Even though it may seem disappointing, this was realistically the right call. You know what they say about broken clocks, and all.
They didn't say he couldn't be removed from the ballot, just that it's a federal issue to solve and not a state one. And had they allowed it, that precedent would have been abused almost immediately and been back in the court's review all over again and would have resulted in a ton of dramatic and divisive political theater in the meantime.
Though, it does highlight some significant flaws in our electoral process. There's a lot of conflict between what the states and what the fed should be able to do for elections. The whole system needs to be revamped, IMO. Why each state sets their own rules is baffling to me in the first place; the Presidency affects the entire country, not just the states, so I don't get why we aren't going by nationwide popular vote instead of "California's electors picked Candidate A even though the majority of the voters picked Candidate B, and Iowa voters did a collective Hokey Pokey in a big expo center and decided on Candidate C", etc.
No one says "AFAB" ... the cops probably just got out their phones, waiting to post a vid of the crash. Huddled together, laughing about how fucked the driver is.
Thanks to these firefighters actually putting themselves in danger for another. We need more of that selflessness today, especially for tomorrow.
Ah, so they are concerned the boys will exhibit poor sportsmanship. Yes, yes, then let's punish the girls /s It will show them how it is in life I suppose 😔
The case was a rare criminal prosecution of emergency medical personnel, and stirred outrage among paramedics and firefighters across the nation who worry that urgent decisions made as part of their jobs can be criminalized.
Maybe don't ignore the Hippocratic Oath and commit basic blatant malpractice at the behest of the police and you won't have to worry about that so much.
The third and fourth reactors were originally supposed to cost $14 billion, but are now on track to cost their owners $31 billion. That doesn’t include $3.7 billion that original contractor Westinghouse paid to the owners to walk away from the project. That brings total spending to almost $35 billion.
The third reactor was supposed to start generating power in 2016 when construction began in 2009.
A reactor that starts being built today will cost way more and will be delayed way more than these and they are already at least 14 years in the making not counted for the planning phase and 7 years late to be producing power and no they are not fully powered yet, because it takes another 1-2 years to get them to full power, not to mention drought and war threats.
Nuclear will not play any role in fighting climate change. A reactor starting planning today will most likely just replace an old model that is falling apart and to dismantle that and keep the parts safe somewhere costs another fortune.
Ironically, a major reason for this is environmentalists themselves. Nuclear power would be way cheaper if it wasn't for their panic over things that contain atoms.
Ironically, a major reason for this is environmentalists themselves. Nuclear power would be way cheaper if it wasn't for their panic over things that contain atoms.
In terms of safety, there's a big difference between nuclear technologies that fail elegantly like LFTR and more traditional designs that tend to use weaponized isotopes with very long half-lives, and can meltdown and explode when operated incorrectly.
I can understand why environmentalists look at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and say, hmm, maybe we shouldn't do that.
@Aesculapius It's funny, tragic, and sad that modern Republicans started using that phrase unironically. It actually means the opposite of what they think it does, it's clearly impossible to do:
Back in the 1800s, the expression “pull oneself up by the bootstraps” meant the opposite of what it does now. Then it was used mockingly to describe an impossible act.
An 1834 publication ridiculed a claim to have built a perpetual-motion machine by saying that the inventor might next heave himself over a river “by the straps of his boots.” An 1840 citation scoffs that something is “as gross an absurdity as he who attempts to raise himself over a fence by the straps of his boots.” source
While online surveys seem like not the best method this is interesting. I would love to see more studies like this. It's really hard to show systemic problems and people have a really hard time believing that this exists since they can find anecdotal examples to the contrary
people have a really hard time believing that this exists since they can find anecdotal examples to the contrary
"I once met someone who rolled a 12 with 2 dice. Why did those other people not choose to roll better than a 7 on average? Must be because of bad decisions."
It takes far less money than a billion dollars be able to make world-changing charitable donations. You could, say, fund a light rail system (yes, even in a decently-sized city) or housing for every homeless person in your home town for vastly less than that.
There's only so much you can invest in yourself and your personal hobbies before there is nothing more you can realistically buy. Any normal, reasonable person, once already confronted with a luxurious lifestyle for themselves and their loves ones that will last forever, looks at all their extra money and decides it would make them feel good to make those world-changing charitable donations. And so they do it.
I'm sure everyone's point of balancing anxiety and lifestyle is different... but any reasonable person, it's WAY before they hit a billion.
In short: a normal person starts wildly giving away their wealth long before they become a billionaire. You have to be some kind of antisocial weirdo not to.
Lol, right, I'm sure she lived a life of poverty in a shack round the back of his mansion and had nothing to do with those ill-gotten billions and the privileges they bring.. 🙄🙄
News
Active