America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 40,465 comments
  • 1,849,409 views
R3V
Holy **** it's 74 times more likely lol. WTF is up with Americans having a seriously high death rate from just about anything? Even car deaths?
Click to expand...
I think it's because we're a much more car-dependent country, so deaths from cars are higher as such. Yet another reason that we should build more trains, especially compared to that "autonomous car" crap.

EDIT: I would think this hypothesis could be further supported if you take the actual percentage of car-related deaths in the USA and compare it to other notable nations that may not be as car-dependent, like the UK or Japan. If the percentage of car-related deaths in the USA is still remarkably higher, then there you go.
 
Last edited:
Shaun
Excuse my ignorant Australian brain but what does this mean?
Click to expand...
I think government employees in some states like Utah, Joey's specific example, have to disclose if they are registered with a political party.
 
Liquid
I think government employees in some states like Utah, Joey's specific example, have to disclose if they are registered with a political party.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the response.
Why should it even matter to an employer, government or not what someone's preferred political party is...... *



* That's not a question aimed at you @Liquid, more so just a thought to myself.
 
Shaun
Excuse my ignorant Australian brain but what does this mean?
Click to expand...
In Michigan, we have open primaries for everything except the presidential primary, which means I don't need to declare a political party except for the primary in which the presidential candidates are chosen. Even then, you tell the person at the polling place which ballot you want and you're not registered per se. In Utah, you had to declare a political party or you couldn't vote in any primary election. I learned pretty quickly that in Utah, you register as a Republican no matter what since that's essentially choosing who wins (since a Mormon Republican always wins). You could change it, but until the pandemic, it was a bit of a hassle. You can now just do it online.

Liquid
I think government employees in some states like Utah, Joey's specific example, have to disclose if they are registered with a political party.
Click to expand...
Thankfully, it's not the case, although as a state employee, I do have some restrictions. I can't participate in political activities during work time and if I were to write a column or something from the newspaper, I need to put a disclaimer that the views are my own and not the state's. There are some policies around me running for office since my salary is paid with tax dollars and our organization receives federal grants. I never really looked into though so I don't have political ambitions.
 
TexRex
Normal people doing normal things.
abc7.com

Lake Arrowhead store owner shot and killed over Pride flag hanging outside shop, officials say

According to the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department, the suspect made several disparaging remarks about a rainbow flag that stood outside the store before shooting the owner.
abc7.com abc7.com
Click to expand...
Don't everyone gasp at once.
www.vice.com

Man Who Shot Store Owner for Flying Pride Flag Was a Far-Right Conspiracist

He posted anti-gay and antisemitic conspiracy theories, and followed and reposted Jordan Peterson and Matt Walsh.
www.vice.com www.vice.com
travis-ikeguchi.jpg
ikeguchi.jpg
 
R3V
Sounds like a guy who will say whatever his lawyer wants him to say rather than the truth.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a guy who's found himself in way over his head, and way over his paygrade, in a serious matter of national security who was originally told to lie by his initial Trump-associated lawyer but is now with a lawyer trying to act on his clients best interests, not Trump's best interests.
 
R3V
Sounds like a guy who will say whatever his lawyer wants him to say rather than the truth.
Click to expand...
Well, we know that's not Trump because he usually will say what his lawyer doesn't want him to say.
 
Texas' "deathstar" law is...kind of insane par for the course.

This part is particularly eye-opening:

The sweeping language of Death Star is likely seen more as a feature than a bug by the bill’s drafter, state Rep. Dustin Burrows, who all but brags that it is going to fall to the courts to decide what regulations are actually preempted. Importantly, the bill contains a provision that allows any individual or trade association to challenge any local regulation in court—and, if they prevail, requires the county or city to pay all the challenger’s costs and “reasonable” legal fees. Those who challenge a regulation and lose have to pay those costs only if the court finds the challenge “frivolous,” leaving the city to pay its own costs (though not those of the challenger) if it wins cases the courts see as non-frivolous. So, county and city governments assume financial risk if they attempt to defend a regulation and clarify Death Star’s reach.
Click to expand...

Whatever conservatives, particularly those in Texas, do believe in, good faith anything and respect for democracy ain't on the list.
 
Conservatives have only ever been about "local control" when local is the broadest control they can muster.
 
I'm sure if I went on the cesspit that is Xitter, there would absolutely be more than one person with the comment "Vaxxed?"

He's likely having a TIA though and every time he does have one, the risk for a major CVA increases substainally.
 
I would say he should retire and live out the rest of his days in a peaceful state...but I think his peaceful state is lording over the US Senate so....carry on?
 
pbswisconsin.org

What are the prospects of Wisconsin Republicans impeaching Protasiewicz?

Could language in the state’s Constitution allow Republicans to sideline the Wisconsin Supreme Court's new left-wing majority? The left-leaning Janet Protasiewicz overwhelmingly won a seat to the court in the ...
pbswisconsin.org pbswisconsin.org

The feckless rats of the WIGOP are looking to cling to their gerrymandered maps by threatening impeachment of newly seated Justice Protosiewicz. Their end goal isn't really to remove her, as per the state constitution the governor is given power to select the replacement of an SC justice should they be convicted and removed, but rather to slow-walk a trial in order to prevent her from presiding over the much anticipated redistricting case, which could possibly push it to 2026. I just hate the fact we're at a point where we need to have a war game over how to maneuver through whatever garbage the GOP threaten because they've abandoned adhering to democracy; it's become a given on anything happening at the state level here, and we're likely going to endure the consequences. Screw Robin Vos and his merry band of losers that are bent on opposing the will of the people and ruining our state.
 
TexRex
franklarat.jpg

www.13abc.com

Proposed Ohio constitutional amendment would end qualified immunity for state workers

Qualified immunity protects state employees, including police officers, from civil lawsuits.
www.13abc.com www.13abc.com
This bitch is mad because a proposed amendment to the state's constitution threatens to strip the state's civil servants of broad immunity from lawsuits for constitutional rights violations perpetrated against citizens. THE HORROR!!!

The amendment may stand a chance (though hurdles still remain) to be passed because Republican efforts to upend a provision that has been in the state's constitution for 111 years (that's no typo--the [ballot] Initiative and Referendum Process Amendment was added to the Ohio State Constitution one-hundred and eleven years ago) were thwarted by Ohio voters by the very means for which the amendment provides. Ohio's Issue 1, if it had passed, would have changed the number of votes for an amendment initiative to appear on the November ballot from a simple majority to a 60% supermajority as well as requiring petition signatures from all 88 of the state's counties instead of half and removing a period of time allowing for any errors in petition signatures to be fixed. Issue 1 came about in response to petitions for an amendment protecting the right to abortion in Ohio, and because Republicans didn't like the rules allowing for direct democracy that have been in effect in the state for over a century.
Click to expand...
reason.com

From ‘fetus’ to ‘unborn child’: Ohio adopts biased ballot summary of abortion amendment

Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose—who said the attempt was "100 percent" about thwarting the abortion measure—has a new tack to stack the deck.
reason.com reason.com
Ohio Republicans failed in an attempt to doom an abortion rights ballot initiative by changing the threshold of votes needed for it to pass. Now, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose—who said the attempt was "100 percent" about thwarting the abortion measure—has a new tack to stack the deck against it: using highly charged and potentially misleading ballot language.

Backers of the measure are, in turn, suing over the LaRose-approved ballot summary.

The measure, dubbed Issue 1, will be put to Ohio voters this fall and would amend the Ohio Constitution to make explicit that the state protects reproductive freedom.

It would add a "Right to Reproductive Freedom" section to the Ohio Constitution, stating that "every individual has a right to make and carry out one's own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to decisions on: contraception; fertility treatment; continuing one's own pregnancy; miscarriage care; and abortion. The State shall not, directly or indirectly, burden, penalize, prohibit, interfere with, or discriminate against either: an individual's voluntary exercise of this right or a person or entity that assists an individual exercising this right" unless it "demonstrates that it is using the least restrictive means to advance the individual's health in accordance with widely accepted and evidence-based standards of care."

The proposed amendment goes on to say that the state could still ban abortion "after fetal viability" (defined as "the point in a pregnancy when, in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient's treating physician, the fetus has a significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus"). However, post-viability bans could not apply in situations where "the pregnant patient's treating physician" deems an abortion necessary "to protect the pregnant patient's life or health."

Backers of the amendment proposed putting its full text on the ballot. That seems like it should be pretty uncontroversial, no? When it comes to something as weighty as amending the state's constitution, it's good to give voters all of the context and facts.

But in a 3-2 vote last week, the Ohio Ballot Board—which contains LaRose as a member—rejected the idea that this fall's ballots should include the amendment's full text. Instead, they opted for summary language submitted by LaRose's office.

The summary text characterizes the bit about post-viability bans and their exceptions by saying the amendment would "always allow an unborn child to be aborted at any stage of pregnancy, regardless of viability, if, in the treating physician's determination the abortion is necessary to protect the pregnant woman's life or health."

It uses the phrase unborn child instead of fetus.

It leaves off any mention of specific reproductive rights other than abortion, omitting the amendment's references to contraception, fertility treatments, continuing a pregnancy, and miscarriage care.

Instead of saying that the amendment would restrict "the State"—defined in the proposed amendment as "any governmental entity and any political subdivision"—from interfering with reproductive freedom, it says it would block "the citizens of the State of Ohio" from doing so.

And instead of saying the amendment would give Ohioans the "right to make and carry out one's own reproductive decisions," it says it would guarantee the right to one's own "reproductive medical treatment." Backers of the amendment suggest this change falsely implies that the amendment would make the state provide and fund abortions.

The new language "is blatantly misleading and purposefully inaccurate," asserted Rep. Elliot Forhan (D–South Euclid).

"The entire summary is propaganda," said Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights co-chair Lauren Blauvelt.

LaRose is "the public servant responsible for conducting free and fair elections in Ohio" but he's "playing dirty to win. It's wrong," opined journalist Marilou Johanek in the Ohio Capital Journal.

LaRose called the new language "fair and accurate."

The Ohio Ballot Board is supposed to be a neutral arbiter of ballot language. But before voting on the language, board member and state Sen. Theresa Gavarone made it clear that she's anything but neutral. "This is a dangerous amendment that I'm going to fight tirelessly against," she said.

"Gavarone also claimed, as anti-abortion groups throughout the state do as well, that the amendment is 'an assault on parental rights,'" but "neither the amendment nor the summary approved by the board mention parental rights of any kind," notes the Ohio Capital Journal. "The senator continued her comments during the board meeting, saying the true nature of the amendment 'is hidden behind overly broad language,' despite the fact that the board summary took out pieces of the full text."

This week, Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit challenging the proposed ballot summary, calling it "irreparably flawed" and aimed at misleading Ohioans into voting no on the proposal. The group is asking the Ohio Supreme Court to order the board "to reconvene and adopt the full text of the Amendment as the ballot language" or, alternatively, to "adopt ballot language that properly and lawfully describes the Amendment."
Click to expand...
 
Danoff
thehill.com

Greene calls McConnell unfit for office after 2nd freeze-up

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) called Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) “not fit for office” after he appeared to freeze up at a podium Wednesday for the second time in …
thehill.com thehill.com

Still more fit than you Marge
Click to expand...
Physically she is more fit. Mentally? I think after Mitch passes he will still be more capable for the position than MTG.
 
Clarence Thomas: "Look, I flew on the private jet of my buddy the Republican mega-donor because I feared for my life after the Dobbs leak."

["And what about the trips before the Dobbs leak?"]

Clarence Thomas:
 

Similar threads

Ross
  • Poll
Britain - The Official Thread
444 445 446
Replies
13K
Views
626K
sirjim73
sirjim73
Harley45
What did you do in GT7 today?
452 453 454
Replies
14K
Views
767K
jesse100190
J
The_Greaser
Forza Motorsport (2023): The Bugfest Thread
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
19K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Dotini
Trump's Legacy: the US Space Force and conservative judges
Replies
1
Views
838
Dotini
Dotini
Joey D
High Altitude Objects Over North America
2 3
Replies
77
Views
7K
TB
TB

Latest Posts

Back