So this, if it stands, keeps him off the Prinary ballot.
Hypothetically does it also keep him off the ballot in the General? Or does that need a new ruling?
So this, if it stands, keeps him off the Prinary ballot.
Hypothetically does it also keep him off the ballot in the General? Or does that need a new ruling?
It's very debatable if trump's EO would have capped the price of Insulin or Epipens in a meaningful way - and its factually wrong that it was the same cap and legislation that Biden put into place.
Trump's EO meant that Federally Qualified Health Centers would have to offer Insulin and Epinephrine to "Low Income Individuals" without health insurance "at the discounted price paid by the FQHC grantee or sub-grantee under the 340B Prescription Drug Program” plus a “minimal” fee.
From your own link, FQHCs already had a requirement to not charge anything to people in poverty, so "If ‘low income’ is defined as under 100% of poverty, this may not really change anything. Even if the income level is set somewhat higher, most patients likely would still have been protected by the sliding fee scale without this change".
This link, like your others, is from 2020. I don't know how "low income" would actually have been defined since it wasn't scheduled to come into place until Jan 22nd - during Biden's administration.
It's true that Biden froze this - as others have mentioned in this thread, he put a 60 day freeze on all pending legislature when taking office, which is a fairly standard practice.
Biden's own Insulin cap was part of the Inflation Reduction Act, and capped the price of Insulin to $35 monthly for products covered by Medicare D.
So yeah I concede that it's an oversimplification to say that Trump did nothing and Biden did everything, but... the Insulin cap is Biden's legislation. Trump did not cap Insulin or Epipen prices during his 4 years in office.
This just isnt true. I'm not saying this to defend Israel and their actions in Gaza - its just really important to not get swept up in falsehoods, particularly at a time when legitimate criticism of Israel is being portrayed as antisemitic.
There are allegations that Israel administered a birth control drug - which has to be readministered every three months - to Ethiopian immigrants without informed consent. The investigation into this was flawed, but there is literally no evidence to suggest that anyone was forced or coerced into taking this.
What does seem plausible and even likely based on the facts is that doctors often made little or no effort to overcome language and cultural barriers and make sure that consent was fully informed and patients were completely aware of the effects of the procedure.
This is definitely an issue in and of itself, and is a level of societal racism. But what it is not, is ideoligical forcible sterilization.
Further, when you say 'Ethiopian Jewish women tried to invoke the Law of Return' the implication is that Israel was really against Ethiopian immigration. In reality, the Israeli government worked with the US to actively enable this - in 1984 Israeli covert forces worked to evacuate the Beta Israel community from Sudan to Israel during the civil war there (this is known as Operation Moses).
Basically, there is so so much to legitimately criticise the Israeli government for right now. Repeating misinformation like this just straight up doesn't help.
Its probably also worth mentioning that his victims were also Scientologists, and therefore 'forbidden' from going to the police.
When they did, they were labelled 'fair game' and harrassed by the 'church'.
So there was also a Civil suit - filed before but put on hold until after the Criminal trial - that has The Church Of Scientology itself as a co-defendent
One of the things Masterson's lawyers were accused of doing was leaking discovery documents from the Criminal case to Scientology's attorneys in the Civil case
Pavlov's dog is not notable for showing that dogs could be conditioned (bell = food time)
What it did was show that a conditional response (bell = food time) could cause a reflexive response (saliva)
Classical conditioning is not the same as associative learning.
Pavlov's dog is not about associating Thing A with Thing B - that didn't need a russian scientist to prove.
Just because you don't highlight 'all ages events' doesn't mean it's not part of the quote
Im not sure what the evidence was, but there was a 3 year investigation, and two other cases were not brought to charge due to lack of evidence. The prosecution case involved the Scientology cover-up, including attempts to get one of the women to sign an NDA
And the antichrist characteristics they describe are a selection of the ones he fits, without including those he doesn't. He hasn't (pretended to) come back from the dead, and isn't connected obviously to the number 666, for example.
The article actually specifically mentions both coming back from the dead (Covid) and 666 (Kushner).
Dont get me wrong, I'm not saying they aren't tenuous and I'm 100% not saying he is the literal antichrist. But its not accurate to say they dont include that stuff
Because its really not about whether or not the historical Jesus was or could have been white - its about the fact that white cultures will almost exclusively portray Jesus as being their own race for reasons that have nothing to do with historical interpretation of demographics is the middle east in ~0ad
People calling out White Jesus arent doing so because of a 'notion that the middle east was a monolith of appearences', but instead because of a hypocrisy of many Christian groups - in particular in the evangelical American right - to almost literally whitewash Jesus to look more like themselves, while often dehumanizing the people that look like Jesus 'probably' looked like.
Its really not about a historical question of the average middle-eastern skin colour two millenia ago. I assure you that the vast majority of 'White Jesus' portrayers have not engaged with that question and do not care about the answer. So to look to that as a refutation of the criticism is really missing the point.
100km (64? miles), for charity. It took 31 hours, so more than a day but it was all in one go
It was awful
If they'd rather die then they'd better do it, and decrease the surplus population!
Just in the spirit of pedantry, its not really true to say that the US system predated most parliaments.
Like, maybe its technically true now due to the expansion of democratic and republic systems in the post-colonial era, but parliaments in Western Europe were plentiful and long-established in 1776.
The first American government was notable in that is was completely divorced from a hereditary Monarch, and I don't wanna downplay that, but a system in which a representitive body of land-owners is elected by an enfranchised class to decide policy and even pass legislation existed in, for example, Iceland since the 10th Century, Catalonia since the 12th, England since the 13th. It was arguably the standard during the enlightenment in Europe.
My two cents, the US system does seem to be remarkably inflexible. I guess it's complicated to unpack why exactly, but a combination of myth-making, bad-faith originalists, and the sheer size of the country probably all play a part in it
Grabbed a chicken, plucked it turned it into a man, then threw it at a lecture
No but thats still, you're not protecting anyone you're just shooting
I mean, unless there was a hoax that led to widespread belief that they were gonna launch a bomb
Its suspicious if its out of nowhere, but less so if its in response to an existing rumour
The last time I was in Berlin, the year before Covid, they had set ups in some of the parks which were like painted lines and 'boxes' on the floor
Weed dealers were allowed to sell within these lines (probably not actually legally, but with an understanding that the police would leave them be? Not sure of the specific rules) but not outside of them
This meant that people who weren't interested wouldnt have their park time marred by shady people coming up and trying to sell them drugs, and people who were interested could just go to one of the dealers in the lines
It was just a better, safer way of doing things. Everybody won.
Actual legalisation is the next step of course. Criminalisation of something as minor of weed just creates crime and danger, it doesnt reduce it. So this is good news
You wouldn't take a shit in it though
I think Occupy was really interesting, and part of the reason was the lack of a clear and actionable message
I fully agree that the best and most effective protest movements are those with clear goals and demands, and Occupy wasn't that
What it managed to do really effectively was bring all kinds of people and ideologies together - there were the active leftists and anarchists, but also liberals and the middle class and all sorts. I've read articles and accounts that talk of just every kind of person spending time in that main/original camp, and it spawned a lot of similar events here in the UK
Ultimately it had the same kind of energy as the 'If you want it, war is over' billboards of the late 60s. And absolutely thats frustrating from an activist p.o.v
But on the other hand, it did in a lot of ways shift public perspective. I'd stop short of saying it changed the paradigm, but it definitely contributed to an anti-neoliberal, anti-free-market normalization
So yeah, idk. It didn't really achieve anything; the issues it tried to tackle are still omni-present. But maybe it did do something in some hard to quantify, nebulous ways. Its interesting at least 🤷♀️
But yeah really not a blueprint of an effective protest in a majority of ways
No sitting president has ever lost their party's primary
LBJ dropped out of his party's primary, and although it was far too soon to say if he would have lost, he faced strong opposition in New-Politic anti-war candidates Kennedy and McCarthy. He is on record as worrying about the primary and it doubtless played a big part of his dropping out
Kennedy of course got shot, and the more conservative Humphrey ended up with the nomination over McCarthy (or late entry McGovern), sparking riots at the DNC. The situations and systems were quite different, but i think there's some parallels with Biden/Clinton vs Bernie there
I think Truman also dropped out rather than fight a tough primary, but i don't know so much about that
I think she does - the bill is about materials being sent home with kids from schools that include sodomy or grooming or the incredibly vague 'lgbt agenda'
It's designed so that instead of banning books individually, they can just sue for anything they don't like.
The headline makes it sound ridiculous - and in a way it is, of course - but it's potentially dangerous. I don't know how much sway her organisation has, if it's big or niche. Hopefully zero