That’s an obvious strawman argument. How about a spectrum between high taxes, generous social safety net and low taxes, skimpy social safety net? There are people with beliefs all along that spectrum. Of course, then there are people who want low taxes and a generous social safety net, but that’s another matter.
Yes but also no. There are many people who don’t have strong political opinions. Sometimes they’re misidentified as centrists. But there are people who have strongly held political positions that fall in the center of the political spectrum. Then, of course, there is center-left and center-right. They’re still politically engaged, but don’t have much patience for the policy proposals put forward by the far left and far right.
This truly is the strangest timeline, where Serious Journalists write about rumors of JD Vance having sex with a couch.
Well Mr. Trump, if you hadn’t dragged your heels for years, this wouldn’t still be going during the election.
Because we are in the weirdest timeline.
There is that, but the larger explosion in housing prices can be largely chalked up to under supply in popular markets.
Car prices: supply is constrained because of supply chain issues where often just a small handful of the myriad of chips in the car are unavailable.
Housing: supply is artificially constrained by various laws, often of the NIMBY type.
Oregonians also get a voters guide with statements from candidates and for/against statements for ballot measures. It is useful in combination with other sources of information. And we do entirely vote by mail, so we have time to do a little research.
Yup, that’s the point. The journalist who wrote OP’s article should know better. The Logan Act is functionally dead. As much as I hate Trump, it would be a bad thing if he was prosecuted under it because it would clearly be a case of selective prosecution.
There is the Logan Act, but he likely would not be prosecuted under it, let alone convicted. From Wikipedia:
Only two people have ever been indicted on charges of violating the Act, one in 1802 and the other in 1852. Neither was convicted.
The Logan Act gets talked about much more than it has ever been used. There’s also a debate as to whether the Logan Act is even unconstitutional.
The abnormal is normal when it comes to Trump.
Plenty of activists, even those with radical opinions, take that approach. They have a long term goal in mind, but to get to that goal they try to make incremental changes with the power they have.
Hermione got involved in house-elf welfare as an adult and was successful. I am not sure where that is covered, I think maybe Cursed Child? I don’t know much about what happens after the series is over, so I can’t speak to that in detail.
The fatphobia is real, but I’ve never bought the bit about the books being against Hermione’s anti-slavery stance (I assume that’s what you mean by a woman who speaks up as well). My interpretation was that Hermione was always assumed to be in the right because slavery is almost universally condemned in modern society. But she’s standing up against a system where even one of her two closest friends has been indoctrinated into it. Standing up to “others” is hard, but standing up to peer pressure is harder.
That said, the depiction of chattel slavery is of course inaccurate. Slave revolts were common, whereas the house elves want to be subservient to humans. I guess that could be marked up to house elves being a distinct species that may have been manipulated to be subservient, but that’s never explained.
This is under French law, though, and it’s cyberbullying law instead of defamation.
What does that even look like as a business model, though? There’s an expectation now that you don’t pay for web browsers. What would a standalone Chrome, Inc. look like?
I started looking into this further and the tweet is misleading. To start with, the graphic is totally inaccurate. This was a vote by the UN Human Rights Council, not the full general assembly. The US was the only country that voted against, with one abstaining. Israel wasn’t involved. It’s also worth emphasizing that the right to food has been established in other international agreements, which the text cites extensively and the US justification refers to near the end.
Edit: I was somewhat incorrect on the vote, there was a later general assembly vote, which the Instagram account that created this links to. However, their effort to imply that the US somehow hates people being fed is still misleading.
I’m doing a series of conversations/interviews with my parents’ generation to keep a voice record of their stories. As part of that, I’m doing transcripts that start with the transcript feature of Google’s Recorder. It can do some nifty things like assign speakers to individual voices. I have to clean up the transcripts some, but it’s far less laborious than dealing with a 15-20 minute conversation. I can fix up a transcript in maybe 5 minutes.