partial_accumen

Sure, but she’s been kicked to the curb. What does she have to gain by continuing to protect the criminals?

Couldn’t prosecutors offer immunity from prosecution though? While she could still plead the 5th, it would mean she’s actively interested in shielding the criminals instead of just protecting herself.

Sure, but when they played their strongest card it has quite a weak showing.

The court’s decision hinges on procedural and constitutional arguments about how the amendment was passed, including timing requirements and legislative steps, the kinds of disputes appellate courts often revisit, especially when they collide with a direct vote of the people.

So they’re arguing timing, not validity it sounds like. I’d be interested to hear exactly what these timing issues are they’re hanging their objection on.

Who could have possibly seen this coming for trump?

That’s worse than Carter’s low by 4 pts and outside the MoE.

Carter’s lowest approval rating was received with the arrival of *checks notes* military unrest in Iran. Simply impossible for trump to have see this coming as trump is completely ignorant of history.

Why has Trump broken all 10 commandments, for instance.

trump treated it like a to-do list until he got all ten.

The problem with that approach is that the “rugged energy individualist” idea would only a thin veneer and as soon as you scratch the surface you see it isn’t true.

Currently technology solar isn’t able to affordably support the amount of energy consumption most Americans have or want. It would be either astronomically expensive for a single American household to have enough energy systems to be completely 100% self sufficient (in most States in the Union) or the American household would have to drastically reduce its energy consumption. I don’t know if you know us Americans, but we don’t like to cut back on anything.

The feasible technology we have today that is still expensive, but at least attainable by many, is for 30% to 70% household energy generation. The remainder (depending on the time of year) comes from our socialized system of central energy generation and distribution (the power grid).

I say this as someone with solar panels and EVs that has gone carbon free energy at home. Its expensive for the equipment and installation and still doesn’t cover all the energy needs year-round. Nine months out of the year we have no energy bills. Three months of the year, we do. That’s just physics and the limits of my wallet.

deleted by creator

The extra context from the article makes this a much more human response from both people:

Sam, who has CPR training, asked her supervisor if she could assist. The supervisor watched the woman heaving her weight into the man’s chest and gave no response.

“I start sobbing and said, ‘I want to help, please!’ I know she’s going to get tired and need to be subbed out,” Sam told The Western Edge.

The supervisor, who Sam perceived to be in shock, had a simple reply: “It has to be management or safety team. Please get back to work.”

“I need to help,” Sam said.

“Just turn around and not look. Let’s get back to work,” Sam recalled the manager saying.

This likely wasn’t entirely some cold calculated policy cooked up in a conference room by lawyers or executives that. The supervisor themselves was clearly not prepared to be dealing with just watching someone die at work under their management. The supervisor was stunned and trying to come up with an answer to a situation they were not prepared for. I don’t think they acted this way out of indifference or malice, but just being unprepared.

I’ll say Sam was also stunned and unprepared. Why ask permission to help someone? I would like to think I’d just run over a do it. However, just like the supervisor, Sam feel back on asking for permission to help from a superior instead of acting. I don’t blame Sam at all in asking. Sam was stunned too. I would be stunned too.

We’re also left with only a partial account of what happened. Were there other management and safety team members attending to the victim by this point? We don’t know. Again, no blame to Sam, but I also don’t see the supervisor’s reported statement automatically as cold-hearted indifference.

Also, don’t pretend that the Democrats oppose this war on moral grounds.

They generally oppose it on economic grounds at least. I’ll take the outcome of “no war” even if I disagree with the reason we get there.

I’m assuming Kennedy’s brain worm wants to delay/suppress this report because it is factual evidence against the brain worm narrative that vaccines are bad.

The best name I’ve heard for the 2000s is “the noughties”, as in the plural of nought, zero.

Huh. So you weren’t answering my posted question, but picking out the first sentence in my post. Thank you for clarifying your statement.

Okay, we have nothing further to talk about then.

First, thank you for posting sources to support your claim. I looked at most of them.

Democrats are on the hunt for their own Joe Rogan from May 2025

The tagline on the article says: “Party leaders and mega-donors want to counter MAGA’s online momentum by recreating a digital right-wing ecosystem for the left”

Okay so Party Leaders and megadonors want this right? But the article continues…

“As Democrats plot a return from the electoral wilderness, a growing chorus of party figures has begun to push for a liberal-leaning alternative to the right’s digital dominance.”

So gone are the megadonors now, and we’re down to “party figures”. What happened to the megadonors? The article actually tells us…

“That belief has led to party mega-donors being ‘inundated with overtures’ to open their wallets for the development of an ‘army of left-leaning online influencers.’”

Okay, so the megadonors aren’t asking a Demo-Rogan, someone is asking megadonors to pay for a Demo-Rogan. But so far we still have no names of any of the cited “party leaders”. However we do have a named Democrat figure that is against a Demo-Rogan:

“The notion that victory is possible if they ‘spend enough billionaire money’ to create a Rogan equivalent ‘speaking in Democratic talking points’ is ‘laughable,’ said Emily Jashinsky at UnHerd.”

This supports my statement.

If you do run across the unnamed party leaders, I’d be interested in knowing who they are.

Democrats seeking to buy the ‘next Joe Rogan’ of the left after 2024 election defeat also May 2025

Sorry, I don’t consider Fox News as a news source. I skipped this one.

Could This 20-Year-Old Be One of the Democrats’ Bro Whisperers? from December 2024

I don’t have a NYT subscription so I couldn’t read the whole article, but the part I could read was talking about a young man with a politics driving youtube channel. I don’t consider that a Democratic Joe Rogan.

Can Democrats win back podcasting? We asked 6 popular show hosts to weigh in from November 2024

The article author openly says he’s not asking for a Demo-Rogan.

“Also, the idea of a ‘liberal Joe Rogan’ has been floated a lot since the election and I don’t want to just parrot that since it’s not really what I mean”.

Note: The “the idea of a liberal Joe Rogan” is a hyperlink to yet another article. I read that one too. There’s no claim of a Demo-Rogan there either. The closest the author gets to is this:

"If liberals ever hope to compete with such a successful messaging apparatus, they’re going to have to do more than create clones of Crooked Media. They will have to elevate, or build from the ground up, captivating public figures who connect with vast audiences including, but not limited to, disaffected young men—and entertain the hell out of them. "

Lowry: The Left can’t create a new Joe Rogan

That last article actually supports my position, not yours. It says this:

“Progressives are correct about the power of Rogan and his cohort of bro podcasters, but they don’t understand how thoroughly anathema their ideology and cultural sensibility are to this kind of programming. If Left did manage to create a progressive Joe Rogan in a lab, as soon as he said something controversial out in the wild, he’d be subject to cancelation.”

It’s definitely been a topic for a couple of years now.

At least from the articles you posted that is more of a incorrect statement than correct. Yes, I see how you came to that conclusion and in some very narrow readings there are pieces of truth but, I think your premise is disingenuous to claim to be generally true. Keep in mind, I’m not attacking you as a person. I’m not calling you a bad person. I just disagree with your conclusions.

The idea of Demo-Rogan messaging is a repeat of the 1990s where Al Frankin and others created [“Air America”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_America_(radio_network) to counter the Republican mouthpiece of the day Rush Limbaugh. Air America failed there too for the same reason a Demo-Rogan would today. Democrats don’t tune into radio for half truths and empty open ridicule of the GOP even though the GOP richly deserves ridicule, especially with trump in office.

I stand by my original statement.

Democrats spent the last year asking where their Joe Rogan was.

I have never once heard anyone say that before reading it here. Rogan is an ill-informed person that uses his significant audience to spread misinformation and modern day mysticism against actual science while at the same time gives a platform to some truly horrible people.

Why on Earth would Democrats want that for themselves?

Their sitting congresspeople. They don’t have to win an election to affect change. They can simply use their vote to go against the immoral legislation put before them. Instead, they’re just heading for the exits and months or years of voting for the horrible stuff.

I didn’t read the article, fwiw. EVs should be taxed.

I’m already taxed on my EV at the state level. The article you didn’t read would add additional federal taxes. I’m not opposed to paying my fair share to maintain roads. The problem is these EV tax levels are WAY OVER the fair share for EV drivers.

US infrastucture is paid for by taxes on fuel at the pump, so all EVs do is destroy roads.

The problem is proportion. The EV, lets call them “road taxes”, are a static number, and that number is VERY HIGH.

Lets assume the average car gets 30 miles/gallon. My current state EV tax is $200/year. The total fuel tax (state and federal) where I live is 38.5 cents/gallon. If we do the math EVs are paying the tax on the equivalent driving of 15,584 miles/year.

The article you didn’t read talks about the GOP wanting to put an additional $250/year tax on EVs at the federal level. So using the same metrics as in the example before an EV would be paying the tax on the equivalent driving of 36,065 miles/year.

To add insult to injury, I drive less than 9k miles a year.

Because these are static taxes and not based on actual use, actual road damage, there’s nothing a consumer can change in behavior to lower the tax except to buy a gasoline car instead.

This also says nothing to the argument that while, yes “all vehicles destroy roads”, a passenger vehicle does a tiny fraction of the damage of a giant 18-wheeler (HGV). While those big shipping trucks certainly use more fuel, they damage they do to roads far exceeds the tax they pay in fuel*.

So again, I’m fine paying my fair share of road taxes, but the current and proposed additonal EV road taxes are disproportionally high compared to both gasoline vehicles and giant 18-wheeler trucks.

Repeal the gas tax and tax the weight of the vehicle is a sane option. I am sure that isn’t what the oil-backed GOP wants, though.

I’d be fine with that.

However, my original reply stands. The GOP, in the face of high oil costs, are making EV adoption even harder.

Adopt EVs even faster

GOP are working hard against that attempting to add new annual taxes on EV usage.

Maga is so incredibly good at picking the biggest possible losers to rally behind

I always thought they perhaps started from better candidates, but even after the most simple vetting those candidates somehow fail ideological purity tests ( such as “candidate is great on white supremacy but poor on abortion, NEXT!”) or some other bullshit maga metric, and what remains are people like Mr Lumpy Pillow.

After much back-and-forth, Lindell finally grabbed the papers and tossed them on the floor.

Thats awesome! There’s now video proof he was served and he can’t deny he never wasn’t.

Process servers take note of this. If you want your target to accept the papers, simply have a second person attempting an interview.