Because someone needs to be enslaved to provide universial health care. If even one person wants to opt out, no matter how wrong their reason you if you allow don’t allow it they are enslaved.

Congratulations, you just said the dumbest thing I’ve read on the Internet in a very long time. That’s impressive!

I pay for the military, for roads, for schools, for police, for fire departments…and I can’t opt out of any of that. So am I already a slave? If so, then I might as well get some healthcare out of the deal.

If I’m not already a slave then universal healthcare isn’t making me a slave either. No one would be forcing you to use your healthcare either.

Neighbor: Why does this dog eat so much corn!?!

Americans get cheaper EVs…

For a few years, until the American automakers go bankrupt, as you said, then the Chinese automakers increase prices 10x.

…and the legacy auto industry gets taught a valuable lesson as companies who refused to modernize go bankrupt.

What a valuable lesson, get subsidized by an authoritarian government so that you can offer vehicles below cost. Also be sure to add spyware for the aforementioned authoritarian government.

Do you even understand what below cost means? No amount of modernization will counteract it.

China is subsidizing EV production and selling cars below cost. Allowing them to be sold in the US would kill the domestic EV market. How is that better for Americans?

They may not know step 3, but they know that step 4 is PROFIT!

I don’t pay attention to the news (haven’t for many years now) and I firmly believe it’s okay that I don’t.

I also don’t vote because, at this point, I’d consider myself the definition of an uninformed voter.

You’re essentially keeping yourself ignorant, and then saying you’re too ignorant to take action. Just ridiculous.

So much of what’s presented by the media doesn’t impact my day-to-day life in the slightest.

Trump was elected and as a direct result: Roe was overturned, pregnant women are having their lives risked over non-viable pregnancies, others are forced to have children they don’t want, gun control has been struck down, Christian Nationalism is heavily asserting itself at a time when fewer and fewer people are religious, the pandemic was bungled leading to thousands and thousands of unnecessary deaths, $2t was given away to the uber-wealthy, air and water quality standards were rolled back, ultra-conservative judges have been instituting national bans from the 5th circuit, gay and trans rights have been rolled back…and on and on…and that’s without getting to all the states banning books and destroying the social safety net.

I guess you could not be a woman, not know a woman, not care about getting shot, or know anyone who you don’t want to see get shot, like oppressive religious tenets foisted upon you, not worry about dying of communicable disease, or know anyone that you wouldn’t want to see die of communicable disease, be ok with your tax dollars being given to the rich, and not be gay or trans or care about anyone who is…but you must at least breath air and drink water, right?

It all affects you, you’re just too ignorant to realize how. Your apathy and indifference are what allows shitty people to hurt others. But if you don’t care about that, no one can force you.

Have they found a way to make the remote more slippery?

The board can vote to waive it.

I’m not sure they could though. They could probably waive his ability to pledge the stock as collateral, but not sale. Ultimately, the board has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders and I’m not sure there’s a conceivable reason they could come up with that’s in the shareholders interest. Power to do it, sure, but they’re going to be defendants in a shareholder derivative suit.

He’ll stand trial, so we’ll certainly see if he’s criminally negligent or not.

Things can be electronically filed through Pacer 24 hours per day. Depending on the local rules there may be a cutoff for what is considered timely that day, but it’s usually after close of business. I wouldn’t expect any action on this today.

I don’t think it’s a patsy when the person who was criminally negligent is held accountable.

I think line item vetoes are a bit ridiculous to begin with, but no one should be able to change 2025 to 2425 with veto powers.

They could have “convinced” Mitch McConnell not to block the nomination by any thousands of legal, illegal, and extra-legal means.

No, they couldn’t.

All I’m saying is, when corporate America is in trouble, it truly seems like anything is possible.

Yes, because Democrats want to help people, and Republicans only care about ultra wealthy people and corporations. Corporate America is the overlap in this particular Venn diagram.

When actual American lives are at stake, they just shrug and bemoan the rules they’re in charge of making and enforcing.

Republicans do that and block help. See Republicans with the recent bridge collapse all the way back to super storm Sandy.

I’m sorry, but the Republicans would have fucking just steamrolled the parliamentarian, and the fact that the Democrats wouldn’t shows their milquetoast, waffling, ineffectual cowardice.

So they should have violated the rules of the Senate? They have a razor thin majority, 48 Dems and 3 independents. You would need all of them to be willing to violate the Senate rules to pass immigration as a reconciliation bill.

We could also talk about the recent immigration bill

So you go from being upset that they didn’t try to pass an immigration bill to upset that they did. The Democrats negotiated with Republicans to achieve one of two outcomes, either the Republicans go along with it and it removes the issue from the election or the Republicans torpedo it and they go into the election season having been given everything they wanted and refused it. It’s gamesmanship.

There was also the unwillingness to prosecute Bush & Cheney for war crimes.

And what court exactly would have allowed the destruction of presidential immunity for official presidential acts? The correct answer is none.

Democrats have literally spent my entire adult life PRETENDING that Republicans are operating in good faith when every available piece of evidence screams bloody murder that the Republicans are not acting in good faith.

Who has claimed this? The Republicans have become a party of obstructionism. They do not care if the government functions. That means they aren’t willing to compromise and they will use every lever of government to sabotage any work done.

If the Republicans control either chamber of the legislature, nothing can get done. If there is a republican president, nothing will get done. Your solutions are ill conceived and don’t address reality. If you just want to be angry, go ahead. Throw in a “both sides are the same” while you’re at it. I prefer pragmatism and reality.

So you are completely ignorant as to how Congress functions, but you’re also somehow positive they could have done something? That’s such confused thinking. Perhaps figure out what could have been done before complaining that it wasn’t done.

When they didn’t avoid the situation that allowed turtleman to obstruct Obama’s nomination for almost a year by not beinging it before the Senate in a blatant abuse of power.

Avoid it how? What specifically would you have liked them to do?

I hear this opinion a lot, and I always ask what specifically would you have them do? They don’t control the house, so if they can’t get Republicans to go along they can’t pass any legislation. That’s just reality.

Your comments are made in the context of the OJ story, so to say “Dont we all want our executors to try to carry out our wishes to the best of their ability?” is incredibly dishonest.

Personal representatives must pay the debts of the estate. They can decline or challenge debts that they believe to be invalid. The debt to the Goldman family is a valid judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction. What legitimate challenge is the personal representative making about the debt?

I assume the challenge is an effort to waste all of the assets of the estate on attorneys fees and administration costs. Essentially so that when a court tells them that they must pay the Goldman family that there are no assets left to pay.

Its my understanding that the executor is legally required to execute the will as defined by the will or instructions from the deceased.

You are at least partially wrong. The will cannot exceed the bounds of the law. Every state (that I’m aware of) has an order that expenses and debts are paid. An executor cannot choose to not pay a debt simply because the will says not to pay it.

The studies that I have seen said that the 1994 AWB had questionable if any effects, but that the magazine limits showed a reduction in violence. It wasn’t huge, but it was something.