I REMEMBER when the ILLEGITIMATE SO-CALLED "PRESIDENT" sent his JACK BOOTED THUGS to ATTACK his political opponents - TRUE AMERICANS! - all so he could VIRTUE SIGNAL!
FTFY (translated to MAGA)
^(I do think that Trump was legitimately elected, but a system that lets the person who did not win the popular vote win the election is still bullshit)^
I had to downvote you to get the "total" (heart) to show up. You can see in the comment below yours that if there are only all up- or downvotes, it just shows that.
Now congressional Republicans want the justice department to release the audio of the interview.
To be clear on this, they already have the transcripts. They just want to be able to chop up audio so they can put clips of it on TV.
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.
The station is owned by FOX Television Stations, not Sinclair. If you want to tell someone to fuck off, tell it to Rupert Murdoch, who ultimately is the owner of the FOX corp.
Seriously, blindly assuming "this must be bad because it sounds like something I dont like" and parroting an irrelevant"Fuck X" is the same thing as people saying "Dominion stole the election" when Dominion machines weren't even in use in their county.
It's literally the same breakup that happened with movie studios owning theaters in 1948. It's emblematic of the state of antitrust in the past decades that we've let another industry get away with the exact same issue thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc.
You clearly didn't read the article. She specifically endorsed the candidate for the school board that she ousted previously. She's speaking against the party line. There is a real shift that happened for her, and her actions speak to it.
Directly from the summary paragraph of the Wikipedia article you linked:
The story was widely believed for centuries, but most modern scholars regard it as fictional.
The way this article is written really annoys me. The headline talks about a super PAC, but it begins talking about Trump's PAC. "Super PAC" is a specific term referring to organizations that are not allowed to directly coordinate with campaigns (and they can have large, anonymous donations, which is where a lot of the "dark money" in politics comes from).
Here's the actual meat the headline is referring to:
Save America, Trump’s leadership PAC, was able to stay in the black in March due to another $5 million refund in March from Make America Great Again Inc., the Trump-backing super PAC. The super PAC has transferred $5 million to the leadership PAC each month going back to last July, with less regular transfers before then.
The leadership PAC initially seeded the super PAC with $60 million before he announced his candidacy. Now, MAGA Inc. can only send $2.75 million more back to Save America, raising questions about whether Save America will continue to be the vehicle to fund legal bills in several cases linked to Trump.
Basically, the only reason that the super PAC is involved with paying for Trump's legal bills in the first place is because Trump's PAC is paying for the legal bills, and the super PAC is returning the "startup loan" that was given to them originally.
The point is, the well is drying up fast and Trump's PAC is going to be out of money real soon, and he'll have to rely on super PACs to campaign for him entirely.
When I was practicing jujitsu, our instructors were pretty unanimous that they would rather be robbed by someone with a gun than with a knife. Not that your odds are great against any weapons, but a gun only has one dangerous bit. The first time I was learning to disarm someone armed with a knife I was told "If you fight someone with a knife, you're going to get cut, no question."
Drinking from my jackel mug right now!
It's not just a black player, it's the black player. Jackie Robinson was the first black baseball player in major league baseball.
Don't a lot of CPUs like Snapdragons already have "performance cores" and "efficiency cores" that the kernel has to be able to recognize in order to switch between them? This sounds neat but I'm just curious what's different between these situations.
The last time there was a major schism the nations of the day were explicitly aligned with one side of the other of the schism and the states attempted to crush the other side of the schism by force. Part of the separation of church and state in modern nations is meant to prevent church issues from becoming state issues (see the recent mainstream schism in the Methodist chuch which was completely peaceful and over similar issues).
There's a very wide range of options between "doing nothing" and "intentionally bombing civilians"