TrickstaPriest

3 Republicans joined with the Democrats in the Arizona House to repeal the 1864 abortion ban.  One down, one to go.
 
This might be interesting.  State Senate and House seats are all up for election.  The primaries are end of July.  In the Senate, there are 3 Republican incumbents with challengers.  The House is trickier, as it looks like they use the same districts...but there's 2 representatives for each district.  The vote on the ban here...for or against...may become material in the primaries.

" I wouldn't believe him if his tongue were notarized"
 
I am so stealing that for my next game.

Anyway, pfft, it's only the Constitution. The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments explicitly ban slavery and guarantee civil and voting rights, and yet Jim Crow was the law of the land -- or at least large sections of it -- for decades. Like all laws, the Constitution has only as much power as the people charged with implementing it choose to grant.
 
(Plus there's the old argument that Constitutional phrases that seem to demand religious neutrality only mean neutrality among Christian denominations. Also, early in the Republic's history states established specific denominations, on the grounds the Constitution spoke only to the Federal government. Two views the SCOTUS have never endorsed, but hey, a sufficiently radical and zealous SCOTUS could throw out 200+ years of precedent.)
 
In other news, I am not sure this bit of wackiness from Tennessee is going anywhere, or is even real. Considering other Republican lunacy, though, a state bill to ban imaginary "chemtrails" does not seem implausible. At least there'll be no problem enforcing it.
 
Tennessee is trying to ban 'chemtrails' from planes based on a wild conspiracy theory (msn.com)
 
Dean Shomshak

And NYT had a story that only about 30% of Americans want TikTok restricted.  They also mentioned, it's become an alternative to reach people...including by several in Congress.  The TL;DR was, yes indeed, Republicans trying to do things Americans DON'T want, rather than what they do.
 
Every day, in every way, I'm getting more and more confirmed...I will not vote Republican.  Period.  Not all Republican candidates are bad, but it doesn't matter to me now.
 
And...yeah, VPNs are trivial.  I've used BitDefender for anti-virus for...good lord, 10 years now?  How time flies.  Got it because it was a top-tier AV at that time, by the 3 big AV review sites.  A VPN's built in.  And it's not exactly expensive;  just looking at NordVPN?  Less than $5/month would throw in a password manager.  So, not exactly expensive.  And *Forbes*...that radical liberal institution!!!!...has a review of VPN packages!
 
But hey, we know the farther-right Reps don't care about achieving anything substantive, they just want a crowing point.
 
 

I think it’s reasonable to be concerned about the cognitive facilities of any individual running for President who is of an age to be required to show up in person to renew a license and is subject to family requests for license review. The Donald exceeds that by a healthy margin in California (70), as does his opponent.
 
 It would be nice to have candidates with a little less tread worn off their tires, but it is what it is. I could see either of them not having their full cognitive facilities, and likely both.

Could be...but I'm gonna be a tad cynical here.  The doctor's got a self-interest here.  That said, it does seem that it's something for more media to note.  If there's any media that could truly be considered impartial any more...as the typical outlets, by and large, will observe anything through their own particular color of glasses WRT the Donald....

Whoah! When did Doonesbury get all political?

The Doonesbury strip for February 18th--
 

I work at a fast food place now. Prices have gone up ten fifteen dollars. Cost has gone up one dollar. Wages have gone up three dollars because they couldn't staff. I live in the south. The average rent for housing is 1k+
CES 

There you go attacking the real root of the problem.
 
It's not totally that simple though but if you spread that to all executive pay then we're coming closer. If the average worker at company X makes $60,000 and he mean makes $40,000 then the CEO making $6 million may make sense. But making $30 million? That's probably out of line with their contribution to the company.

This is just typical ensh*ttification, it has nothing to do with any minimum wage increases.
 
 
 
I get that it seems like this all would happen, but in practice, it doesn't.
 
 
 
Having paid taxes for decades I do understand progressive tax brackets, but I appreciate the refresher.  So tripling my income increases my effective tax rate by 10%, and that's... bad?  My take home pay only actually increases from $27K to $81.6K so I should... give it back, or something?
 
 
 
Historically, minimum wage increases don't cause inflation.  I get why people might think they do, but they just... don't.  Almost tripling the minimum wage in one go might, I suppose, as I don't think anyone's ever tried it.

Well, this is more than I ever thought I'd want to know about the economics of fast food. But thank you, one and all.
 
I am at least persuaded that making drastic changes in just one part of a complex, interconnected business environment is flipping insane.
 
Dean Shomhak

I believe you also have to look at the work culture. In many other developed countries it's accepted that minimum wage should be a living wage; that all workers are entitled to certain benefits; that maximizing shareholder profits is not the economic be-all and end-all; that happy, healthy workers make for better product, better service, happier customers, and in the long term, more profitability. A great deal that we in the United States and Canada tend to think is impossible, is really a matter of attitude. Much of what we call "reality" is what we've been trained to tolerate. When an attitude that it's the right thing thing to do leads to the will to do it, it will happen and everyone will come to accept it.

In N Out isn't publically traded, so they don't have the 'can't let the shareholders value drop' driver (also a reason why the quality of product is better).  I don't think they franchise either (for the same reason - quality).

The discrepancy in cost of living from areas like San Fran, versus elsewhere, is a major problem.
https://livingcost.org/cost/united-states/ca
 
She's picking the most expensive city in Cali by that article;  Kiplinger's has a 10 most expensive in the US.  San Jose is #3, San Fran is #4...and that's in the country.  #2 is Honolulu , #1 is Manhattan.  
 
So, she might arguably have a case *in San Francisco*...and LA, and San Diego...but not necessarily for many other parts of California.  She also, as Hugh suggests, doesn't recognize that businesses would be forced to raise prices substantially, particularly fast food and small retail.  To the business, it's not just the wages.  That $50/hour isn't the final cost to them...not even close.  Every employer has to kick in 6.2% to Social Security.  There's worker's comp and unemployment insurance.  The salaried employees won't be happy if the hourlies get a massive raise, and they don't get *something*...even assuming they actually don't get a big raise in the first place.  (I never made $50/hour.)  The cost for full-time, full-benefits salaried employees is MUCH higher than simply their salaries.
 
EDIT:  she's also not considering that not everyone has a family.  $127K *for a family of four*.  But the wage is gonna get paid to singles too...or to 2-income, no-children couples. To teenagers at the big fast food places.
 
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/11/01/chipotle-mcdonalds-raising-prices-california/71408254007/
 
 
 

Even if Biden's cognitively impaired, I'll take him over a (much more) cognitively and morally impaired Trump. 

The American media I, and people with attitudes similar to mine, consumes, does cover at least some of this. The media Trump's supporters consume covers almost none of it, or attempts to excuse it, and we can't expect them to change for the foreseeable future.
 
What America needs is some kind of concerted campaign imposing accountability and consequences on both politicians and the media for perpetuating information that is demonstrably, provably false. But I don't really know whether that should be financial, or affecting activities or licenses or eligibility for offices, whether it should be through government or independent bodies, involve civil or criminal penalties... we haven't seen such extreme behavior and misinformation tolerated in an established democracy until recently, so there isn't much precedent for how to deal with it.

Agreed.
 
 
He has too many enablers in power.

Oh lordy, the irony!  We don't need to mention Newsom per se...it's SAN FRANISCO!!!  One of the hubs of gay culture in the country.  World Population Review (and some others) rank it as the #1 most liberal city in the country.
 
THAT is what they choose to root for???
 
The mind...boggles................

50% is a landslide result for an Iowa caucus.  I can't find an example of any other non-incumbent candidate winning more than 30% there in modern history, D or R.  The only hope for Trump's competitors is that the Iowa weather kept all the sane people home.

Hey, the Republicans themselves replaced the old "second party" in America, the Whigs. There are a lot of disaffected genuine conservatives in America who feel they no longer have representation. At the same time, there are several prominent former members of the GOP who are poised to coalesce those conservatives around them when the Republican Party crumbles (and I'm convinced it's a matter of "when," not "if").
 
I'm not worried about being left with only one major party, for two reasons. One, the Democrats attract people who have been shown to be notably reluctant to throw their weight around, even when that would help them advance their agenda. I don't think any of their influential members have any desire for outright dictatorship. Two, the Democratic Party is actually a coalition of disparate groups with distinct philosophies and agendas, with varying degrees of liberalism or conservatism. If the worst case leaves America with only that one party, I fully expect the traditional and progressive wings of the Dems to split into separate parties.

Which is why I believe that in the long run, the Trump era could turn out to be a good thing. Rot has existed deep in American society and politics for a long time. It can't be recognized and cleaned out unless and until it's brought to the surface. Maybe Trump's blatant simplistic provocation has brought it out sooner than it otherwise would have been... and before it's too late to purge it.

Back when major news sites still had comment sections, any article about atheism almost always had at least one person asking "If you don't believe in God, what's stopping you from robbing, raping, and killing all the time?"
Just because you're apparently a potential serial killer only kept in check by your fear of divine punishment, that doesn't mean everyone else also lacks the ability to form an internal moral code, even though believing that might make you feel better about yourself.

Your take is very reasonable. But I notice a distinct relish, almost glee, expressed among Republican supporters, when one of "those others" suffers. This movement seems to appeal to the vindictive streak in humanity, as a way to both distract and motivate them.
 
So, while I don't deny any of your attributions to their motives, I maintain that cruelty is in there too.

He's not (just) a jackass.  He's holding these positions open so Trump can immediately fill them with loyalists when he returns to the White House. 
 
Also note that I didn't say anything about winning elections there.