"Basically how the government was going to be run..." in regards to WHAT, Nikki?!?

We've driven that route for 5 years now, and I don't know that I've ever seen a charging station. I'm sure there is one, somewhere, but that's not something I want to try and yolo my way through.

I'm a big fan of the Ioniq5, and if Hyundai weren't having so many issues with their business lately, that'd be my first choice. We're keeping our current vehicle when it's time for a new one, so we can use that for trips. What I need more than anything is something dependable and reasonable (features and price) for my wife to take to work every day.

Personally, I think a PHEV is a better option for that because she can use gas if absolutely necessary, and if everything goes as planned, she can use the electric for all of her daily driving. The reliability of predicability is what I'm hauling a gasoline engine around for. If I'm spending $40-50k on a vehicle, I want to know that it's going to last for 8-10 years, that the company isn't going to randomly brick a feature because they feel like it today, and that the company I'm giving money to has engineered the best product they can.

She will also gleefully sign any anti-abortion legislation the Republicans come up with if she's president. She's firmly anti-choice and has no problem with a 6-week ban. She says her anti-choice beliefs are based on the fact that her husband was adopted and he's a blessing she lives with every day.

https://apnews.com/article/nikki-haley-abortion-republican-primary-1827870a52349f3ee2f0c2b50e110b3b

I'd like to find a PHEV. It would be perfect for most of our daily driving - 12 miles to work. And we live ~500 miles from family, so we still need to be able to take the kids to see the grandparents for holidays. Subaru had a PHEV Crosstrek for a couple of years, but stopped making it available after 2019, iirc.

I'm hoping there are more PHEV models available when we're ready to buy a new car in a few years.

"B-b-but he wasn't convicted!"

Ayo, if you want to run for office, try not to even be fucking insurrection-adjacent. Then it's not even a question. This clown pushed the boundaries of the law until they broke, and now wants to say he should just be given a free pass. No. He could have coasted and told his supporters to go home, and blamed Biden for making lemonade poison. They would have made him even more of a golden idol. Instead, he fucked around, and now has court cases out the ass to find out with.

What an absolute loser.

They actually don't have time. The first of the primary caucuses happen in less than a month. You're talking about putting a full slate of unvetted candidates in front of a national primary with less than a month before voters would have to choose.

The Democrats made an error. They thought the Republicans surely would nominate someone else. They didn't know Trump would quote Hitler a few days ago. They're trying to run in an election with an incumbent. That's how the parties have operated since.. maybe the beginning. I don't know that I know of a time when an eligible incumbent presidential candidate didn't run. Maybe Washington?

Democrats are making the same mistake that voters are. They're treating Trump like a beatable candidate, and expecting voters to act rationally. But yet, we see people saying the same irrational thing you are, that it's better to sit out and let Trump get elected again than it is to vote for a milquetoast candidate like Biden. That's it's better for the worst evil to be elected than to vote for the lesser evil. It's irrational. And yet, here we are, with someone thinking that the Dems can spin up a national primary for couple hundred million people in a couple of weeks.

It's a fucking Hitler quote. Do we really need to analyze it for nuance?

I don't answer polls as a GenX, but I sure as hell vote in every election. I will never vote for a Republican. Polls won't capture voters like me, and voters like me are not just millennials and zoomers.

There are 13 circuit courts full of judges, all with their own lifetime appointments. I believe the proposed idea is that the current supreme court could be made up of random, rotating judges on temporary assignments from the 13 circuit courts. Currently, the 9 justices oversee one or more of the 13 circuits. So, we could expand the court to match the 13 circuits, and then, as justices retire/die, their replacements are randomly assigned to terms of 18-24 months from the circuits they oversee. It would still meet the constitutional requirements for the supreme court, as it only requires that there is a supreme Court made up of appointed justices in good standing.

I'm sure it's more complex than that, but those are the basics of the random appointments and rotating seated justices.

I'm GenX, and I wouldn't answer a poll if you paid me. I will vote, and I will never vote for a Republican for the rest of my life. If there's no Dem candidate on the ballot for a specific office, I leave it blank so they can see how many votes they're not getting when they don't run a candidate.

Read about the ramifications of SB-8. Private citizens can sue anyone who assisted or advised her in getting an abortion for $10,000 each. There is no real limit to who can be sued, as long as some tangential relationship can be made between her and getting the medical care she requires. While they can't go after her directly, almost everyone else is fair game. The limits aren't well defined, and courts haven't ruled to clarify. A pilot who pilots the plane she flies on to another state could be sued, if someone can identify a pilot by name and they can be served by Texas courts.

She ran unopposed in the last election after claiming she was going to retire. However, because the local Democratic party can't get its shit together to run a candidate, she just filed her papers and extended her career of taking those free tax dollars and putting them in her pocket.

It's terrible, and he's a terrible person. But, I had concerns that this case getting decided too fast would hurt the other case trying to overturn TX's ban. One of the arguments in the state-wide ban case was that women could go to the court and get permission for abortion as needed. That's a horrible solution that doesn't scale, but if this case was too quick to resolve, the court could use it for cover and not have to rule on the overall ban in TX.

Paxton acting like such an entitled prick about this ruling might actually help both cases survive. This case will get a stronger opinion by the judge, and the other case won't be able to just point to this case as a "see you don't need us" scapegoat way out of actually ruling on the larger ban question state-wide.

Abortion bans don't stop abortions. People with the means will travel out of state. People without the means to travel will obtain abortions by whatever means necessary. Women will die.

There were reasons why Roe was decided the way it was. Some people have forgotten history or never learned it. Women they know and women they love will die. They will remember, they will learn. It will be too late.

There are some interesting snippets in there about what she learned about how the Dem party operates vs the Republicans from when she was part of the Jan 6th committee.

In the Dems' case, the reps themselves do a lot of the work - they're actual lawyers and qualified people who can dig into the substance of an issue and go through the details in a knowledgeable way. The reps, in contrast, rely on staffers for most everything that isn't the most basic understanding. She said that the difference between how the Dem and Rep parties operate are like night and day.

I think the snippet is included as part of Lawrence O'Donnell's interview with Nancy Pelosi last night, but I might be wrong. I watched a lot of Liz Cheney talking on the news last, and heard a lot of snippets from her audiobook yesterday as well, so I'm not 100% sure, but I think the source is either Lawrence or Nicole Wallace's show.

I think one of them is out with a severe illness, too. Or, at least that's what I remember from the article with Matt Gaetz the other day. So, it might only be a 1 member majority.

To be fair, my "woman" is able to disagree with me because I didn't chain her up, hold her captive, and traffic her for my cam site (allegedly).

Or investment groups are still buying houses because they don't have to pay the same rates that individuals would, and then they're turning them into short term rentals. I just saw an article a couple of days ago about how investors bought a huge chunk of the residential market this year. For all we know, this is just more of the rich grabbing our resources to consolidate them into profits later when we've all been squeezed out.

They're not cool. They're fast and good for giving lots of shots in a situation where you need to get a lot of people in a hurry - especially if you're giving multiple vaccinations at the same time.

I got one of those used on me in basic training - a place where you need to vaccinate a few thousand people in about 30 minutes. Each one could do 4 shots at a time, and they had them in multiple configurations so you could get up to 4 in each arm for each "injection" station. We stepped through the line, and you got whatever shots you were missing in your records.

It hurts, like you could imagine a high pressure power washer with a needle-point burst with 4 heads blasting vaccines in your arms. It works, in the machine-like way the military works, and it is highly effective for mass vaccinations. So, I guess it makes it cool, but also it sucks like you'd expect 4-30 vaccines at once would suck.

If a district is 80% African American, and African Americans generally vote one 70/30 for Dems, you can select specific districts and remove a large chunk of support for Dems by challenging registrations for that district. Does it also hit some Republican voters? Yes. But this is how packing and cracking works, too - using the marginal gains to swing elections. There are many ways to target demographics without actually having any single piece of demographic information.