Something tells me that Amanda doesn’t know wtf she’s talking about. Just making it seem more scary than it is, in hope of scaring people straight.

As a recently former Kansas Citian, it is odd that this robot is here. As the article says:

We hear every week these days about more businesses being vandalized or robbed in Kansas City, but when you look at the latest crime map by KCPD, it shows no illegal activity reported at this shopping center.

This part of the metro, in Raytown, doesn’t strike me as an area that’s high/higher crime. It’s a pretty busy area. I’ve passed through this part of town many times night or day. Shopped in this area from time to time; never thought it was unsafe, since it’s a rather suburban area (not saying the city areas are inherently more dangerous; I lived in KC proper).

The date of the symposium, by the way, is the anniversary of the signing of the Great Barrington Declaration. It’s also Rosh Hashanah, one of the High Holy Days of the Jewish calendar. Stanford says the “overlap” with the holiday is regrettable, but it hasn’t offered to reschedule.

Admittedly, I don’t know much about of Judaism, but this seemed out of place. What’s the significance of the signing of this declaration and start of the conference, with this holiday? That it’d be like the equivalent of hosting a conference on Christmas or Eid or something?

While I understand the needs for “academic freedom,” the author is right:

No university claims to be open to the expression of any or all views, no matter how unorthodox or counterfactual; they make judgments about the propriety of viewpoints all the time; the level of discernment they practice is one way we judge them as serious educational establishments.

It’s one thing to have heterodox views, perhaps because we don’t yet fully understand something. But at this point in the pandemic, and what we know from past pandemics, this whole intentional widespread infection leading to herd immunity idea made no sense. It was misinformation during the height of the pandemic and it’s still misinformation now.

Stanford should’ve said “No,” and made these quacks have their conference at the local Super 8 hotel.

I think the point is that even with caps on spending, it’s still possible for people to fall into a financial hole. Even just looking at the prescription proposal, $2000 may not be a lot for some, but for others, that’s a good chunk of change. And is that $2000 per person? Is there a limit for a family? Because if not, for a family of 4, $8000 is a lot.

And of course, this doesn’t address the medical procedures themselves.

I’m explaining the other person’s position as I’ve read it. To me, any step in the right direction, even if small, is a good thing. But I could see why others would be like “Come on, stop beating around the bush, M4A already!”

I thought alcoholism would be it. And someone would be at least making money off it (sans bootlegging).

We’re being flippant, but god, what a waste of human potential. Absolutely pointless war.

You’re on Beehaw right now. Let’s not sling around any accusations. Let’s just assume good faith. Even I didn’t catch that when I responded.

While BLM is certainly within their right to ask for this, I think it’d be pointless to do it. It’s done. Kamala Harris is the nominee.

To me, this is once again, the left fighting the left. And yes, the Democratic Party in this country, is considered part of the left, even if it’s not as left as some of you you’d like. Maybe BLM and other groups who feel the same, should focus that energy on fighting MAGA and Trump. Only one of the two major parties has at least some interest in racial justice and equality. And it sure as hell ain’t the Republicans. Especially not these days.

I’m not saying Democrats are perfect. I’m not saying Kamala Harris is perfect. But I’d much, much, much, much rather have her and Walz and Democrats across the land in control. And trying to fight fights within the big tent that have already been settled isn’t the way to do it.

Jim Withers, who coined the term “street medicine” decades ago and cares for homeless people in Pittsburgh, welcomed the entry of more providers given the enormous need. But he cautioned against a model with financial motives.

“I do worry about the corporatization of street medicine and capitalism invading what we’ve been building, largely as a social justice mission outside of the traditional health care system,” he said. “But nobody owns the streets, and we have to figure out how to play nice together.”

While I don’t hate anything that helps people, and I’m not as anti-capitalist as some in this community, I wondered about this too. While it’s great that a business was able to see a market here and can profit while doing good, I too would be a little wary. So much (ie seemingly almost all of it) of US healthcare is already driven by for-profit motives. We all know that even having health insurance, private or otherwise, can still be insanely expensive.

I don’t know how Medicaid, Medicare, or California’s funding and regulations work. But I’d want to make sure that the unhoused receive good care and continue to receive good care. And that profits are kept to a reasonable level. Healthcare obviously has costs; it’s not cheap to provide. But I’d hate to see even more money gobbled-up and services to the unhoused decrease in quality/quantity because the profit-seeking side of the company demands more profit.

Late to the party. FWIW, I’m fine with the title for this post as well. I think @TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org has the right of it.

If you have issues in the future, please just report it. You can message us directly if for someone reason reports aren’t working. We have fairly active and attentive moderation here.

I suspect Flash Mob is saying that as DOT Secy, Pete could do more. I’ll leave it at that; I’m not making any calls on Pete as DOT head.

But Flash also isn’t wrong that Pete has got the chops. Personally, I say just make him the spokesperson for everything. Anytime the GOP wants to say something stupid, let Pete respond and rebuke them.

EDIT: OK so this is actually more complicated than I thought. Parts of what I said originally are wrong. Sorry; let me see if I can correct this.

• Khan’s term actually ends Sept 2024; I thought she was appointed to a full 7yr term; she was not.
• Rather, she replaced former FTC chair, Joseph Simons, so she’s finishing out his 7yr term.
• Additionally, the president can designate a new Chair at anytime, without senate confirmation, as long as the president picks a current commissioner.
• Lina Khan was not a current commissioner, which was why she was confirmed by the Senate in 2021.
• If the Chair role is removed from a commissioner, that person reverts back to a regular commissioner.
• But the Chair obviously sets the tone and direction of the FTC and can appoint people to certain positions within the agency, so it’s a powerful role.
• If a commissioner or chair’s term ends, it is possible for them to continue in that role until a new commissioner or chair is selected (Source) .

So that’s why these billionaires are asking for this now. Because Khan will probably remain in her chair role beyond the election, until she’s replaced. If Harris wins, Hoffman and Diller are expecting Harris and Dems to “make good on their purchase” and to select a new chair. Still ridiculous.

How easy is it for a president to remove a chair of the FTC? Decided to look into this.

FTC commissioners serve 7yr terms. Khan was only appointed and confirmed by the Senate in 2021. So she should be there until 2028, unless she resigns.

Additionally, the FTC is an independent regulatory agency (versus an independent executive agency). So it sorta exists “outside” of the executive branch. In terms of firing commissioners (chair or not), independent regulatory agencies commissioners can’t be fired at will:

Presidential attempts to remove independent agency officials have generated most of the important Supreme Court legal opinions in this area.[9] In 1935, the Supreme Court in the case of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States decided that although the president had the power to remove officials from agencies that were “an arm or an eye of the executive”, it upheld statutory limitations on the president’s power to remove officers of administrative bodies that performed quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial functions, such as the Federal Trade Commission.[1]: 142  Presidents normally do have the authority to remove regular executive agency heads at will, but they must meet the statutory requirements for removal of commissioners of independent agencies, such as demonstrating incapacity, neglect of duty, malfeasance, or other good cause.[10]

Source: Wikipedia.

So there is some due process there. The president can’t just demand a commissioner of these kinds of agencies, like the FTC, to resign. I guess, a president could technically demand it (as it happened in this case that got to SCOTUS), but the commissioner is under no obligation to follow through. I’m sure there are legal ways to pressure a commissioner into resigning, and a presidential administration could lie and claim one of those reasons for dismissal. But again, there’s at least due process. As far as resigning, Khan doesn’t strike me as a kind of person who’d just roll over, especially given who and what the FTC has been going after lately.

All that to say…it seems really stupid for Diller and Hoffman to demand this. Especially so publicly. Aside from the anti-consumer angles, it’s not even a slam dunk for a president to dismiss a sitting commissioner of an independent regulatory agency. Plus, this at a time when even Republicans seem to be turning on big business at times (though it’s hard to say what Republicans are for or against these days and with whom). Obviously, liberals and many Democrats have been shouting for more business regulation and consumer protections for years, decades, now. So the public is definitely on the side of, well, the public. So why do this so publicly?

I guess just typical billionaires thinking they can throw money around and expect things will happen how they want.

Like HobbitFoot said, she was actually popular at first. I think people liked that folksy charm that she brought (“you betcha!”) She has some charisma. Not saying it worked on everybody; I was not a fan, to say the least. But I can see it. And people here always like the idea of their leaders being someone you can have a beer with. Not saying someone couldn’t have had a beer with John McCain, but I think with Palin, it was easier to envision.

Agreed. from an electoral standpoint, it’s bad.

Of course, if Trump wins, then it’s still a bad pick, but for completely different, terrifying reasons.

We’ll see, at least with regards to Trump. Usually a VP is selected to “round-out” the ticket, to bring in additional votes from those who iffy on on the presidential candidate. But if this guy is already MAGA to extreme and a Trump loyalist (though he wasn’t always), what segment is that bringing in that wasn’t already planning to vote for Trump?

In other words, how many Republicans are there who don’t like Trump and wouldn’t vote for him, but now that Vance is there, will vote for Trump? I feel like that’s a pretty small number.

Talk about a massive failure of the Secret Service. No matter how ones feels about Trump, he – nor Biden – should have ever be in this situation. I’ve been seeing reports that some rally attendees saw the guy on the roof and said something to security, but nothing was done. Sounds like the roof wasn’t even that far away and obviously had good enough sightlines on the stage.

I do feel bad for the family of that attendee who died. I know these are Trump supporters and all that, but still. You don’t expect to die at a political rally. I’ve been to some rallies before for Dem candidates. My brother, who’s not a Trump supporter, went to a Trump rally in Vegas last month as a gag. And this isn’t Jan 6 and that dumb woman who tried to break into the congressional chambers and got shot by police.

This is Beehaw; argue the issue or topic, but not stuff like this.

Honestly, I think we’d be better off if we got rid of primaries. I do think they tend to lead to more extreme/radical/fringe nominees, since the party candidates try to out compete each other on their party/ideology bona fides. Maybe it is better if go back to the party establishments picking a candidate.

There are other reason as well. One is that parties are private organizations. So why does a government often run them? I know that’s not true all states. In some states, the primaries/caucuses are almost entirely run and organized by the parties. But in others, primaries are done by state and local governments. Do the parties pay the state back for this? Idk. Regardless, still seems strange.

Most of my friends will vote D/Biden. And if they don’t, it’s because they don’t normally vote in the first place. For those that will vote, none will vote for Trump. Nearly all of us are left-leaning to varying degrees. Even a conservative friend will hold his nose and vote Biden. He doesn’t like “Sleepy Joe,” but he absolutely hates and loathes Trump. FWIW, I think the youngest of my friends are mid/late 20s, while I’m late 30s. Most of my friends are 30 and up.

My parents (60s) and brother (early 30s) will vote D, too. Parents are more moderate/center-left, while my brother and I are more more solidly left. We’ve all either always or almost always voted, at least in these bigger elections.

No one I know IRL (which includes online friends because we’ve met in person many times) has really talked about not voting for Biden or sitting it out because of his debate performance, age, and/or perceived lack of lucidity. My friends and I joke about it, sure, but that’s it. A couple of us have brought up the possibility of replacing Biden, as part of casual discussion, but they didn’t really go anywhere. Which I took as not really caring to doing so or that it wouldn’t matter and wouldn’t change their positions.

Anyway, at least in my circles, in my bubble, I haven’t come across anyone who’s now on the fence with Biden or were going to vote but now are unsure.

And you know we’ll bitch and moan the whole way “Don’t you know what I am? I’m a goddamn American! I have rights!” a la Randy Marsh.

Maybe it’s my doomerism at play, but even one year house arrest I’d be OK with. Keep him in NY in his Trump Tower penthouse. Don’t let him go out to campaign.

Obviously jail would be better. I just don’t think fines alone are going to cut it. He’s not going to pay them.

I think it’s worse here than on reddit when it comes to this. Redditors these days (*takes out the walker and cane*) are shitty, but I feel like I’m somewhat insulated from a lot of it due to where I lurk/participate on reddit. But on Lemmy, I see it pretty much everywhere. Smaller userbase compared to reddit, so maybe the rudeness is more visible.