One tip I heard was asking “how” questions as follow-ups, rather than “what” questions? It tends to encourage people to think through how the conspiracies might actually work, rather than just jumping from point A to point B.
As well-intended as this article might have ascribed, it felt like it was all over the place.
I have a counter-point that I’d like to hear your thoughts on: at least to some degree, it seems like part of the housing crisis is caused by private equity firms not being restricted from buying up property, artificially reducing the supply of housing that can be purchased by then renting it out, which artificially increases the cost of housing and making it less accessible. More of the population then has less wealth, while smaller portions of the population end up with more wealth, again making homeownership farther out of reach.
This is a facially stupid law. (And by “facially stupid,” I’m not even addressing the morally bankrupt policy implications, but rather critiquing the framework that is wholly untethered from how the law and a system of justice works.)
… the cruelty is the point.
Look, this is politics and all, but blatant false equivalencies in a world of disinformation is dangerous, unenlightening, and unproductive. I’ll leave it for now, but try to be more thoughtful in the future.
I turned a ring “box” on a lathe and my fiancée said “yes!”
Depending on the timeline, it isn’t unreasonable to expect an amended complaint based on allegations in the indictment that was released by Jack Smith yesterday.
HIPAA only applies to a small subset of people/entities. It requires that subset to be careful with healthcare data. So if a doctor gives you a diagnosis, HIPAA requires the doctor treat that information carefully. If you share that same exact information with your electrician, and then the electrician shares that same exact information with her seamstress, your electrician has not violated HIPAA because you disclosed it to someone that isn’t considered a “covered entity.” HIPAA is far more about regulating who or where the disclosure comes from, than it is about the substance of the information.
Having worked in somewhat proximity to her, I can say that everyone already knew she was working for the Republicans, so it really wasn’t a surprise. In all likelihood, this is a gambit because she knew she would be primaried if she ran as a Democrat again (her positions were that obtuse).
Edit: Changes made to be more in line with Be(e)ing respectful of everyone.
It’s difficult to overstate how disastrous a ruling in this case going the other way could have been, on top of the corrupting influence of large amounts of money already involved in politics and how gerrymandered districts already are.
We both can look out on society and agree that the way things are can and should be better, but I find it funny that you’re ostensibly arguing for progressive policy reform using logic that parallels the logic used by proponents of school choice. Stay with me, and I’ll explain how.
I think we can both agree that in order for schools to function and be effective, they need some level of financial support to operate. It’s no secret that for decades, financial support for education has been slashed across the board.
Proponents of school choice typically argue that if public schools will not or cannot perform at satisfactory levels, the students should be able to go to another school, and some level of pro rata funding should follow them to that new school. This effectively punishes schools that have been long-underfunded with financial support, which plays a factor in that under-performing, and then takes away even more financial support.
Assuming you’re familiar with the procedural aspects of how governing works, you understand that to enact legislation and policies you’re in favor of takes a threshold level of support to accomplish that. Because of gerrymandering, antiquated frameworks for distribution representation, and the the Electoral College, Democrats have hardly been in a position to enact progressive legislation that isn’t obstructed by a president, one of the legislative chambers — or even once it is passed, that isn’t overturned by a Supreme Court detached from precedent and reason.
In both cases, the support necessary to operate a sufficiently resourced school, or to get a piece of legislation across the finish line, is clearly lacking. The solution to that problem is more support, not less. Schools need more financial support to reach their goals, and Democrats need more support in Congress to pass legislation. The position you’re defending right now is now is effectively expecting schools/Democrats to do more with less.