Bugsy posted:

He and Burkman have been busy accosting people is the worst To Catch a Predator ripoff ever. With the supposed predator being there to meet a 36 year old woman, and knowing that he was going to meet a 36 year old woman. No clue how they aren't in a Maryland jail for surrounding this guy with drawn pistols.


https://twitter.com/SeamusHughes/status/1754671978558996586

Rappaport posted:

It sort of makes sense. If you saw Doctor Doom walking down the street, you know he's probably up to no good. Now, throwing a can at him might back-fire as he has those blasters in his hands, and he knows magic, too, but still.

Name Change posted:

Spiderman gets reset because Sony needs to keep making Spiderman movies in order to avoid fully losing the IP rights to Disney. Nobody really wants to spend their entire career playing Batman, either. These parts are starmaking, but physically difficult, frustrating, and often shallow.

Wayne Knight posted:

Did I click the wrong thread

Eric Cantonese posted:

Wasn't he a popular governor? Is Maryland's GOP that far gone?

Discendo Vox posted:

May be tied to the Russian diversion of starlink systems.

RBA Starblade posted:

I bet it's anti-satellite weaponry now; there's been rumbling about that before too.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

This election cycle is likely to be a rematch from 2020.

We might also be getting a second throwback from the last election cycle: Another recall vote in California.

California requires that you give a reason for any recall campaign. In 2020, it was because of unconstitutional covid restrictions. This time, it is because there is a $73 billion budget shortfall that they blame on Newsom traveling across the country instead of being in Sacramento to negotiate a balanced budget for the state.

https://twitter.com/RecallGavinNow/status/1762212771595464841

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Remember how they had that huge rush of Republicans coming out with public statements to assure everyone that they support IVF and would never attempt to ban it (despite voting for bills that ban it)?

Turns out that now that they have had some time to think about it, they still want you know that they absolutely support IVF as a concept, but are actually fine with banning it and will block any attempts to legalize it federally.



https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ivf-...62e28d5ba35f850

Josef bugman posted:

Not really, more seeing that the problem is "I want to win and to do that I will support a fascist materially" is kind of bad. Like, if you think the dude will win great, but why on earth would you pour money into someone who wants to do some heinous poo poo solely because you want to make it easier on yourself?

The Glumslinger posted:

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

A tale of two housing policies:

Arizona Governor vetoes a bipartisan housing bill over concerns that it isn't "balanced" in considering current homeownership home values and building new housing because it errs too far on the side of new construction. Also, because the Department of Defense objected to increased density and new construction near military bases.

The DoD complaint seems like a fig leaf that could easily be changed and it is mostly about appeasing people who are terrified about new housing attracting traffic/crime or reducing property values.

https://twitter.com/brahmresnik/status/1769799663010349119
https://twitter.com/brahmresnik/status/1769802308370465074

On the other hand, the WSJ reports on Austin's rapid homebuilding project, but frames it as a negative because rents and home values have fallen 7% since they started allowing significantly more housing construction and engaged in "overbuilding" according to the WSJ.

https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1769710393125974503

zoux posted:

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1770586868205175030

https://twitter.com/highbrow_nobrow/status/1770529039729492115

https://twitter.com/RollingStone/status/1770817640522481928

Jesus christ are they point shaving? Raising the retirement age is one of the most unpopular policies out there.

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

The problem with this reasoning is that every job is in some sense "essential" or nobody would be paid to do it; this reasoning is effectively a negation of the right to strike whenver workers have leverage. Soldiers have frequently gone on strike, and doctors have also recently in the UK, mostly because they weren't being paid enough to live on.

I believe what they're doing in the UK is essentially just declaring that nurses are just as good as doctors now so fewer people get to see doctors, DWI. Removing worker's leverage is a short term solution not a long term solution.

mobby_6kl posted:

Ok how much are the employees working on the X-Files paid

Willa Rogers posted:

Yesterday The Baltimore Sun published the results of the U.S. Senate poll the toplines of which I mentioned the other day in which Hogan is burying both Democratic candidates in head-to-heads, while the millionaire Trone looks to be the likely D candidate.

The sample for this poll was a respectable 1300 likely voters for the general election with a much smaller 600 likely voters for the D primary subset.

At this point in time that bipartisan support for & approval of Hogan as governor has really paid off for his Senate run. The margin of his lead in the g.e. is greater than any other R candidate running for the Senate this year among recent polling.

Biden won the state by 33 points in 2020, and Black voters comprise around 30 percent of the electorate, two data points that buttress how unusually well Hogan is doing there.

The DSCC has some heavy lifting to do in order to make him toxic to voters over the next six months.

Majorian posted:

Okay, so if it would be so easy, can you please answer my original question, ie: on what legal grounds would SCOTUS overturn a federal law legalizing abortion? There needs to be a case for them to make a ruling. What would that case be, why are we sure that it would make it up through the court system all the way to SCOTUS, etc?

Bear in mind, this argument only came up because someone's answer to "The Dems should have codified Roe into law when they had a majority" was "Well, SCOTUS would have overturned it anyway." I am challenging that answer, because I do not think things would have been that simple.

Raenir Salazar posted:

Seems to me like a straight forward interstate commerce clause argument that the government has a legitimate interest in regulating skilled trades to spur innovation by regulating onerous burdens by employers on employees that no longer work for them.

The article doesn't claim exactly what law the FTC says non-competes violate, if its existing law that the FTC has finally gotten around to interpret correctly then the USSC is probably even less likely to reverse it. And many states already ban or regulate non-competes, I'm not sure I see five votes to overturn.

the FTC posted:

the Commission assesses two elements: (1) whether the conduct is a method of
competition, as opposed to a condition of the marketplace, and (2) whether it is unfair, meaning
that it goes beyond competition on the merits. The latter inquiry has two components:
(a) whether the conduct has indicia of unfairness, and (b) whether the conduct tends to negatively
affect competitive conditions. These two components are weighed according to a sliding scale.

Non-competes with workers other than senior executives satisfy all the elements of the
section 5 inquiry.390 As described in Part IV.B.2, such non-competes are facially unfair because
they are restrictive and exclusionary, and because they are exploitative and coercive. And as
described in Part IV.B.3, such non-competes tend to negatively affect competitive conditions in
labor markets and markets for products and services. As explained in Part II.F, the legal standard
for an unfair method of competition under section 5 requires only a tendency to negatively affect
competitive conditions. The inquiry does not turn on whether the conduct directly caused actual
harm in a specific instance. Here, the tendency of non-competes to impair competition is obvious
from their nature and function. And even if this tendency were not facially obvious, the evidence
confirms that non-competes do in fact have a negative effect on competitive conditions.

Nucleic Acids posted:

And all of this is less frightening to me than the same app being owned by a right wing American billionaire who lets US intelligence do whatever they want.

TheDeadlyShoe posted:

The US has plenty of green subsidies and has for decades. But subsidies can take many forms. For example, right now in the US you can get a pile of cash from the government to buy an EV.

But if instead that cash went directly to a manufacturer instead of to consumers, EVs would be priced lower... Then those companies could ship those cheap EVs to foreign markets and outcompete all the local manufacturers. Those foreign governments probably wouldn't be fans tho.