Prices on so many of these mega tech companies (DoorDash, UBER, etc.) have been kept artificially low for years by basically unlimited amount of venture capital.
They’re following the Walmart model- keep prices stupid low to establish dominance and drive out any competitor. Once there’s nobody left to compete you can jack up the prices to -hopefully- recoup your investment.
Great for the consumers at first… until their bills come due. Then we get massively screwed over. A tale as old as time…
You are arguing the point but missing the context.
The Governor decided to do this unilaterally using a “Public Health Emergency”. This is not in regards to a bill passed by both chambers of New Mexicos Legislative Branch. This was the sole decision of a single person. The Executive Branch is detailed with carrying out the orders of the Legislature. They do not create Laws. That is what she is trying to do.
Is there anyone here not from the US that would care to share what the general vibe is surrounding Ukraine joining NATO? I’d be curious to hear from an “outside” prospective.
Here in the US the general consensus seems to be “maybe, but NOT now.” People seem apprehensive about it starting WWIII. And Conservatives are frothing at the mouth about how Biden is going to get us all killed in a nuclear war (but that claim is often tossed around basically every election cycle. Trump also was supposedly going to get all of us nuked.)
The support to continue sending military aid to Ukraine is also wavering in the US. At least among the people. The politicians are still lock-step in line with their support. I’d imagine the people in Europe are still much more in support but I could be wrong?
The problem with the term 'gun rights' and banning them is that 'gun rights' is an umbrella term for many things. When a person owns a firearm for self-defense or hunting, and it is used responsibly, it is considered an exercise of 'gun rights.' There are also situations where the use of firearms is necessary for self-defense and protection.
Another example is target shooting or competitive shooting, which is a legitimate and responsible use of firearms. These activities are all grouped under the term 'gun rights.'
While I personally may not agree with unrestricted access to firearms (in the context of avoiding unnecessary risks and violence), I would never shame or coerce someone from exercising their Second Amendment rights. It's not my decision, and it doesn't involve me. I'm not part of the equation.
And despite my disagreement, I think restrictive gun control laws are not only wrong but also harmful.
Just like with abortion, the debate over gun rights is multifaceted and involves differing perspectives on individual rights, public safety, and the balance between regulation and personal freedom.
Can Governors create Laws?
Should a Jewish run bakery be forced to decorate a cake saying “Praise Allah”? Or a Muslim graphic designer be forced to make shirts with the Star of David? The decision from SCOTUS clarifies that no, you can’t compel someone to produce artistic work that they’re not comfortable with.
“No Christians Served Here” would be discrimination and remains illegal. “We don’t decorate bake goods with religious symbols on them” is legal.
You somehow missed the fact that this isn’t a law. No elected member of the New Mexico Legislature voted on this. This is one person in the Executive Branch deciding they can write and impose law at their will. And you support this?
But importantly, it violates their First Amendment (which covers artistic expression). The Government can’t force people to write/produce subject matter they disagree with.
Unless there’s a Presidential debate. Say what you want about Trump and I’ll probably agree- but Biden can’t even put a sentence together these days. It’s getting bad.
(All of this is irrelevant though- anyone who’s been paying attention knows that the Dem nominee is 100% Gavin Newsom)
The people cheering this on would be LIVID if a Republican Governor unilaterally suspended all abortions in a state by declaring abortion a “public health” emergency.
These people have no idea what they’re cheering on.
This is going to court. Let’s see who understands the constitution more.
To be clear- you’re saying this will 100% hold up in court?
The problem is that “Public Safety” is an arbitrary metric. A Governor can’t strip citizens of Constitutional rights under the guise of some perceived “Public Safety” concern. It’s a complete violation of the Constitution.
Put simply: this is a horrible look for Democrats. Especially for a party that compared Trump to Hitler 24/7. This is what actual tyranny looks like. A single leader unilaterally stripping away rights from their citizens due to a self-declared “emergency”.
Neither are abortion rates. You’d support a governors ability to end all abortion in a state under a public health emergency?
This is the 2016 election strategy all over again. “If we blast negative Trump coverage 24/7 people will finally wake up to how evil/racist/dumb/etc. he is!”
This is going to be bigger than the OJ trial. He’s raised close to 10 million off of the mug shot alone. If he’s making that much off the “movie poster”, how much do you think he’s going to profit from the full-length “feature film”?