which would have similarly knocked out power in any metro area, and would’ve taken a few days to fix in any metro area. Centerpoint didn’t pre-stage outside assistance like they should have though, but to their very small credit, Beryl’s track changed dramatically from projections over the final 72 hours before landfall
A lot of inertia at the scale of the bulk of the petrochemical industry.
I would not hold my breath. Businesses will simply throw technology at the problem until they can’t see it anymore. Was just in a meeting today where the boss was raving about satellite phones solving our connectivity issues.
Yeah, red states are very poor, mostly due to their backwards economic policies. I know someone is going to being up that Texas is actually rich over all, but they still have far worse wealth disparities and widespread poverty than a comparable state like California. So they are indeed still a very poor state.
This poverty is a huge liability. It’s all fun and games complaining about how the gov wrecks everything until you need something like well regulated utilities.
Poverty is always a liability. In the healthcare system, poverty raises the costs for everyone else when they don’t get things treated or prevented.
What bothers me is that there is a whole bunch of financial types who seem to blissfully ignore liabilities. “Those are unrealized costs,” when it should be “those are ticking time bombs.” If you don’t mitigate liabilities like through well regulated utilities those ticking time bombs will always have bigger consequences when they ARE realized.
The company I work for has a production and shipping facility down near Houston that has been closed down since Monday due to the lack of power. It’s insane.
His name was already about as white bread as it gets. This is a real and genuine problem when it comes to hiring, but it’s going to be a huge uphill battle for him to prove anything here.
It’s also extremely common in the white community. They’re saying that his real name isn’t one that would cause someone to assume you are nonwhite, like Will Dewitt, Ashley Jones, or Casey Smith.
It’s interesting, assuming he’s right (for the sake of this chain of thought), what would be the statistical relation to being black. In which part. Say, Dwight is not such a common name and how often do black Americans use it as compared to the rest. Or maybe there’s some rhythmic or melodic thing in names which people in different groups follow differently.
EDIT: And while a guy named Jackson can be anything, a guy named Jebrowski is most likely not black. Black people would usually get English\Irish\Welsh\Scottish\German\whatever names, because those were the names of their former, sorry, owners. There weren’t a lot of Poles, especially owning slaves, in the new world at the time this was happening.
EDIT2: So there is a difference along racial lines.
Are there a lot of white Jacksons though? Legitimately asking, I don’t know any Jacksons personally and basically only drum up the obvious as far as famous folk lol
He doesn’t need to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a civil suit. Essentially, his face value evidence is strong enough to win unless the hotel can provide clear explanation of how it did what it did, for example if they had different people processing different stacks of papers. At the same time, the plaintiff will have a chance for discovery, so who knows what will happen on that front.
It could be racism, or it could be because the reviewers eyes fell on different words while they were skimming the CV, or it could be because the reviewer was slightly more tired for one of the CVs. This sort of thing is very hard for a human being to be consistent at.
What you’re missing is his actual job history, identical on both resumes, he was applying for a luxury hotel customer service position, and had many years of exactly that experience, unless three other people with more experience than him applied and one of more dropped out, it makes no sense he was looked over, and then interviewed. That’s what pushes this from a case of maybe racism to a lawyer accepting the case because of the very strong evidence of racism.
And even if it was a case of two three people having more experience on their resume, and then dropping out, why wouldn’t the hiring manager scheduling the interview tell him that, and why did he pick the newer resume over the older one with exactly the same experience, it doesn’t add up. Resumes are usually organized oldest to newest, relevant job history greatest to least.
You are making sense, logically. That’s how it should be: If you are a better candidate, you should get the interview.
But picture this nonsense scenario that I think is nevertheless illustrative of the problem: the hiring manager is overworked, at the end of their 12 hour shift filling in doing odds and ends because they’re understaffed and the guests need service, a kid threw up in the pool, there is a standards compliance issue regarding detergent and it might be illegal to wash the sheets with this, the breakfast delivery was cancelled and in six hours there will be hungry guests, and there are 30 CVs to read while they’re on hold talking with an emergency industrial bakery.
Those CVs are not getting the attention they deserve. The job won’t be going to the best candidate. The job will go to whoever seems most acceptable of the 5 CVs they managed to read before the croissants got ordered and they’re off to their next emergency.
And also a common white last name. It’s just a common last name. Alan Jackson, Andrew Jackson, Peter Jackson. It’s a surname with English origin. Lots of Jackson’s out there. It tells you pretty much nothing about what the person looks like. Couple that with your first name being DWIGHT, and you’ve got yourself one hell of a common name.
This will feed into his narrative that people take his words out of context. It’s playing his game. He constantly claims to be attacked and plays up the victim/martyr card to gain sympathy just so he can sell more supplements.
In case you were wondering, as I was, whether $3500 was more or less than the amount that was illegally donated:
Fountaingate Merkel Church, Remnant Church and Hope Chapel Foursquare Church donated a combined $800 to the campaign of Scott Beard, senior pastor at Fountaingate Fellowship church, who is running for a seat on the seven-member City Council in Saturday’s election.
And because the fine amount is "up to $5000 or triple the amount in question, whichever is larger," which would be $2400 in this case, a $3500 fine is appropriate.
sets a dangerous precedent where the government knows better than the markets
Wtf. You could say this about literally any law. Outlawing murder-for-hire sets a dangerous precedent where the government knows better than the markets. Making people pay income tax sets a dangerous precedent where the government knows better than the markets. Speed limits set a dangerous precedent where the government knows better than the markets. What a terrible argument.
Under employment laws you can quit basically at any time with given notice and you can apply to any job no matter who you are or what you did before. The non compete clauses are always part of the employment contract. Usually, what’s in the contract is binding, but: there’s things that might be voided upon examination. Here things like consideration and unconscionability come into play. I assume this clause would be ruled unconscionable against employment laws, therefore the clause is basically removed from contracts after the fact and precedent allows for it to be voided upon future use.
employment laws > contract law. That’s all it boils down to I assume, just what weighs more.
A lot of European countries allow only very limited non compete clauses or none at all. Moving in that direction is not really without precedent, so there’s your legal argument.
Also obligatory IANAL, if you think I’m wrong and you got sources, please correct me. I wanna learn what I don’t know.
I think we are talking about two different things. I was mainly asking for legal reason for the judge's injunction, looks like it is not a ruling but a stall tho.
She will rule later. That's what I was getting, what is the reason to disagree for the judge here.
I think you described how employment law works correctly though. non compete clause is hard to enforce in many places and for most jobs maybe save of some super red states.
But I also don't think that is their primary goal either, I would posit the goal is to "send a message" or "chill employees will to shop for work"
The court found that the FTC’s effort to implement the rule likely exceeds its congressional authorization under the FTC Act and constitutes an arbitrary and capricious approach to the issue of regulating non-competes.
Rather than issue a nationwide injunction barring enforcement of the rule across the country, the court’s ruling is limited to the parties in the case.
The court intends to issue a final ruling on the merits by August 30, 2024, before the FTC rule is set to go into effect. The court’s subsequent ruling may prevent the ultimate implementation of the rule on a national level.
So basically If I understand this correctly, the court is slapping the FTC for jurisdiction and saying “until further ruling Ryan LLC can legally use their non compete clauses”.
So the judge has a vague notion to rule against the FTC but it’s not clear if they do or if it’s gonna have national consequences, as this could just as well be a case specific ruling.
So yeah, the indicators lean a little bit towards non competes staying legal, but we’re still way out from knowing what will happen.
No kidding. Even regular staunch capitalists recognize that regulation is sometimes necessary. Regulation against anti-competitive practices exists because a market left to its own devices will devolve into monopolies that will be much less efficient than a competitive market. Non-competes are just employers establishing monopolies over their workforce.
I can’t even imagine being outside the school for over an hour with the cops actively preventing me from going in and getting my spouse or child out, getting pepper sprayed and handcuffed, and then at the end of it finding out they were inside slowly dying of a gunshot wound the entire time. I am legitimately confused about how none of the cops involved in that have not been vigilante’d.
If every single one of them get felonies with long prison sentences, they should count themselves lucky as hell that their community is for whatever reason being so forgiving about it.
cranking a dude’s hog while vaping weed in a theatre full of children. A completely accurate depiction of a former member of congress. How low we have come.
Well you see the proliferation of firearms always benefits the violent criminal over the heroic defender. Always. It’s a losing race.
Even back to the Wild West, places like Tombstone and Dodge City would come to implement gun control laws because, surprise, being mutually armed doesn’t help when the other guy has both the element of surprise and willingness to fire first.
Not risking their lives to help you. They’re in it for themselves because they’re scared. They’re afraid of brown people because they’re told to be. They’re puppets to the propaganda and get their info from fox “news”
On average, the rate of a vigilante saving the day is one in 7,000. There’s no record of the number of shootings caused by bad vigilantes, though, so we don’t know if that 1:7000 is a net-positive.
No, we’re not banning guns because that requires a Constitutional amendment, not going to happen. We couldn’t pass an amendment making 06/21 Chocolate Chip Cookie Day.
But to those of you with this facile “BAN” argument, I have a couple of questions. Why wasn’t this shit happening when I was a kid? EDIT: By “this shit”, I meant mass shootings.
You could order whatever the hell you liked from the Sears catalog. LOL, I have a pump shotgun that was sold in Western Auto stores. You could ride around with long guns mounted in your truck window. And yes, you could get an AR-15 in the 70s.
Only way I’ve seen laws become more permissive is regarding conceal carry. (I can argue both for and against this.) On every other front, more restrictions.
So what’s up? Not an easy question, I know. It would take a shelf full of books. We don’t know what happened here, but does it really matter to attack this issue case-by-case? It’s happening. It didn’t used to happen.
I’ll say it 100 times more, America doesn’t have a gun problem, America has a culture problem.
aka our gun "culture" is pathetic. it seems people don't realize there are other countries that have a culture of guns and they don't have as much issues.
Why wasn't this shit happening when I was a kid?
I think mass media made terrorist acts more appealing. However this appears to be just normal american degeneracy enabled by idiots with guns.
We are agreed! I stick to liberal or unbiased gun content, and that’s not hard to do. But I’m well aware of all the macho, kill 'em all, Punisher logo type bullshit out there.
Maybe that’s partly what I’m getting at? Just seems like guns were a tool when I was a kid. Nothing to puff one’s chest about.
As to mass media, yeah, shit really seems to have gone off the rails after Columbine. Maybe that’s my age and life experience talking, but I don’t remember much of anything before that.
Sure, there was Charles Whitman unloading from the Austin clock tower, but that was news precisely because it was so unheard of.
I think this is about where it's important to remind people that the 24-hour news cycle is a relatively recent phenomenon. Many of us grew up in an era where the news played for an hour a couple times per day. One can hardly understate the impact this had on "the news".
To keep it short and on-topic:
The news used to almost exclusively feature big news stories because there wasn't time to cover everything. Local news would have smaller, local interest stories. Individual crimes mostly made the news when they were especially noteworthy.
Now, news stations need to find anything to fill an entire day. This is how we went from journalists reporting on big stories to commentators "reporting" on every little thing ad nauseum.
This has led gun crimes to receive a lot more national attention than they would have previously.
I guess you’re being downvoted by young people that can’t relate. Back in the day it was big news if there was a shooting, and it generally only involved 2 people. People did indeed drive around with rifles on full display. Yet few people were ever shot. Maybe in Detroit or Chicago etc but for the vast majority of the country it was unheard of. Times have changed. Mental health has declined. Everybody is depressed, frustrated, overworked and underpaid. I think such things can lead to violence. People are straight up losing their shit in this country.
remove guns tomorrow, the people are still the same.
Oh theres one big difference, they are far less lethal.
Many other countries have proper gun cultures.
Compared to the US, no other country on earth has a gun culture. Most people in most countries do not have guns, and most countries have much stricter gun control than the US.
Third world countries are the closest to our gun culture, but even then the guns per capita are like a third of the US. Shit man, i could tell you we have more guns than people, at 120 guns for every 100 people. But no one else is close to hitting 100, god no country is even anywhere near 60, fully half of the gun proliferation in the US.
For the rest of the world, 30 guns per 100 people is a staggering amount of guns, and most developed countries are far below that.
You are poorly educated and citing generic stats with out understanding what you were just told.
Cool Americans will over buy guns, true. We are talking here peoples conduct with weapons.
Countries that have hostile neighbors or OG territorial approach, thinks swiss or Sweden, ave a gun culture and it is focused around defense and sport.
Not pro, I am sure there are others.
Gun ownership is not uniquely american, excess crime related to guns is tho.
Ps. it is likely possible to link it avaliability as a factor. However, banning guns won't solve underlying social issues.
There is also Finland, which has around 34 guns per 100 inhabitants, amongst the highest of the western world. It has a cun culture of defense (against its untrustworthy Russian neighbor), hunting and sports. But there is strict registration and regulation. Though they can buy just about any type of gun, there is no open carry “for funsies”. Carrying/transporting the guns requires an immediate purpose and must be held, unloaded, in a case or pouch. (I am not Finnish so correct me if I am wrong)
I have a bit of a feeling it’s in the US a thing of “He has a gun, so I want a gun” that reinforces itself, and after a while gets people careless since it’s a fairly common thing.
In the UK there was a study where forbidding handheld guns, mainly pistols, did see a sharp decline in gun related crime but they did not banish it completely.
I don’t know the numbers but in the US it seems pistols make it easier to act upon one’s mental state … have a tiff with your neighbor? Go to his door with a gun on your belt. A car just cut you off? Explode in rage, pull up next to him/her on a traffic light and swing your pistol around, try doing that with a non automatic hunting rifle.
Stupid people treating guns like toys is a product of the abundance of guns, not the cause.
If you placed those same people in a place where guns aren’t freely available I dohbt they would seek out guns for the sake of firing them off at a wedding.
I haven’t spent any time in the Middle East, so please forgive my armchair analysis if you are more versed in the culture, but it seems like they have a legitimate need for guns, given how unstable the region is, rather than seeking guns out because of a deification like the US.
One of the reasons is because Americans buy cheap guns for peasants while in places like the UK people buy expensive works of art like Holland & Holland rifles.
You may have to wait 'til Tuesday* for the next TV-publicized mass shooting, but it wasn’t twelve hours before the next actual mass-shooting event occured:
1 death and 7 surviving victims of a shooter on 2523 W Broadway, Louisville KY USA 40211, with no arrest shown
Note that the mass shooting in Arkansas is almost a Mass Killing, as a 3rd victim has now died.
In general, there are on average more than one mass shooting every day in America, and often a high number in a day. On the 15th of June, barely a week ago, there were SIX mass shootings - Cincinatti, Southfield MI, Rochester MI, Detroit, RoundRock, Tuskegee - and 4 of the 51 total victims died. SIX MASS SHOOTINGS reported by newsmedia IN A DAY, but the record I think is 8.
Anyway, I just came to say you may not need to wait four days for the next one, that 4 hours is usually plenty. 'Murica.
Hahaha. She wasn’t even protesting. She was being awarded for compassion to suffering and she literally just noted other suffering she had compassion for, but acknowledging other’s suffering in a way that’s not politically correct to the jackboot administration is “putting others in danger.”
Oh I hope my fellow nurses teach this employer a lesson.
Hundreds of students in graduation robes walked out of the Harvard commencement on Thursday chanting “Free, free Palestine” after weeks of protests on campus and a day after the school announced that 13 Harvard students who participated in a protest encampment would not be able to receive diplomas alongside their classmates.
Some students chanted “Let them walk, let them walk” during Thursday’s commencement, referring to allowing those 13 students to get their diplomas along with fellow graduates.
You should be able to sue. You spent 4 years and fuck ton of money going to Harvard. If you have the grades and credits they should not be able to hold your diploma.
Has anyone clarified? The way I’m reading it is that they’ll still get their degree and graduate. They’re just barred from walking the stage and participating in the ceremony.
Yeah read it somewhere else. Figure because I didn’t think they could bar them from getting their degrees altogether. I still sue because we have right protest and they worked hard to graduate so they should get walk down that aile.
In Detroit a leader of the Pro-Palestinian protesters said "This community will be the community who unseats Joe Biden. … A president who has fostered an atmosphere of hate against our community."
Just that ignorance of Muslim and Palestinians here. The atmosphere of hate is coming from Trump and the Republicans and these people are openly supporting him. Being used by the right to help bring more prejudice and racist policies to their people. Trump gets elected and you can say goodbye to any chance of Palestinian recovery. The Israelis are not going to stop with Gaza. Once it's secured the war with the west bank will begin.
Pro-Palestinian protesters said “This community will be the community who unseats Joe Biden.
Yeah, those ranks of “protesters” are riddled with Republican/Putin operatives. If Biden is unseated, say goodbye to Palestine. Israel will have the green light to eradicate the people of Gaza.
Right now Israel doesn’t care if it kills civilians to get Hamas, and they’ve had to slow down their attacks several times and scaled things back because of the Biden admin.
If Trump is elected there’s literally nothing stopping Israel from just mustard gassing all of Gaza.
They haven’t slowed down in the slightest. Everything he’s done has been verbal, except for one very short time they slowed down some weapons, but even then, they’re sending them more weapons. If they’ve slowed down at all, it’s because of other countries like ones in South America cutting off trade, or South Africa starting the ICC case. If anything, the US has been running interference on behalf of Israel, vetoing resolutions against them and such in the UN.
This is cognitive dissonance from someone that wants people to support someone literally complicit in the genocide of their people.
I’ve not seen any evidence of Republicans at any rallies.
The Putin comment is just ‘anything I don’t like is Putin.’
Let me be clear. Biden and the DNC intentionally chose to forego important parts of a primary. Biden chose to be complicit in a genocide. If Biden losses, it will be his fault he lost.
If you expect to be able to supply the weapons to a government engaged in a genocide against a population that also happens to be a requisite part of your winning coalition and still have them vote for you, then you are stupid beyond description.
If you expect to be able to supply the weapons to a government engaged in a genocide against a population that also happens to be a requisite part of your winning coalition and still have them vote for you, then you are stupid beyond description.
Do you even have the slightest idea who the largest voting block is? People don’t need to vote for a Republican for Biden to lose. They just have to not vote.
It’s amazing you even posted that as a response.
Sure, I would advocate for Republicans not voting for Republican legislators, if the Republican base wanted a ceasefire. But they don’t. The Republican party is afraid of their base. The Democratic party has contempt for theirs.
Also, Biden already started shipping those weapons, regardless of that vote. Holding up the weapons temporarily was an attempt to look like he was doing something, same as the floating pier was. Did you even read the link? It hasn’t passed the Senate yet.
Do you even have the slightest idea who the largest voting block is? People don’t need to vote for a Republican for Biden to lose. They just have to not vote
And who do you think is going to win then?
Come January 2025, the next president will be either Biden or Trump. The election is your one chance to say which one. Act accordingly.
Too bad that Biden chose to alienate a requisite member of his coalition.
Hold him accountable for his decisions.
He chose an action, supporting genocide, that will cost him the general, and chose not to run a primary.
Edit: I don’t understand these responses that try and imply voting is an individual moral decision. It has the same logic of blaming the consumer and individual choices for carbon based climate change instead of the people with culpability and power to change things.
Edit edit: I think at this point, unless someone dies, that Trump will be elected. To be clear, I am not voting for Trump.
Don’t be surprised when the people that Joe Biden’s second term requires don’t vote for him because he supported the wholesale slaughter of their families.
One person is responsible for that decision.
Joe Biden.
If you hate Trump, blame the person most responsible for his reelection.
It’s funny, every time I talk to someone like you who is explaining why not to vote for Biden and I ask them who I should vote for, they don’t give me a straight answer.
Why do you think I’m doing that? Have you read anything I wrote, or are you just seeing words that you filter as ‘anti Biden’ and give a canned response?
I’m literally responding to someone calling Palestinian Americans and Muslim Americans stupid because they, as a bloc, don’t want to vote for the man that chose not to stop the slaughter of their families.
Vote for whomever you want.
Don’t scapegoat the people whose families were slaughtered in an ongoing genocide.
That’s not what they’re saying. They’re saying other people won’t vote for Biden because he’s enabling a genocide of people from their community and it’s ridiculous to expect that they would. It’s easy to foresee what would happen and change tact, you know, like a politician. It’s not a prescription, it’s a description.
Vote your conscious. Personally, if you’re in a swing state, I think you should vote Biden. But maybe also don’t jump in front of bullets to protect him from criticism because it’s not going to help him. Forcing him to try harder on this issue will help him. He’s even throwing up some token resistance now, like that temporary hold up a few weapons, so baby steps are happening. I mean, it sounds like he approved another $1 billion of weapons after that little stunt of temporarily holding up a couple, and he’s still condemning protestors and the UN trying to hold Israel accountable even while they walk right over his “red line” but hey, uh… Baby steps, I guess…
I’ll answer this a fourth time, but no more since it’s clear you have no reading comprehension.
Whomever you want. It’s always been your decision. Just don’t blame the people personally impacted by Bidens decision to back a genocide when he loses.
All well and good, but I would rather not suffer through another four years (or more, the way he talks) of Trump just to teach Biden a lesson. Seems a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
All of this thread is off of a post calling Palestinian Americans and Muslim Americans stupid for not voting, as a bloc, for Biden.
I am arguing against the scapegoating that will come against an enthic minority when the outcome of Biden’s actions are that he doesn’t get elected again.
Vote for whomever you want. Don’t blame the family members of victims of an ongoing genocide for the outcome.
If you think everyone giving you scary truths is a Russian troll, it doesn’t allow you to recognize actual dissent.
And, to clarify things, I’m responding to a post that is scapegoating an ethnic minority that is a required part of Biden’s coalition because they likely won’t vote for the man that could have single handedly stopped the slaughter and torture of their families, but didn’t.
I responded to someone calling those people stupid.
We have reports from American doctors in hospitals in Gaza of an amputation patient that had literal maggots eating the remains of his legs that was left in that situation cause there were no resources or people to help.
We have reports from Israeli whistleblowers of Palestinians prisoners (hostages) regularly having amputations because they’d been zipped tied too long.
And yet, their family members in the US are stupid for not voting for the one man who could stop that but didn’t.
And, somehow, I’m a Russian troll for pointing out how stupid and inhumane blaming Muslim and Palestinian Americans for Biden loss is? Fuck dude, be better.
Remember when ISIS was radicallizing incels and they were literally defecting and traveling to the middle east to join up. Why. Why. Would any shady, corrupt, regime, ever give up that strategy?
I’d also like some sources, but I just find it highly unlikely that people who care about Palestine don’t care about all of the domestic brown Americans.
It certainly isn’t a happy choice to vote for Biden, but there’s absolutely no way I’m going to make any other choice. I remember how Trump harassed Muslims on Day 1. Harassment of all brown people, including murders and assaults, all rose under Trump. Voting for Biden is a vote to keep my extended ethnic community safe. And I intend to use that vote to pressure Biden into bitchslapping Netanyahu to stop genociding other brown people.
I can understand unhappy sentiment towards Biden. I can understand being reluctant to vote, and at this point, not wanting to vote for him. But I cannot understand “we will unseat Biden” sentiment. Someone who says that is no ally to brown Americans. Nor Palestinians, considering the wholehearted support Trump has for Netanyahu.
In Detroit a leader of the Pro-Palestinian protesters said "This community will be the community who unseats Joe Biden. … A president who has fostered an atmosphere of hate against our community."
This person will be at the front of the line to have their citizenship stripped & exiled if Trump is elected.
If you don't think Trump will do it & SCotUS will allow it, you're a dangerous moron.
Would you care about that if Trumps opponent was providing weapons and diplomatic cover to the people exterminating your entire extended family back home?
Actually think about that before blindly answering yes.
Imagine the trauma of losing your entire family. Knowing the children suffered horribly before dying. Knowing that the ones who followed Israels movement orders starved to death.
If you can’t understand why that would cause people to hate Biden, regardless of his opponent, then you have so little human empathy that it makes you incompetent at gauging the strategic outcomes of your actions.
Not voting for the person who could have single handedly stopped the slaughter of your entire family but didn’t isn’t ‘voting your emotions’
I can’t imagine anyone but a sociopath writing that.
EDIT: the stupid choice is voting for someone that wants a genocide committed. If a system is only capable of supplying two genocidiers, then it isn’t a system worth defending.
Also, putting morality aside for a moment, but nothing is stupider than assisting in the genocide of a people whom make up a required component of your coalition.
Reminder: Biden doesn’t win the swing States without Muslim support. This is a self own. Blaming anyone else for this is a case of victim blaming.
Jesus Christ. The only one that slept through civics and didn’t read their own posts here is you.
Congress didn’t overrule Biden. The house voted for something that hasn’t, and won’t, be able to pass the Senate. Nothing has happened here yet.
Congress controls the purse strings, yes, and the executive branch is responsible for the implementation. Biden absolutely could have told the Israelis to stop at any point, with actual consequences such as removing the fleet from the red sea, promising not to support them against Iran, stop weapons shipments that due to the Lehy law we actually are legally required to stop. All could be done by the executive.
Stop being condescending about topics you apparently know nothing about.
LOL, Reduced to "I know you are, but what am I"? Seriously?
such as removing the fleet from the red sea,
This is the fleet that just got done building the humanitarian aid pier. What a fucking brilliant idea!
The administration this month paused a shipment of large bombs on the grounds that Israel would cause heavy loss of civilian lives using the munitions in the Gaza Strip. The move also sought to discourage Israel from deepening its ground invasion in the city of Rafah, where some 1 million Palestinians are sheltering in unsafe conditions.
But Republican officials quickly came out in opposition to the decision, warning that the paused shipment would embolden Israel’s enemies in the region and weaken Israel’s hand as it seeks to rescue hostages held by Hamas.
“Israel needs these weapons to eradicate the terrorists who have vowed the destruction of Israel, and Israel needs it to protect itself and its people,” Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., a member of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, said during floor debate Thursday. “Withholding vital resources jeopardizes not only Israel’s ability to defend itself but also our national security by harming and weakening our strongest ally.”
The bill would prevent Biden from withholding, halting, reversing or canceling weapons transfers that have been approved by Congress from the United States to Israel, and requires any that have been withheld to be delivered to Israel within 15 days of the bill’s enactment.
It is unlikely to be taken up in the Democratic-led Senate and the White House has said that Biden would veto the bill if Congress passed it. The House vote was 224 to 187. Three Republicans voted against the measure and 16 Democrats voted for it.
By all means, keep having zero reading comprehension skills.
Tell me what the first sentence of that second paragraph says. Does it say that it needs to pass the Senate, and that Biden would then veto it? Does that, in fact, match exactly what I said? Huh. How about that.
Also, is lying about Israel your work? You get paid for this?
EDIT: Nice editing out of you saying this was your work.
WAR OF THE EDITS APPARENTLY: I posted a reputable source pointing out that what I said, that you said was lying, is actually correct. Learn to read.
The problem isn’t the number of ports. The problem is the Israelis aren’t letting the aid in.
The Israelis are going to be in control of the shipments that eventually will cross that pier, too.
So, tell me what problem that existed that the pier would fix, that wouldn’t have been fixed easier by just increasing shipments through the land ports.
The bill would prevent Biden from withholding, halting, reversing or canceling weapons transfers that have been approved by Congress from the United States to Israel, and requires any that have been withheld to be delivered to Israel within 15 days of the bill’s enactment.
It is unlikely to be taken up in the Democratic-led Senate and the White House has said that Biden would veto the bill if Congress passed it. The House vote was 224 to 187. Three Republicans voted against the measure and 16 Democrats voted for it.
Read that second paragraph again and tell me where the lie is? Why do you think the bill passed in the house, that hasn’t passed the Senate, or been signed by the president or been passed with a veto-proof majority would have any effect.
Why don’t you people understand that you calling them dumb isn’t going to override the sitting President sending bombs to kill their family? Do you actually want Biden to win or do you just want to be able to gloat if he loses?
Jesus was an anti-war, anti-capitalist, inclusivity-preaching socialist who gave free healthcare to the sick and free food to the hungry. Maybe they should crack open that book they always talk about.
If “anyone can talk to god, you don’t need all the ceremony” can turn into the Catholic Church et al for 1,900+ years, I don’t think they’re gonna read for comprehension on inclusion.
"anyone can talk to god, you don't need all the ceremony"
That's really close to why the Protestant Reformation happened, out of which all sorts of other lunacy has sprung. I'm not defending the Catholic Church by any means, but this particular criticism might not hit as hard as you intended it to.
John the Baptist was an apocalyptic Jew. I think it was there from the beginning. The apocalyptic Jewish sects make sense when you consider that they started their religion during the tail end of The Bronze Age collapse. They had just watched all the major powers implode, and tons of knowledge went with them. Makes sense that they would think the world was about to end.
The problem is it’s got a lot of convenient contradictory statements in it.
For example:
He said to them, “But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.
Luke 22:36
This part isn’t in Marcion’s version of Luke, which is probably the earliest extant version. But it is in the canonical version.
Something very convenient given it reversed the ban found across the Synoptics on carrying a purse when ministering, which necessarily prevented taking people’s money.
Just a bonus that it also allowed for the church to take up swords too right around before the time they start executing people for ‘heresy.’
There’s plenty of problematic passages added in over the years:
Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.” But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, “Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” He answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.”
You really don’t think the context of the woman correcting him, Jesus accepting the response of a canaanite woman, admitting fault, thanking her for her faith, and then rewarding her doesn’t change the context of “Jesus compared a woman to a dog” just a little bit?
He didn’t admit fault. He said she had enough faith to justify his taking action. But nothing about his own initial answer being unjustified. You are reading that into the text when it isn’t there.
“I was knee-deep in it,” Gore said about the local connections to the billionaires. “I guess I was just too naive. I should have known better.”
YES, YOU SHOULD HAVE. There’s only so many different ways we can spell this out for you. Now your job should be to campaign relentlessly for Democrats up and down the ballot, because they’re clearly the only ones who give a shit about public education, students, and teachers.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.