Literally Paradox’s entire business model…

Seriously! I was so relieved when I reached the end of the headline

I shop at S-Mart for all my letter-based shopping needs. I shop smart, at S-Mart

The problem is this: regarding Netanyahu she says “Well he is very clearly a war criminal.” Regarding Putin she says “With Russia it’s far more complicated” and “In so many words, yes.” She’s hedging out of calling Putin a war criminal directly so she can plausibly deny it. She will agree with general statements saying he could be a war criminal under those circumstances but she won’t say it directly so she can go “Oh no, Hasan called him a war criminal, I didn’t, I just agreed that if all of those things were true then he could be considered a war criminal!”

Yeah, buddy, me too…

Or Dick Cheney?

It means they’re looking for incriminating information without any evidence it exists. They’re “casting a wide net,” to use another fishing term, in hopes of finding something illegal, even if there’s no basis for them asking the questions in the first place.

The parties aren’t the problem. Macron holds the presidency and appoints the PM. The largest (coalition) party is giving him a candidate AFTER compromises and he’s refusing STILL because he only wants a PM from his own party, who came in second (edit: not third, my bad, they did beat National Rally. They did come in third in the first round of voting though).

Every friendly interview Trump has is just him “Yeah, uh huh, right, yup”-ing is way through whatever the “”“interviewer”“” is saying, then spewing whatever stream of consciousness he has going in the background. It’s why he never answers questions - he doesn’t listen to them, and if actually pressed, he gets pissed because he has to actually try to think.

Someone probably tried to tell him “we should change tactics” and he went “Uh huh, uh huh… WHERE’S HUNTER”

The irony of naming someone as the “woman shares name of man she believes was the one arrested for crime before the police released the name” before the police release the name is incredibly ridiculous.

Link to his channel? I would love to continue to watch cold take…

Edit: I think this is it

It was a Crowdstrike-triggered issue that only affected Microsoft Windows machines. Crowdstrike on Linux didn’t have issues and Windows without Crowdstrike didn’t have issues. It’s appropriate to refer to it as a Microsoft-Crowdstrike outage.

The court basically said it was a separation of powers issue. The basic powers of the branches are:

• The Legislative (Congress) creates laws
• The Executive (President) actually puts those laws into action (they are “executed” by this aptly named branch)
• The Judicial (courts) interpret legality of the actions of the Executive branch based on the wording of the laws passed by Congress, and the constitutionality of those laws (that is, if the law itself is even legal to be enforced)

The Chevron Deference doctrine was the courts saying “Congress occasionally writes laws vaguely and we don’t have expertise on every subject matter, so we are going to defer the decision-making of what exactly the law means to actual experts in the Executive branch.” Congress has written laws using this logic, intentionally granting power to the Executive branch that would otherwise reside with Congress (i.e. Congress says “how much of X particulate in the air is too much? We could write a specific law stating that 500 ppm is too much, but it’s a lot of work to do that for every particulate, and the science gets updated over time, so we’ll just tell the Executive to place ‘reasonable limits’ and call it a day.”)

Now the Court has said “That power you’ve ceded to the Executive branch? That should be ours because it’s our job to interpret what laws mean. We now decide how much of X particulate is too much, even when we mix it up with Y particulate.”

It’s a blatant power grab by the Court and a separation of powers issue. Congress SHOULD be able to remedy it by specifying that this decision-making power should reside with the Executive branch and the Judiciary won’t be able to say “no mine”. I mean, this Court WILL, but a legitimate Court wouldn’t.

So does Britain. Something like 75 of the last 100 years have had Conservatives in power. Obviously, what that means has changed over time, but it’s clear that every time Labour gets a shot at governing, Brits yell “Not good enough!” and put the Tories back in office.

This is exactly right - the exact same “Let’s burn down the system sell off the system to the highest briber bidder” sentiment that’s been ruling the Republicans has been eating away at the Tories as well. Now, every time leadership fails to make changes, they toss them out and put someone more extreme in their place (until you hit a Liz Truss)

I don’t disagree that their priorities are wrong, but this is not an aberration, this is the norm (and that norm should change)

What? You didn’t get to rule on a case solely based on your fucking betting pool.

This is exactly how injunctions work. It’s a combination of “how likely is the party asking for the injunction to win” and “how much damage will be done if the injunction is not granted”. It’s the same logic used to block abortion laws from going into effect and things like Trump’s gag order being enforced, while those actual cases work their way through the courts.

Greater Hartford checking in. This really seems more like a “people didn’t know how to do their job correctly” situation but when your job is running a fucking election, you better know how to do it right.

Also this was for a primary that (convicted felon) Joe Ganim won by 251 votes? Seriously, throw the book at them.

This sort of power-trip bullshit pisses me off so much. Kid’s “horsing around” in the hallway and it’s your job to keep the hallways calm? Then tell them to stop. Is it a pattern of behavior and they don’t listen? Assign them an official punishment with the power you’ve been given: detention of some kind (probably a lunch detention).

Trying to make them do pushups? Fuck off, this is school not the fucking army.