That’s fair. Maybe more reasonable than it first appeared.

Oof, 15 to 30 years seems a bit much.

Davis’s family asserts Kruger and Davis were in a years-long relationship involving sex and drugs that started when Davis was 15 years old, and Kruger was an adult.

You’ve claimed several points that conflict and when asked directly what your point is you talk around it.

My point was Bernie got cheated out of that primary election

Your point was that the primary was above board and there was no reason to question it

Then you later agreed that there was good reason to question it

And now your point is that your point is clear?

Eh, fair enough. Undermined, cheated, manipulated, schemed, swindled, deceived, duped, defrauded, etc might have been a better description.

Your initial statement was clear but your subsequent comments across threads have not been.

It went from the primary was clear and upstanding, to there’s good reason to doubt the results, to it having no real effect other than some nasty words spoken, to it costing Hilary the election.

Which one is your actual point?

So you’re saying the DNC’s actions undermining the primary election had real consequences? Or are those consequences not concrete enough?

Or are you saying we should accept their schemes, offer no consequences or criticism and just blindly follow?

Cause I certainly agree that we likely wouldn’t be in the current situation if the DNC had been above board and true to their role.

And that there is good reason to believe it was stolen from him

Have you read your other replies? Thats not the understanding I got from them.

Projection at its finest.

Convenient you skip over the undermine his campaign portion of my previous comment. But the fact that the Chair of the DNC resigned over it shows it was more than just saying “nasty things about him in private”.

It should also be noted that their actions “caused significant harm to the Clinton campaign, and have been cited as a potential contributing factor to her loss in the general election”. It is not as inconsequential as you present it.

The DNC heavily undermined and consistently sabotaged Bernie’s campaign the point that the DNC chair stepped down and the DNC then apologized “for the inexcusable remarks made over email” that did not reflect the DNC’s “steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process.” (From the wikipedia link below).

From the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak: In the emails, DNC staffers derided the Sanders campaign. The Washington Post reported: “Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign.”

Bernie was absolutely robbed of a fair primary election.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak

It’d also be nice if they couldn’t just override the primary election results because it’s not a “real election”

Yes, I’m still a bit bitter about how the DNC treated Bernie in the 2016 election

Summary:

When the sport of artistic swimming, formerly synchronized swimming, announced it would allow men to compete in the Paris Games, Bill May saw his chance. But the U.S. team chose only women.

What a misleading title. It makes it sound like the GOP passed it.

Two Republicans, TJ Shopes and Shawnna LM Bolick, joined all 14 Democrats to pass the measure, sending it to Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs’ desk

I agree. It’s a terrible idea for many reasons. The fact that we can’t trust something like that to run in good faith is among the top of those reasons.

The comment I was responding to was saying this proposed law would strip our ability to speak our mind because it would create a new 3rd party group that would validate each post before allowing them online.

I was pointing out that making specific content illegal is not the same as having every post scrutinized before it goes live.

Well, you’re about 20 years too late. It has already started

See any of the tor sites for examples of what is currently filtered out of the regular internet. It even gets your google account permanently banned if you log in via the tor browser

Where did it say anything about a Ministry of Truth deciding what can be posted online? Making it illegal and having a 3rd party decide if every post is allowed are two very different things

If it’s illegal then there are ramifications for the platform, the user posting it, and the tool that created it.

Content moderation is already a thing so it’s nothing new. Just one more thing on the list to check for when a post is reported

Only some lizards are venomous. He probably picked it without worrying about the bite since their bite hasn’t killed anyone since 1930. Also probably didn’t realize he had liver problems.

Their bites aren’t usually life threatening on their own. Looks like this death was a bad combination of liver problems ontop of the bite itself.

Owner occupancy won’t go up. Landlords are already occupying a place.

As far as passing the cost goes, it won’t be. Rent is already as high as it can be and will continue to go up as long as our regulations allow this artificial shortage to be maintained. See The End Hedge Fund Control of American Homes Act as an example.

As far as the damage goes, it’s pretty much counted on by landlords. Anything they do on the property counts as a tax deduction and the repairs are usually half asses at best. See “landlord special”.

And, in particular, the poorer renters have a massive incentive to take care of the place, as any unpaid damage gets them kicked off of housing assistance.

Furthermore, the law doesn’t blindly allow any and all pets for any reason. AB 2216 will require landlords to have reasonable reason(s) for not allowing a pet in a rental unit and only allows landlords to ask about pet ownership after a tenant’s application has been approved.

I think this is a good change overall. Landlords shouldn’t be allowed to tell their tenants how to live their lives.

How would it reduce housing? By having landlords sell so they don’t have to have a pet in their rental unit?

You’re getting played if you don’t use one. All those rewards are not from the people racking up credit card debt, it’s from swipe fees.

If you don’t use a credit card you pay the same price as the ones paying with a card, except the ones with a card get rewards. The ones without pay extra since stores charge extra to cover the fee

They even lobbied successfully to prevent merchants from passing this on to credit card customers. Which means they pass it on to all customers instead.

The fees are currently capped at 2.5% but that’s just for the swiped. There are other fees as well that end up costing the merchant more.