Not even. He officially left the Dems and registered as independent earlier this year.
After the Sept. 9 committee meeting at which a motion to make the People's Flag the official City of Milwaukee narrowly passed, Ald. Bob Bauman, who voted against that motion, has submitted an altered design for consideration.
> Bauman's complaint at that meeting was that the flag did not depict an obvious Milwaukee landmark, unlike the current flag, which is a smorgasbord of pictorial imagery from the 1950s.
> At the meeting, Bauman suggested plopping City Hall into the center of the People's Flag, and as you can see from the image above, he got busy on his computer to come up with a bastardization of the design that finds City Hall floating like a cruise ship into the Milwaukee harbor.
Does this guy also think that the Stars and Stripes is lacking a photo of the White House? How about the CN Tower plastered on the Canadian flag, or the Eiffel Tower on the French Tricolour?
Are you ever zeroeth in line? What’s the zeroeth thing you do after waking up in the morning? Do you ever launch an argument with “Zeroeth of all…”? Do you remember your child’s zeroeth words or the time they took their zeroeth step or their zeroeth day of school?
Notice also how their go-to response is to talk about their right to vote for third-party candidates, which is a strawman of the criticism they typically receive. They can’t and don’t engage the actual substance of criticism, which is that voting third-party under our first-past-the-post system is a bad plan that has a proven track record of accomplishing absolutely nothing.
The first movie I remember seeing in theaters was the Special Edition of A New Hope.
I loved Episodes I & II as a kid, but by the time Episode III rolled around I had developed enough appreciation for good screenwriting that I left the theater mildly disappointed.
Wisconsin voters have decided against two constitutional amendments passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature that would have taken power away from the governor.
>MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Wisconsin voters on Tuesday rejected Republican-authored ballot questions that would have limited the governor’s power to spend federal money that comes to the state for disaster relief or any other crisis, unless it’s already earmarked. > >The constitutional amendments were placed on the ballot by the GOP-controlled Legislature. > >Democrats, including Gov. Tony Evers, and a host of liberal groups and others organized against the amendments. They had argued adopting them would slow down the distribution of money when it needs to be spent quickly. > >But Republican backers argued the measures would have added more oversight and serve as a check on the governor’s powers. > >Republicans pushed the amendments after taking issue with Evers having the power to distribute billions of dollars in COVID-19 federal relief money without legislative approval.
Good thing we always have old faithful- racism and sexism. That’ll swing those undecideds.
At work, both the resident Gen-X divorced-dad asshole and the luddite boomer have taken to complaining that “We’re all going to be called racists and misogynists for not voting for Kamala” while grousing about hating her more than Biden, never once mentioning a single point of policy that they dislike.
OP is a spambot that just got done dumping ~400 links across hundreds of communities in under an hour, and whose only criterion for relevance is that their article title contains the name of the community.
- Get list of Lemmy communities
- Ctrl+F the name of a community against some agglomerated news feed
- Post link to news article without pausing to check whether it’s actually relevant to the community
- Repeat hundreds of times in the span of a single hour across hundreds of communities
Does this seem like authentic human behavior to anyone?
No, Mike Pence debated Harris in the previous election cycle. It’s tradition for the Vice-Presidential nominees to debate each other.
Both lawsuits argue that Tennessee law does not account for evolving science on the transmission of HIV or precautions that prevent its spread, like use of condoms. Both lawsuits also argue that labeling a person as a sex offender because of HIV unfairly limits where they can live and work and stops them from being alone with grandchildren or minor relatives.
“Tennessee’s Aggravated Prostitution statute is the only law in the nation that treats people living with HIV who engage in any sex work, even risk-free encounters, as ‘violent sex offenders’ subjected to lifetime registration,” the ACLU lawsuit states.
“That individuals living with HIV are treated so differently can only be understood as a remnant of the profoundly prejudiced early response to the AIDS epidemic.”
You’re thinking of Tesla headquarters, which he moved from Cali to Texas back in 2021.
Exactly, the same mindset that takes you to “The entire geophysical establishment is wrong/lying about the shape of the Earth, so I’ll listen to this Youtube crank who says it’s a disc instead” will also lead you to things like “The entire medical establishment is wrong/lying about the effectiveness of masks & vaccines, so I’ll listen to this podcast crank hawking horse dewormer instead.”
Her motivations aren’t even as noble as that. The article goes on to describe how she’s actually just trying to undercut a proposed constitutional amendment:
But Ms. Bolick also railed against Planned Parenthood and Democratic support for abortion rights. She argued that her vote to repeal the 1864 ban could be Arizona’s best shot at curbing the momentum behind a proposed ballot measure to enshrine abortion protections in the state constitution.
Insulting someone via stereotype doesn’t show that they’re wrong. You’ve added less to the discussion than the person you’re attempting to mock.
Christians changed the calendar because that's what religious people do
That’s a reductionist take. They wanted to inject their religion into culture and constantly remind everyone about it. It certainly does not define what is or is not a religion.
So atheists want to change the Calendar because... ?
Because we don’t share the Christian assumption that their religion deserves to be named in our timekeeping system. It never should have been put there in the first place, and we’re undoing the mistake.
Yeah atheism is a religion. Y'all are just in denial about it.
Not wanting to reference someone else’s religion every time you refer to a date does not make someone religious. This is a silly take, and I think you know it.
No, a conspiracy is when people get together and conspire, i.e. they develop a secret plan of action for nefarious purposes. In the strictest sense, the term “conspiracy theory” just means that you’re theorizing that some people have secretly planned to do something. If you theorize that some wrongdoers have developed or enacted a secret plan, and it later turns out your suspicion was correct, then by definition you had a true conspiracy theory.
The ones who think either fossils are a test of your faith by god or dinos roamed the earth with humans.
FWIW, the vast majority of YECs fall into the latter category because, while the timeline of dinosaurs is explicitly contradicted by their interpretation of the Bible, the existence of dinosaurs isn't. Remember the guy who had that famous debate with Bill Nye? The venue for that debate was a "Creation Museum" featuring life-size animatronic dinosaurs living with Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. It's the same organization that spent ~$100 million to build a 500-foot-long replica of Noah's Ark in Kentucky, featuring dinosaurs in pens aboard the Ark ("Don't worry guys, Noah probably took baby sauropods so there's plenty of room for them on board").
Creationist organizations lean hard into dinosaurs as an outreach tool because everybody agrees they're awesome. They'd probably wax poetic about how amazing these creatures of God's creation were, lament that the dinos we're seeing in AR are a pale imitation of the dinos our Biblical ancestors saw in real life, and then condescendingly rant about how "secular science" is trying to drive a wedge between mankind and Biblical truth with its assumptions about "millions of years."
Nah, in two of the three Gospels that contain the story, the storm only calms after Jesus gets in the boat. One of them adds a bit where Peter walks out into the storm to meet him. In the third, the boat is just… instantly at its destination once Jesus boards, with no mention of the storm calming.
You might be confusing the separate instance of Jesus sleeping in a boat during a storm and commanding the waters to be still after the disciples wake him.
Not quite. All two-body systems orbit a common barycenter, but the mass ratio of the Earth-Moon system is so lopsided that the barycenter is inside the Earth, not between them like with Pluto and Charon.
With the 1849 statute no longer in effect, Wisconsin returns to pre-Dobbs laws under which abortion is banned 20 weeks after "probable fertilization."
MADISON — A Dane County judge on Tuesday ruled that a 174-year-old law thought to prohibit abortion in Wisconsin does not, in fact, do so.
"The Court declares Wis. Stat. § 940.04 does not prohibit abortions," wrote Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper.
Schlipper ruled that the law in question, a statute written in 1849, does not apply to abortions but to feticide.
A consensual abortion is sought out by a pregnant woman who voluntarily determines to end a pregnancy. Schlipper's ruling is based on a 1994 state Supreme Court decision that determined feticide is a nonconsensual act in which somebody batters a woman to the point she loses the pregnancy.
With the 1849 statute no longer in effect, Wisconsin returns to its pre-Dobbs abortion laws, under which abortion is banned 20 weeks after "probable fertilization."
Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin chief strategy officer Michelle Velasquez called the ruling "another important step forward in restoring and expanding access to abortion in Wisconsin."
"This is the judgment we were hoping for, the judgment we knew was right, and hopefully the thing that will restore access to full-scope reproductive care for women across the state," said Dr. Kristin Lyerly, a Green Bay OB-GYN and former Democratic state Assembly candidate who intervened in the case and was cited prominently in Schlipper's ruling.
Attorney General Josh Kaul and Gov. Tony Evers, both Democrats, filed the lawsuit shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2022 overturned its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion nationwide. The court's 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Care effectively put back into place the state's original abortion law.
Passed more than a century before the Roe ruling, the 1849 law bans doctors from performing abortions in every case except when the mother will die without the procedure. Doctors face up to six years in prison on felony charges and $10,000 in fines if they violate the law.
Kaul argued in the lawsuit that the 1849 law has been invalidated by abortion laws passed since the Roe v. Wade decision. Anti-abortion proponents and attorneys for Republican lawmakers disagreed, arguing the original law was still in effect.
In July, Schlipper denied a motion to dismiss the lawsuit from defendant Sheboygan District Attorney Joel Urmanski, who had argued that Kaul was asking a judge to perform the duties of lawmakers and was ignoring the fact that lawmakers have put forward language to repeal the original abortion law and decided against passing it.
Following Schlipper's July order, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, the state's largest abortion provider, resumed services.
"Freedom wins. Equality wins. Women’s health wins," Kaul said in a statement. "This ruling is a momentous victory, and we are prepared to defend it — and reproductive freedom in Wisconsin."
Wisconsin Right to Life legislative director Gracie Skogman said the ruling is "truly disappointing for all Wisconsinites," and Pro-Life Wisconsin legislative director Matt Sande called it "an extraordinary leap in logic." Sande said his group is hopeful the ruling "will be appealed promptly."
"A law that was enforced before the flawed decision of Roe is now one that pro-choice activists on the court are wiling to use as a tool for their cause. Instead, they are putting lives on the line," Skogman said.
Julaine Appling, president of the conservative Christian group Wisconsin Family Action, said she wasn't surprised by the decision but looks forward to the case making its way through the judicial process.
"This doesn't change anything about what we're doing," Appling said. "We are about a culture of life, and we're going to promote that and do everything we can to help people to understand that we are about saving babies, but we're also about making sure women are fully informed about this life-taking decision, about options they have, about consequences and encouraging them to explore that, and be very, very careful before they make a decision to have an abortion."
Appling said her organization supports a package of legislation that includes bills that would classify unborn children as dependents for tax purposes and increase the dependent exemption, fund grants for families seeking to adopt, further define "abortion" under state law and prohibit public employees from engaging in abortion-related work within the scope of their government employment.
Under the state's pre-Dobbs laws, women are also required to undergo an ultrasound before an abortion, along with a counseling appointment and a 24-hour waiting period.
In the case of medication abortions, the doctor who administers the pills must be the same one the woman saw for her counseling appointment, and the pills cannot be taken remotely via telemedicine.
The case is expected to make its way to the state Supreme Court, which now has a 4-3 liberal majority. Justice Janet Protasiewicz was sworn in Aug. 1 after running a campaign that focused heavily on broadcasting her personal values to voters, including support for abortion access.
There should be no effort to impeach a liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court justice based on what is known now, a former justice advised the Republican legislative leader who asked him to review the issue.
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — There should be no effort to impeach a liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court justice based on what is known now, a former justice advised the Republican legislative leader who asked him to review the issue.
Some Republicans had raised the prospect of impeaching newly elected Justice Janet Protasiewicz if she did not recuse from a redistricting lawsuit seeking to toss GOP-drawn legislative district boundary maps. On Friday, she declined to recuse herself, and the court voted 4-3 along partisan lines to hear the redistricting challenge.
Assembly Speaker Robin Vos had asked three former justices to review the possibility of impeachment. One of those three, David Prosser, sent Vos an email on Friday, seemingly just before Protasiewicz declined to recuse, advising against moving forward with impeachment.
Prosser turned the email over to the liberal watchdog group American Oversight as part of an open records request.
“To sum up my views, there should be no effort to impeach Justice Protasiewicz on anything we know now,” Prosser wrote to Vos. “Impeachment is so serious, severe, and rare that it should not be considered unless the subject has committed a crime, or the subject has committed indisputable ‘corrupt conduct’ while ‘in office.’”
Vos on Monday made his first comments about Protasiewicz since she declined to recuse from the case and Vos got the email from Prosser. In his statement, Vos did not mention impeachment. He did not return text messages Monday or early Tuesday seeking further comment.
Vos raised the threat of impeachment because he argued that Protasiewicz had prejudged the redistricting case when during her campaign she called the current maps “rigged” and “unfair.” Vos also said that her acceptance of nearly $10 million from the Wisconsin Democratic Party would unduly influence her ruling.
Protasiewicz on Friday rejected those arguments, noting that other justices have accepted campaign cash and not recused from cases. She also noted that she never promised or pledged to rule on the redistricting lawsuit in any way.
Other justices, both conservative and liberal, have spoken out in the past on issues that could come before the court, although not always during their run for office like Protasiewicz did. Current justices have also accepted campaign cash from political parties and others with an interest in court cases and haven’t recused themselves. But none of them have faced threats of impeachment.
In his email to Vos, Prosser said he did not think Protasiewicz had met the standard for impeachment, which is reserved for “corrupt conduct in office, or for crimes and misdemeanors.”
She has not committed a crime or corrupt conduct, Prosser said.
“In my view, ‘corrupt conduct’ is not a term that is open to a mere political grievance,” Prosser wrote. “If that were the case, legislative bodies could be trading questionable impeachments with considerable frequency.”
Prosser cautioned that using impeachment to delay or affect the outcome of any single case “will be viewed as unreasonable partisan politics.”
Prosser, a former Republican Assembly speaker, was the only one of the former justices who came forward to say they were on the panel created by Vos. But the records he turned over to American Oversight show that he was also apparently working with former Chief Justice Patience Roggensack on looking at impeachment.
The group has filed a lawsuit alleging that the panel Vos created is breaking the state open meetings law.
“Justice Prosser’s opinion letter demonstrates why Speaker Vos’ secret panel needs to operate in public,” said Heather Sawyer, American Oversight’s executive director, in a statement. “We still don’t know everyone involved or what other work has been done, and will keep pressing to ensure that the people of Wisconsin have full transparency and accountability regarding the Speaker’s impeachment plans.”
Vos announced the formation of the impeachment review panel on Sept. 13. Vos refused to say who he asked and Prosser also would not tell a judge when asked during a court hearing on the American Oversight lawsuit last month.
Text messages from Roggensack to Prosser on Sept. 14 show her asking if Prosser is free for a meeting. Prosser also released a voicemail from Roggensack left that same day referring to the text and asking to speak with him on “a matter that I thought we were going to look at together.”
Prosser, during that Sept. 29 hearing, denied the claim made by American Oversight that the panel was a governmental body subject to the state’s open meetings law.
In a voicemail he released from Roggensack from Oct. 2, Roggensack says she wants to talk with him about why “we, whatever we are, are not a governmental body.”