So, I get that Henry Ford was an awful raging antisemite, but calling the Ford F-150 a “swasticar” feels incredibly disingenuous.

Henry Ford had obviously descended into antisemitic conspiracy theories before issuing his first publications on the matter, but those publications first started in 1920, a year after handing over the Ford Motor Company to his son. By the time the original F series truck was introduced in 1948, Henry Ford had been dead for a year.

Compare this to Elon Musk actively being involved with the design and production of the Cyber truck and giving a Nazi salute (twice) on stage while actively trying to sell his dream truck.

Trying to call both the F-150 Lightning and the Cybertruck antisemitic feels like the equivalent of calling people protesting the genocide in Gaza antisemitic.

“The highest quality oil there is on the planet, and they only gave me a drop of it…so I’m not thrilled,” Trump joked.

This headline is such bad clickbait it’s basically misinformation.

deleted by creator

No, the US GDP is about $30T and China is second with about $20T. California GDP is just over $4T, so the US would probably need to lose several other states too before being overtaken by China, though those states would be a solid #3 over Germany, assuming they left as a bloc.

Nutmegger? She’s not from CT!

The court basically said it was a separation of powers issue. The basic powers of the branches are:

• The Legislative (Congress) creates laws
• The Executive (President) actually puts those laws into action (they are “executed” by this aptly named branch)
• The Judicial (courts) interpret legality of the actions of the Executive branch based on the wording of the laws passed by Congress, and the constitutionality of those laws (that is, if the law itself is even legal to be enforced)

The Chevron Deference doctrine was the courts saying “Congress occasionally writes laws vaguely and we don’t have expertise on every subject matter, so we are going to defer the decision-making of what exactly the law means to actual experts in the Executive branch.” Congress has written laws using this logic, intentionally granting power to the Executive branch that would otherwise reside with Congress (i.e. Congress says “how much of X particulate in the air is too much? We could write a specific law stating that 500 ppm is too much, but it’s a lot of work to do that for every particulate, and the science gets updated over time, so we’ll just tell the Executive to place ‘reasonable limits’ and call it a day.”)

Now the Court has said “That power you’ve ceded to the Executive branch? That should be ours because it’s our job to interpret what laws mean. We now decide how much of X particulate is too much, even when we mix it up with Y particulate.”

It’s a blatant power grab by the Court and a separation of powers issue. Congress SHOULD be able to remedy it by specifying that this decision-making power should reside with the Executive branch and the Judiciary won’t be able to say “no mine”. I mean, this Court WILL, but a legitimate Court wouldn’t.

Even if I could afford one, the only option close to my price range is the Model 3, which has a terrible interior design. I want to have physical buttons for stuff like climate control and airflow.

Now that there are options with decent range like the Ioniq made by car manufacturers that actually care about usability and not just looking as pretty as possible, there’s no point in going for a Tesla in my brain.

You may not care not conservatives care. If Clarence Thomas can write an opinion that will let Cannon’s dismissal stand but deny Hunter Biden’s appeal, he will. The rabid need to do something to (any) Biden may override the desire to let this stand for Trump.

Having continuous pieces like this make a difference. Think of how many “Biden has to step aside!” pieces have been written in the past two weeks and how much a part of the political discussion that is. The more time the media takes up shouting from the rooftops that Trump is a threat to America, the more mainstream and central the discourse becomes.

So does Britain. Something like 75 of the last 100 years have had Conservatives in power. Obviously, what that means has changed over time, but it’s clear that every time Labour gets a shot at governing, Brits yell “Not good enough!” and put the Tories back in office.

This is exactly right - the exact same “Let’s burn down the system sell off the system to the highest briber bidder” sentiment that’s been ruling the Republicans has been eating away at the Tories as well. Now, every time leadership fails to make changes, they toss them out and put someone more extreme in their place (until you hit a Liz Truss)

I don’t disagree that their priorities are wrong, but this is not an aberration, this is the norm (and that norm should change)

What? You didn’t get to rule on a case solely based on your fucking betting pool.

This is exactly how injunctions work. It’s a combination of “how likely is the party asking for the injunction to win” and “how much damage will be done if the injunction is not granted”. It’s the same logic used to block abortion laws from going into effect and things like Trump’s gag order being enforced, while those actual cases work their way through the courts.

I REMEMBER when the ILLEGITIMATE SO-CALLED “PRESIDENT” sent his JACK BOOTED THUGS to ATTACK his political opponents - TRUE AMERICANS! - all so he could VIRTUE SIGNAL!

FTFY (translated to MAGA)

^(I do think that Trump was legitimately elected, but a system that lets the person who did not win the popular vote win the election is still bullshit)^

Now congressional Republicans want the justice department to release the audio of the interview.

To be clear on this, they already have the transcripts. They just want to be able to chop up audio so they can put clips of it on TV.

Greater Hartford checking in. This really seems more like a “people didn’t know how to do their job correctly” situation but when your job is running a fucking election, you better know how to do it right.

Also this was for a primary that (convicted felon) Joe Ganim won by 251 votes? Seriously, throw the book at them.

This sort of power-trip bullshit pisses me off so much. Kid’s “horsing around” in the hallway and it’s your job to keep the hallways calm? Then tell them to stop. Is it a pattern of behavior and they don’t listen? Assign them an official punishment with the power you’ve been given: detention of some kind (probably a lunch detention).

Trying to make them do pushups? Fuck off, this is school not the fucking army.

The station is owned by FOX Television Stations, not Sinclair. If you want to tell someone to fuck off, tell it to Rupert Murdoch, who ultimately is the owner of the FOX corp.

Seriously, blindly assuming “this must be bad because it sounds like something I dont like” and parroting an irrelevant"Fuck X" is the same thing as people saying “Dominion stole the election” when Dominion machines weren’t even in use in their county.

It’s literally the same breakup that happened with movie studios owning theaters in 1948. It’s emblematic of the state of antitrust in the past decades that we’ve let another industry get away with the exact same issue thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc.

You clearly didn’t read the article. She specifically endorsed the candidate for the school board that she ousted previously. She’s speaking against the party line. There is a real shift that happened for her, and her actions speak to it.