mpa92643

Right now, it's 50 R and 46 D with the 4 Independents (Sanders, King, Sinema, Manchin) caucusing with the Democrats to give it a 50/50 tie.

The Senate is currently 51-49. The Democratic Caucus has 51 members.

Byron Donalds, a black Republican Representative from Florida, said Democrats need to stop talking about Project 2025, a policy document created by hundreds of people who literally worked for Trump during his term, because it's "dangerous."

But he also thinks Trump calling Harris a communist dictator who literally wants to destroy America, take your guns, force everyone's children to undergo surgical sex reassignment surgery against their will, flood the country with millions of noncitizens so they can vote, among hundreds of other extreme and completely false accusations, are all perfectly fine and fair game.

They all know it's not consistent. They all know Trump's rhetoric is worse, but they see a cynical opportunity to gain a political advantage and they take it. Assholes.

The pardon power is explicitly given to the president by the Constitution. Therefore it's a core power with absolute immunity.

The president is also given the clear authority to direct his subordinates in the executive branch as the "chief Executive." The SCOTUS has ruled that the president has almost unfettered power to hire/fire/order anyone in the federal government to do just about anything he wants with no restrictions.

So logically:

1. The president can order an agency head to issue a new rule that's probably unconstitutional.
2. Someone sues in a district court to block it.
3. A court issues an injunction preventing its enforcement.
4. The agency head ignores the court order and enforces it anyway.
5. The court finds the agency head and/or other employees of the agency in contempt for violating the injunction.
6. The president pardons anyone subject to the injunction (and this pardon power is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution or investigation).
7. The rule goes into effect and gets enforced despite being enjoined by a federal court.
8. We now have a constitutional crisis because courts no longer have any way to check on the Executive because the president can simply neutralize any criminal penalties with a pardon even if that pardon is clearly issued as part of a conspiracy to violate a court order.

I guarantee this is not what the Framers envisioned or wanted, but this is what "conservative" judicial extremists on the SCOTUS have given us. Although I would be entirely unsurprised if they decided to roll this power back somehow if ever a Democratic president were to wield it.

They also like to complain about the "crime in blue cities," but somehow never seem to acknowledge that if it's a problem that's so easy to solve, why do red states with red legislatures and red governors not just fix the issue in their blue cities?

5 of the top 10 cities with the highest violent crime rates are in red states with Republican legislatures and Republican governors. They sure as hell act like they know the simple solution to violent crime in cities, but for some reason they don't seem to implement those obvious solutions in their own states. Instead, they blame the Democratic mayors.

It's almost like it's a lot harder of a problem to solve than Republicans let on and they're being disingenuous about knowing how to fix it...

The vast majority of elected Republicans are opportunists willing to use any opportunity to advance their narrative even if it's clearly blatant lies or bullshit.

Vance pushes the "eating pets" crap to anyone who will listen, and when he gets hard enough pushback from someone and can't bullshit his way out of it, he falls back to the "okay, maybe it's not true, but it represents real concerns people have so it's valid for me to talk about it."

Which is exactly what happened with the election results in 2020. They pushed the stolen election crap until it was pretty much irrefutably disproven, then went around saying they had to make it harder to vote because their voters, for some strange reason, thought the election wasn't fair.

DeWine is one of the very few Republican politicians left that has any sense of principle and isn't a cynical opportunist, even if most of those principles are pretty shitty.

Stephen Miller is an advisor to Trump and is probably a psychopath. I don't use that label lightly either.

When a normal person gets genuinely angry, their facial expressions and body language convey the anger too. It's a natural reaction humans have when experiencing emotions and it's tough to hide or fake.

Stephen Miller raises his voice, he uses an indignant tone, he makes aggressive motions with his body, but his face shows no change in expression at all. It's not just this clip either, he's like this all the time. He's generally good at lying and changing topics during normal interviews, but he was cornered here and fell back to "pretend to be angry and change the topic." Clearly this reporter was having none of it.

It's a definition from a well-respected global standards organization. Can you name a source that would provide a more authoritative definition than the ISO?

There's no universally correct definition for what the ≈ symbol means, and if you write a paper or a proof or whatever, you're welcome to define it to mean whatever you want in that context, but citing a professional standards organization seems like a pretty reliable way to find a commonly-accepted and understood definition.

Sure! See ISO-80000-2

Here's a link: https://cdn.standards.iteh.ai/samples/64973/329519100abd447ea0d49747258d1094/ISO-80000-2-2019.pdf

"Approximately equal" is just a superset of "equal" that also includes values "acceptably close" (using whatever definition you set for acceptable).

Unless you say something like:

a ≈ b ∧ a ≠ b

which implies a is close to b but not exactly equal to b, it's safe to presume that a ≈ b includes the possibility that a = b.

I have a pact with the spiders in my house. If I spot them running across the floor or on the ceiling or tucked away in a corner, they're not bothering me, so I won't bother them. If I see one in an inconvenient place like the dinner table or hanging from the ceiling in the middle of the room, I gently relocate them outdoors.

But...if I'm lying in bed trying to go to sleep and I feel one crawling up my arm, it's broken the pact, and it can't be trusted to leave me alone anymore, so it gets a quick and painless death.

The role of a district court judge is to do two things:

1. Apply existing precedent to individual cases to the greatest extent possible.
2. Set new precedent only when absolutely necessary because the facts of the case don't align well to existing precedent.

Cannon has basically decided to do the exact opposite of these two rules by pretending that the facts of this case are so incredibly unprecedented that she has to throw out the rulebook and set new precedents on everything.

Literally the only unusual thing about this case is that the defendant, a private citizen who currently gets free government security protection for the rest of his life, used to be a president. That's it. Everything else about this case is straightforward obstruction of justice and willful retention of national security information.

https://www.axios.com/2024/01/17/americans-are-actually-pretty-happy-with-their-finances

I get a lot of people are struggling, but you can't claim that the average person isn't doing well when 63% of Americans rate their financial situation as "good" or "very good."