Most of the problems caused by Trump are for this exact reason.

Congress is too paralyzed to be effective anymore. The GOP is fully on Gingrich’s “never compromise with the Dems for any reason, and hold the government hostage until you get your way” corruption while the Dems are the party of “we’re beholden to the same corporate money as the GOP but at least the GOP doesn’t have to pretend to not be”.

Also, our eternally-increasing election cycles means that if you’re a Rep, you get maybe one full year to legislate before having to worry about the optics for your re-election.

Add in procedural bullshit like the Hastert Rule and the filibuster and the result is a government that only functions via executive order or when one party controls all the branches (and maybe not even then, depending on how extreme your caucus is or how bought your Senators are).

Because most Americans have knee-jerk reactions to labels as opposed to policies. Like how everyone supports all the protections Obamacare provides, but how they all want to get rid of Obamacare.

Thanks for the clarification!

It probably would have been clearer had that been said. Something like “This map shows how if a person works two jobs, even at $35/hr, for a combined total of 50 hr/week and an annual salary of $91,000, still isn’t enough for a family of four in most of the country.”

So I’m confused a bit here.

You’ve calculated the annual wage as:

$35/hr * 2080 hr/yr = $72,800

Okay, that’s 40 hours a week. No arguments here. But then you say this:

Shading is based on affordability when working 10 extra hours per week, paid at $35/hr

So did you assume that “full-time” is only 30 hours, and that most people don’t work 40 hours? Or did you not calculate that “10 extra hours per week” means most people would be working 50 hours which is overtime and paid at 1.5 times base rate?

1.5 * $35/hr = $52.50/hr

This would bring the salary up to

($35/hr * 2080 hr/yr) + ($52.50/hr * 10hr/wk * 52wk/yr) = $100,100/yr

Can you clarify this for me?

Essentially, yes.

The source provided by OP is lacking in details but here’s one with more.

When an appeal is filed at the Circuit Court level, it’s first heard by a panel of judges. The judges are supposed to be a random selection of three from the circuit (I don’t know if it’s ever more or less; I’ve only ever heard it as three. Someone more law-talky feel free to correct me).

In this case, the three-judge panel (consisting of two Trump appointees 🙄) granted the feds an emergency stay- meaning nothing can be done to stop the feds until the case has been heard, which they’ve set on the docket for Tuesday.

There are various reasons for an emergency stay but usually the reasoning goes like this: the panel believes that the defendant (eg, the feds) will suffer some sort of harm (in the legal sense, not necessarily the physical sense) if they allow the plaintiff (California) to get what they want. Also, they believe that the defendant is likely to succeed on the merits of their arguments. So if the defendant is likely to win their case and they would suffer legal harm if the courts allowed the plaintiff to stop them while the case was being decided, then the correct course of action is to maintain the status quo until the official ruling.

After that, the next step is to request an en banc hearing, which is where the entire circuit court hears the case. They could either affirm the panel’s decision or reverse it, and either way it’s likely this case would then be appealed to SCOTUS.

“whataboutism is effective propaganda”

I mean, it kinda makes sense for a tankie to be pushing Russian distraction techniques?

Step 2: sell off the state parks?

Yes, but what’s amusing to me is that this painting shows the wrist but not the palm.

Cave Johnson - we’re done here!

though some debate its use for non-medical fields.

Those “some” are the ones who don’t know that “doctor” has been used to refer to academics for literally hundreds of years and that its usage to refer to physicians has only been relatively recently.

Of course, I’m assuming the venn diagram of those people and the people who don’t know why Jill Biden is a doctor is just one solid circle.

Given that Boromir died after three arrows, and Faramir lived after two, we can safely conclude that it would have taken at least three arrows to kill him.

Therefore, Faramir is at minimum as tanky as Boromir.

When they fight back, those fights can get very messy and very expensive.

Good thing those law firms that bent the knee pledged to spend a collective billion dollars defending Trump.

This (is) the person that is at the forefront of eliminating public education in the US.

Just wanted to clarify her role a bit. Hope it helps!

Having only two major parties and “winner takes it all” elections is a shit system and it was doomed to fail (…) That’s not how a democracy is supposed to work.

I agree. And yet, it’s what we have (well…)

Especially if neither of the major parties allign with your ideals. Of course the consequences of this non-compliance are dire but it was inevitable.

That right there is the crux of the issue. It is mathematically certain that the US electoral system, as it is now, will result in two parties. And it is equally certain because of that fact that voting for anyone other than one of those two party candidates will result in helping the other candidate. Knowing this, a responsible voter should decide to support whichever party most closely aligns with their values, because otherwise they’re helping the major party they lease align with win instead.

If you agree with the Dems on one issue, and agree with the GOP on zero issues, you should still vote for the Dems in the general election.

Holy shit my dude, calm the fuck down. I neither expressed any agreement nor disagreement with the facts, and you’re just making baseless assumptions about how I feel about them.

No, I am not “more angry” at the Green voters than I am at insert whatever reason you think was the most important contributor to Gore’s loss you want here. But it is ridiculous to assume they (you?) share no part of the blame for Gore’s loss, when it’s demonstrable that in fact they bear some amount. Also I find it amusing you’re telling me who I should be mad at and you never once mentioned the Republicans who voted for Bush.

Did SCOTUS make a bad ruling? Abso-fucking-lutely they did. But you know what? If NH had gone to Gore SCOTUS wouldn’t have even mattered.

Does our system suck? Abso-fucking-lutely it does. You can rant and rave all day about how unfair and undemocratic it is, and how much it needs to change and I’ll spend all day agreeing with you. But the difference between us is, I recognize that voting is a tactical decision, not an emotional one. I don’t particularly like the Democrats, probably for many of the same reasons you would list. I vote for them in the general election, however, because I understand that not doing so helps Republicans win. Again, this is literal demonstrable fact. And I agree with the Dems on a hell of a lot more than I do with the GOP.

edit: also the popular vote literally doesn’t matter. Source: non-Presidents Gore and Clinton.

I looked at the totals for the 2000 election and found that, had every Nader voter instead voted for Gore, there would have been only two states that would have flipped:

• Florida, by a tally of 2,912,790 Bush to 3,009,741.
• New Hampshire, which would have been 273,559 Bush to 288,546 Gore.

Now, it’s entirely possible we still get the ratfucking from SCOTUS and they still throw the state to Bush. But New Hampshire had 4 electoral votes, and had they gone for Gore then it would have been 267 Bush - 270 President Gore.

Bush won because 22,198 people in NH didn’t understand that voting for a third-party only hurts the major party that most closely aligns with your ideals.

It’s nepotism if the person doing the hiring/appointing employs their relatives. If your husband didn’t hire you, it’s not nepotism.

Also to note, nepotism has a connotation of being bad but there’s nothing inherent in the definition that says it is. If your husband hires you, it’s possible you might be the most qualified person for the job. However, there’s always going to be the appearance of favoritism or cronyism, which is why it’s ethically frowned-on.

No, 2/3rds.

The third-ish that voted for Trump, and the third-ish that didn’t vote for Harris.

In other words, the majority of Americans either wanted this government, or didn’t care if this was the government.