Could you explain this? I don’t understand what the affordable care act has to do with filibustering.
Democrats needed 60 votes to break the Republican filibuster, which they had, except that Lieberman refused to vote until they stripped the public option from the bill.
If the Democrats had supported Ned Lamont, the man who actually won the primary, instead of standing by the man who had seniority on his side, we’d probably have a public option now.
So you’d be OK if we still had segregation, as long as the people enforcing it were Democrats? People like you we don’t need in the party.
Did I fucking say that?
If you think I did, which is the only way to read the second sentence, then congratulations on not being able to understand who/what the actual ‘’‘enemy’‘’ is.
Or, it could have played out exactly the same way. Or the public option could have been included, and the whole thing got shot down.
Or, while Lamont won the primary and got put on the ticket, he didn’t have enough name recognition and not enough people vote for him, so he lost to a Republican.
Or anything could have happened.
You’re basing your objection on a hypothetical AND you’re saying that the ACA is worthless because one thing you wanted didn’t get passed.
Democrats complain when they don’t get exactly what they want. Meanwhile, McConnell tried to get and failed the ACA repealed for years, but you don’t hear Republicans complaining that he didn’t do anything.
Tell me. Was this more important than losing Social Security?
We lost Social Security? When did that happen?
This is really stupid - playing soccer with a decapitated head. You could hurt your foot doing that.
At least he didn’t attempt heading the head. Ouch!
So, it would actually have to happen before you care about it?
Republicans have been gunning for social security and Medicare since Reagan.
They’ve been gunning for it since Roosevelt.
A nearby fire department was doing a “controlled” burn. The embers got away from them, burning holes in nearby houses and burning someone’s business to the ground.
I’m not putting this here because of the FD. As of right now, I’m okay with the assumption that it was an accident and the FD has taken full responsibility. From the fire chief:
“First and foremost, apologize for any of the damages that were caused by the burning and let them know we fully intend, both the fire department and the town, to work with them in order to fix the damages and, or replace anything that was damaged,”
My issue is with the city administrator. Now, maybe he was trying not to make promises he can’t keep, maybe he just wasn’t thinking about what he was saying, maybe he was trying to manage expectations, but:
The town’s administrator said business owners and homeowners can file a claim with the town, then the town’s board will decide what’s covered.
Decide what’s covered? How about all of it? ISTM these people need to be made whole again. Fix their properties, put them up in a hotel /Air B&B if need be, repay the salon owner and her employees for any lost income, bring their properties up to code if they’re not* etc.
Reminds me of when the city hit my mailbox. I learned the max they’ll pay out is $100. Doesn’t matter if you had an expensive mailbox or you need to hire someone to replace it, the most you’re getting is $100.
IOW, this should be treated exactly how it would be treated if I had a (legal) bonfire and the embers burned down the neighbor’s house. I don’t get to say ‘well, we’ll see what my insurance covers’.
*Remodeling usually means bringing anything that wasn’t up to code and grandfathered in, up to code. My business actually has insurance coverage for exactly that.
Governments have generally pretty broad immunity from civil suit. One of the consequences of that is that ordinary notions of civil liability for damages don’t exactly apply to them. The moral notions might, but the legal ones don’t.
Exactly where the town board will come down on spending other taxpayer’s money to repair one taxpayer’s house or business remains to be seen.
Reported hazing death involving a Southern University fraternity.
But it was in good fun and like, bonding, man. So no “rushing to judgement”.
Oh. Omega Psi Phi. There was a reason we all hid out when they proposed exchanging pledges for a day.
Hopefully they will downgrade the charge to broslaughter and allow them to plead “My bad”.
BMFO (Believe Musk and Find Out):
A Tesla Cybertruck sank in Ventura harbor in California when trying to launch a jetski despite Tesla CEO Elon Musk saying that you could use the truck as a boat.
Elon Musk has often made claims before about how Tesla vehicles could float and briefly serve as a boat.
They have never been taken too seriously because Tesla’s warranty says something different about taking the vehicle into the water.
Ahead of launching the production version of the Cybertruck, Musk claimed the vehicle would be “waterproof enough” to serve as a boat and cross rivers:
Cybertruck will be waterproof enough to serve briefly as a boat, so it can cross rivers, lakes and even seas that aren’t too choppy.
The CEO added that the goal is for a Cybertruck to be able to cross the water between SpaceX’s Starbase and South Padre Island in Texas, which is about 360 meters (1,100 feet).
We have been taking the Cybertruck more seriously with water because we learned that Tesla built a ‘wade mode’ for the truck to be able to go into the water. Tesla says the mode increases the ride height to the max and “pressurizes the battery pack.”
The problem is that it is activated through the off-roading mode, which is not covered under Tesla’s warranty – so we are taking everything with a grain of salt.
(Bolding added.)
One of the comments used the name ‘Lone Skum,’ which I had not seen/heard before. But it’s accurate.
What are the lawsuit implications, I wonder, if the warrantee said one thing, but the CEO said another?
Ventura harbor is salt water (Duh).
I suspect that CT will not react well to its bath. Neither its mechanical systems nor the electronic ones. I wonder what sorts of insidious galvanic corrosion will be put into train?
Darn good bet the owner’s conventional car insurance will deny any claim as “deliberate owner/operator abuse.” Oopers.
Well, the truck sank so he couldn’t have been using off-roading mode. Which means that the truck was covered by the warranty. So Musk was right.
Makes perfect sense, provided you can contort your mind into a Möbius strip.
It is certainly easy enough to lose control of a tow vehicle and have it end up sliding down the ramp until it’s fully in the water. Or get into the water & stopped properly, but lack the traction to climb back out on the algae- & mud-fouled underwater part of the ramp. It’s extra easy to do that launching jetskis because the trailer tongue is very short and so you end up with the tow vehicle farther into the water than you might with a larger boat & trailer.
Anyhow, this doesn’t appear to be a case of an owner trying to boat his CT. It slipped into the water the same way any other tow vehicle might’ve. But for sure it then failed to meet musk’s claims of sucessfully boating / floating.
I’m now much less convinced there’s grounds for the owner’s insurer to deny a comp claim. As to Tesla denying a warrantee claim I have no clue. Color me skeptical from first principles though.
Funny, that’s how Mitch McConnell’s sister in law died. I wonder if that’s behind his recent change of attitude about Trump?