Well I think part of the issue is that the US (as in the federal government of the United States) cannot fix it all, because each state makes its own election rules. So for instance the federal government can't say "All election results will be released only after the very last ballot in Hawaii is cast", each state has to independently agree to only release their state's election results after a certain time that all states agree upon.
> Would it have been OK to make a joke about 9/11 victims while they were still digging people out of the wreckage? What if that joke was light-hearted, or the comedian was just making fun of people who tell those jokes?
And in the context of this story, if I am a comedy club owner who has a rule saying comedians cannot joke about 9/11, is it ok for me to kick out a comedian who breaks those rules?
> On October 26, the Senate confirmed Barrett to the Supreme Court by a vote of 52–48, 30 days after her nomination and 8 days before the 2020 presidential election. *Every Republican senator except Susan Collins voted to confirm her, whereas every member of the Senate Democratic Caucus voted in opposition.* Barrett is the first justice since 1870 to be confirmed without a single vote from the Senate minority party.
> For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble
v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain
whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.
Seems like in an ideal world political parties would be the "institutions of intellectual or moral credibility that tell people directly how to vote". Of course, in the current United States that doesn't work because there is a practical limit of 2 major parties, and neither are really bastions of intellectual or moral credibility.
I'm not super well-versed in non-US politics, so I wonder if there is any democracy where parties actually work in that ideal way?
Well I think that's the entire point of this article: to call attention to the overwhelming crisis of medical debt in the US, and the need for us to create a great mechanism to deal with it.
Just because we don't currently have a functioning healthcare system doesn't mean we can't have one ever. As more people are made aware of how pervasive the issue is, there will be more impetus for those in power to start doing something about it.
> First, Musk did acquire 9.1% of the company secretly, in the open market, paying prices in the high $30s to get a start on his takeover without paying a control premium. Crucially, he seems to have done some of this acquiring illegally: He was required by law to disclose his ownership stake, and probably his intention to take over the company, by March 24, but he waited until April 4 to make that disclosure, and claimed to be a passive investor when he finally did. This delay allowed him to buy an extra 13 million shares at lower prices, saving him (and costing shareholders) on the order of $140 million.
> The consensus seems to be that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission can’t do much about this, and while there is a shareholder lawsuit about it already, it’s not clear that that will accomplish much either. Sometimes companies will ask courts to “sterilize” an acquirer’s shares, preventing him from voting them, if he acquired them in violation of the disclosure rules, but those requests don’t have much success. Basically Musk seems to have broken the law to buy his shares, but no one can do much about it.
This just absolutely short-circuits my mind. How is it possible to say "Yeah, he robbed the bank in broad daylight, but there's nothing we can do about it."
> But I do know you can travel to NK and see for yourself.
My understanding is that tourists in North Korea only see what the government of North Korea wants them to see.
Here's one (admittedly potentially biased) source that claims as much:
"Tourist travel to North Korea is only possible as part of a guided tour. Independent travel is not permitted. If you are not prepared to accept severe limitations on your movements, behaviour, and freedom of expression, you should not travel to North Korea." [0]
I did have a slight problems when dragging letters. The functionality when dragging a letter from the bottom buffer to the top didn't always let me place the letter where I wanted to.
Yes, and that agreement is set to 'expire' next month. "Starting in May 2020, the OPEC+ agreement called for a decrease in crude oil output by an initial 9.7 million barrels per day (b/d) that gradually tapers through April 2022, the end of the current agreement period."[0]
This is amazing to me, because I am also listening to the Revolutions podcast (just finished part 1 of the Russian Revolution, i'm sure this Stolypin guy will make some good reforms and Tsar Nicholas II will live happily ever after). However, I come away from these episodes with a completely different lesson: that the people opposed to universal suffrage were almost always the people in power who did not want to risk losing power, and so drew convenient lines to disenfranchise anybody who threatened their regime.
I very much do not think there is any merit to the idea that only those who claim to have "skin in the game" should get to vote. The grands blancs in pre-revolution Haiti - who owned lots of land, wealth, and people - often didn't even live on the island! In what way did they have more "skin in the game" than the slaves whose skin was being literally ripped to shreds in order to generate more profits? Not to mention the Black freedmen who owned property but still couldn't vote!
I think the mere act of being a citizen of a country - and thus being subject to the laws and policies of that country - gives you the right to a share in the governance of that country, no matter what your net worth, sex, race, etc.
Well I think part of the issue is that the US (as in the federal government of the United States) cannot fix it all, because each state makes its own election rules. So for instance the federal government can't say "All election results will be released only after the very last ballot in Hawaii is cast", each state has to independently agree to only release their state's election results after a certain time that all states agree upon.