As a male who has been around 70kg for all of my adult life, I have consumed many different "diets". All from eating whole foods to eating more processed foods and easy packaged meals/junk food, all not impacting my BMI.
I wonder if soil depletion of minerals and vitamins due to over farming couldn't also be a suspect here. It's a problem I haven't heard much about lately.
He is definitely playing a Berlusconi in terms of his fear of leaving office and interest in being abroad. Which is why they should refer him to a tribunal for treason; the dead can't run or kill prostitutes.
Even if he were to be pardoned for any federal crimes (which isn't implausible, even without a self-pardon) he seems pretty likely to face criminal charges in New York State and possibly, with the election extortion effort, Georgia, that are not subject to federal pardon.
Prison probably complicates a comeback campaign in 2024. (Also, even without that, he would have neither the outsider ambiguity that help him win in 2016 not the power of incumbency that helped him, but not enough to win, in 2020. He might retain enough influence with the Republican base that if he isn't disabled by legal issues he could win a nomination in 2024, but the general election seems more uphill.)
After the Mueller report was completed ignored by, well everyone really, I have no confidence that he's going to ever be charged with anything. Happy and hoping to be proved wrong.
There is actually some good evidence for this. Balance and motor control issues (two-handed water drinking, weird stance, the “very steep” ramp thing, later covering the ramp to navy ship), body jerking, slurred speech, lack of impulse control and empathy, etc.
The surprise Walter Reed visit was questionable, and the fact that he was administered a cognitive test only given to those with suspected dementia—then bragged about his results and claimed it was a difficult test—only add fuel to the speculation.
EDIT: Not claiming authority here or that others should conclude what I have, especially since I don’t have the time to reference all the things that convinced me.
Not the parent but pretty sure they intended to use "regime" in the other sense, as it fits here much better.
> Contemporary academic usage of the term "regime" is broader than popular and journalistic usage, meaning "an intermediate stratum between the government (which makes day-to-day decisions and is easy to alter) and the state (which is a complex bureaucracy tasked with a range of coercive functions)."
Our dead and flagged parent probably thinks that there will be some broader paradigm change in the social justice approach between the Trump and the Biden administration and that the latter will be more supportive on affirmative action.
Note that that's an opinion piece and it doesn't appear the author has actually read the U.S. Constitution. Section 8 says: "The Congress shall have Power To... make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;"
The use of nuclear weapons is clearly covered by that clause and several others giving Congress the power to regulate the military, whereas the Executive has the authority to execute those duly regulated rules.
Not really, I think roads are a convenient example but the same dynamic described (cities getting out over their skis through cheap-in-the-short term development and debt) can be seen playing out for other types of expenses. The next highest costs up that list, hospitals and education, are often also financed through debt, expensive to maintain over a long time horizon, and essential to growing the tax base. This seems totally cromulent with the basic "growth addiction" framework to me.
More roads means more sewage, power, water, gas, waste removal, snow removal, and fiber internet lines. Living spaced out also probably adds other costs like more administrative staff.
It mentions in the video that most money for road initial construction comes from State/Federal. Thus the true ongoing costs are masked and so it continues.
At the end, wasn't the comment that he believed he _could_ see five lights?
It's possible this is a deliberate grammatical ambiguity, but I think it could also be read as "I was not just willing to say it, my reality was being destroyed".
PICARD: I, er, I don't know where to begin. It was...
TROI: I read your report.
PICARD: What I didn't put in the report was that at the end he gave me a choice between a life of comfort or more torture. All I had to do was to say that I could see five lights, when in fact, there were only four.
TROI: You didn't say it?
PICARD: No, no, but I was going to. I would have told him anything. Anything at all. But more than that, I believed that I could see five lights.
Axios is not any better than other sources such as CNN, NYT, etc. The main problem is that news is cheap and free in the digital era -- so what is left to sell is opinions, conjecture and analysis. Axios is no different in this regard than other organizations.
The QAnon folks are no less irrational than any other (pseudo-)religious devotees and should be afforded the same protections under the first amendment.
This is like the millionth time this has been posted on this website in the past few days, but the first amendment applies to the government, not private companies.
The first amendment applies to corporations when they use the state to enforce their speech over someone else's. The actual case history surrounding first amendment rights is way more complicated than you're implying. There are situations where the government can restrict your first amendment rights; there are situations where you can have your first amendment rights violated by a company — and seek restitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Can you give me an example of something that has happened recently in regards to QAnon where their first amendment rights may have been violated?
the poster you are replying to seems to be arguing that Qanon people should be a protected class under the civil rights act because it's a hokey pseudo religion with prophecies, shamans, and everything. That absolutely does apply to private companies. I don't really know what to make of that as I am not a lawyer, but I'm not making a legal argument but a moral one.
Internet businesses are natural monopolies and being banned from one can ruin your life without trial in a way that was unprecedented for private companies to be able to do in the past. In the near future somebody who is banned from both Paypal and Stripe will be close to being perpetually unbanked in some lines of work. The way progressives have cheered on giving tech companies this much power over our lives has been dispiriting
>Internet businesses are natural monopolies and being banned from one can ruin your life without trial in a way that was unprecedented for private companies to be able to do in the past.
What solution do you propose? Take away the right of association from one group of people to enable another group?
That seems strange to me. If you allow the government to create a precedent where you can restrict the rights of anyone, then you can restrict the rights of everyone.
What you are saying is word for word the libertarian argument against the civil rights act ("if we have to bake a cake for gay weddings, what if wants a cake for their child bride!"). I happen to disagree with it as it applies in the real world
This argument seems to intentionally ignore that the conservative-led decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled in favor of the bakery.
>What you are saying is word for word the libertarian argument against the civil rights act ("if we have to bake a cake for gay weddings, what if wants a cake for their child bride!"). I happen to disagree with it as it applies in the real world
No. I'm not. Please don't put words in my mouth.
I'll try to boil it down to as few words as possible:
If the government can take away your rights, then they can take away mine too. I don't support that and will defend your rights as vigorously as my own, whether I agree with you or not.
As for the example you give, bakers don't have to bake a cake for gay weddings.
again I'm not making a legal argument but a moral one.
>If the government can take away your rights, then they can take away mine too. I don't support that and will defend your rights as vigorously as my own, whether I agree with you or not.
This applies to Stipe and Paypal too. They can arbitrarily prevent anyone from operating an online business. The libertarian view that you should care more about their right to do that than individuals who will lose their livelihoods with no recourse, is something I'll never understand and we'll never come to agreement on.
>The libertarian view that you should care more about their right to do that than individuals who will lose their livelihoods with no recourse, is something I'll never understand and we'll never come to agreement on.
I'm not sure why you bring that up, since that's not a position that I've advocated, nor is it one that I support.
I find your repeated strawman[0] arguments quite tiresome.
the civil rights act effectively does protect speech with regards to religion and sexual orientation, since the idea that we won't discriminate against those things as long as nobody finds out is not what it means
