

Isn’t ticket voting available there? Can’t Republicans just say “Republican” and boom that locks their vote for those races?
I can’t feel sorry for them giving how they’re just redistricting in the middle of an election year.


Isn’t ticket voting available there? Can’t Republicans just say “Republican” and boom that locks their vote for those races?
I can’t feel sorry for them giving how they’re just redistricting in the middle of an election year.


True. They can’t. But most of these systems have high voltage AC pumping into them, so folks should be aware that it’s 415/480V AC or 800V DC bus until you get to the internal bus bar.
Definitely now play thing voltages on most of the exposed wiring.


Looked it up. He does indeed have a trademark for “Change my mind”.
No doubt it has already been genericized. The court ruling anything other than that would be surprising. Pretty much anything that becomes hyper memed gets this treatment.


I had just already assumed that, but good to know it’s been confirmed.
And dude was properly shutdown by El-Sayed and exposed for the hypocrisy him and his group stand for.


because people need to understand that there’s serious consequences for these types of things
Everyone understands that. That’s not a question.
All this will do is provide something inside these terror networks to play over and over and over to their recent converts. A public execution of these radical attacks only serves to encourage more of the exact same thing. There’s no part of it that’s discouraging.
These terror networks will literally play it over and over again. They will tell their people. “Hasan killed 13 of them and he is now dead and in heaven for his actions. The US will make you all martyrs and your kin will know your acts.”
Like Hegseth has literally no clue who he is dealing with. The people who he acts like this will discourage, all it will do is make happier to jump at the chance to have the same thing happen to them. He’s going to make the best recruitment tool for these terror organizations.


No. Additionally, Tennessee does not have firing squad as a listed method of execution.
(b) Any person who commits an offense prior to January 1, 1999, for which the person is sentenced to the punishment of death may elect to be executed by electrocution by signing a written waiver waiving the right to be executed by lethal injection.
That’s her only option, outside of the savings clause in (d) which permits any other method if all other methods listed are unconstitutional.
Also for your other question, yes. Things like espionage, high treason, aid and comfort to the enemy, large scale drug trafficking, etc… But usually if it isn’t because you murder someone, it has to be that you’ve done something really bad. Like if you gave tactical blueprints of thermonuclear devices employed by the United States to North Korea and the blueprints for the vehicle to deliver those devices, yeah, that’s getting up there.

If the cost of keeping humans is higher than the cost of automating, they’ll just automate the process. Or have the place ran by wire, where humans pilot lifts remotely.


Oh man, this is a doozy. You aren’t wrong but I’ve got to get some sleep. To explain this is A LOT.
The thing is the Leahy Law doesn’t put the power directly in the President’s hands. It grants the vetting process to the Secretary of State. Which is a member of the cabinet of the President. Which I don’t know how familiar you are with how the Executive Office works or not. But Secretary of State Antony Blinken is the one who wields the power to deny Israel’s aid.
There’s Executive Orders (EO) that the President can give but there’s the whole “what if” Blinken quits given an EO and then we have to get the Senate involved which is currently 50-50 on Republicans and Democrats. Which that turns it even more complex and Senators can delay confirmation until after the election or if they’re really bitter, until next year. Which means that everything that requires a Secretary of State would get put on pause.
I get that everyone thinks the President gets to have the final say, but the President orders people around on EOs, which the various Secretaries can just quit if they don’t want to follow them, and then that kicks everything to the Senate. That’s kind of a built in protection in our system of Government to prevent a President becoming a dictator. If a President wants XYZ done and the Secretary thinks that’s bad, they quit and the Senate becomes involved potentially delaying the President forever.
There’s way more background on why Blinken has only stopped two aids and also because of classification reasons, not every stopping of aid can be published, unless the President does so since the President has unilateral authority on classification markings (except for anything related to the name of spies and nuclear bomb designs, that is one of the few things that requires both the President and Congress to sign off on, there’s a few other exceptions as well but I won’t go into them).
But anyways, Blinken is the one who can stop aid. The President could order him, but he could also quit, which means the Senate would get involved, and I can explain why all of that would be messy if you need me to.
why can’t he veto the military aid
The President only has veto power on bills that have passed both the House and the Senate. Once something becomes law, the President “has” to carry it out. There’s a ton of background on “Executive Discretion” and any time the President wants to exercise discretion, Congress can sue, which then brings the matter into the other branch, the Judicial. Plenty of States that would sign on, to a Congressional suit (which that’s a requirement for Congress to sue the President, at least one State has to join in).
So Biden could use Discretion to delay funding, and he’s done that quite a few times, but he can’t just outright NOT pay when the law requires him to do so. That discretion comes from a kind of EO called a “Reviewing Executive Order” and it requires a department to “review” ((insert whatever the topic is)). That’s a delay, but it isn’t a halt. The President has to follow the law as well. So if we have a law that says, “we provide $xxx to Israel’s Iron Dome”, we have to send that money to them at some point.
A lot of the funds that Israel is getting, is funding they secured before the Gaza invasion. There’s been recent upping of that funding that Congress has passed, but that’s been on things called Continuing Resolutions (CR). Republicans in the House (who are the ones who control what the US Budget is) have been using CRs to get choice things enacted. That’s because Republicans in the House have passed rules on how a budget may be formed in the House that are impossible to comply with (which that’s a whole long story). So if Democrats in the House refuse to accept the CRs the Republicans offer, the Government shuts down.
Anyways, that’s been a lot already. If you need me to clear anything up, let me know. But Harris likely wouldn’t have Blinken as Secretary of State, which would fix A WHOLE LOT. But I don’t know, because if the election isn’t kind to Democrats in the Senate and Republicans have a majority in the Senate, they could block Harris’ Sec. of State unless they specifically pledged to support Israel. Now they could absolutely lie about that, but then Congress could also impeach them, but that would cut off aid to Israel for some time as that’s not an easy process to impeach a secretary of state.


I just don’t get how people are looking at Harris’ stance as being pro-genocide. Biden is the President and historically, foreign policy during the tenure of the President by the Vice President doesn’t veer too far off from the President. That said, Harris has absolutely called for investigation into the suffering of civilians in the conflict.
Congress sets the budgetary amount of aid to direct to Israel and the President distributes the money via their diplomatic channels. There are very few options for the President to just suspend funding, which Biden has done twice for weapons under the rules established within 10 USC § 362 (a)(1)
Of the amounts made available to the Department of Defense, none may be used for any training, equipment, or other assistance for a unit of a foreign security force if the Secretary of Defense has credible information that the unit has committed a gross violation of human rights.
But outside that, there’s very little the President can do once Congress approves funding and that funding has been signed into law. This is why an independent channel investigation is required and is exactly what Harris has called for. This would allow the the US Government to establish their own inquiry into the human abuses. This would give the required evidence to cancel funding under Title XII authority. But none of that can happen overnight. It’s not an easy path to override the will of Congress.
On the opposite side, Trump has indicated that he will absolutely turn a blind eye to the whole thing and allow Israel to determine solely the “best” course of action for their current conflict. Trump has literally stated in his rallies:
From the start, Harris has worked to tie Israel’s hand behind its back, demanding an immediate cease-fire, always demanding cease-fire
Trump would not see a cease-fire as a required condition for the on-going conflict.
Harris and Democrats historically have called for a two-state solution. Trump’s plan which has been broadly adopted by the Republican party in general would:
Trump has all but given up completely on a two-state solution. Which means, he’s for a one state solution. And people are fooling themselves if they believe that Trump would seek a “peaceful” one state solution. He has told Netanyahu directly, “Just get it done quickly”. Now we can play a game as what manner is used to “get it done quickly” means, but only idiots are the one’s thinking that doesn’t give a tacit nod to ethic cleansing.
I just have no idea what these people who think Harris is a bad idea for Palestinians are actually thinking. And really, I don’t think they are thinking at all. You have one solution that is long, stupid, and required because we are a nation of laws. And you have the other solution that is “fuck it, firebomb them all and call it done”. It is difficult to imagine that there are truly people this blind and ignorant to this reality. But yet, here we are.
The notion that we might get a 3rd party into office like twenty years from now if we start today, helps nobody if the people we’re trying to help are all eradicated over the next four years. Going down this “third road” only ensures an outcome where we are fifteen years too late to help.
Yeah. It’s not some magic money printer. It’s got use cases and it’s got abuse cases.
Lots of companies finding out expensive lessons on which is which.
LLMs aren’t going to replace a workforce, isn’t going to maintain your entire enterprise stack, and isn’t going to be able to handle the bulk of your CSR work.
But there sure are lots of people blowing millions trying to see if they can be the “one off” from everyone else who failed.