Oven safe to 400° F. You can pretty much cook everything in it. If you need more versatility, they have an entire set for around $100, but this pan is NOT included in that set.
It's deeper than a fry pan, and it has a support handle and a lid.
It basically does everything those infomercial pan sets say they do, except Bialetti is a known and respected brand.
My personal preference is Le Creuset enameled cast iron, that's my go-to. Not everybody can afford it. IIRC Bialetti Impact does NOT work with induction stovetops because it's aluminum. Electric and gas only.
If you have an induction range, look at the Bialetti Sapphire deep saute pan:
I'd argue (as a 54 year old, naturally), that you need experienced people in these positions.
Capping it at 45 would mean you have a 10 year window on public service, 35 to 45. That won't work.
At the same time, too old, and they don't comprehend what they're legislating. I'm not sure I would be competent to write laws on AI, and I've been working in tech for 30 years.
That's what I'm saying though, who decides what is evidence and what isn't? What was insurrection and what wasn't?
There are plenty of (wrong) people who claim the evidence is that Biden "stole" the election. We know that's not true, but to claim Trump is an insurrectionist, you have to prove that he believed it wasn't true, that he was not acting, as he believied to be, the rightly elected President.
This is why we have a court system. It's not about what is believed to be true, it's about what can be proven to be true, in court, before a judge.
And the current composition of Congress is not only going to refuse to say Trump is an insurrectionist, multiple members were complicit in the same action. They aren't facing removal from office either.
But, again, there are millions of folks out there who say his actions were justified. You and I both know they weren't, but that's not an objective truth. A court ruling is. You are guilty or not guilty. You are liable or not liable.
If we're going to tell someone "Sorry, you don't qualify anymore..." there needs to be an impartial judicial ruling that's the basis for it, again, like the Cowboys for Trump guy. Convicted for 1/6, then court disqualification.
I don't believe he would have been disqualified if he hadn't been previously convicted.
I was an admin at a company that was borderline psychopathic. Yeah, tons of abuse at all levels. No progression unless you were a member of the executive teams family or married to one of them. Completely dysfunctional workplace.
How do you prove Trump engaged in insurrection? He never formally disavowed the Government, he didn't establish a foreign standing army. Heck, he took the most egregious actions when he was, in fact, President.
This is why there needs to be a conviction first. There is no MAGA equivalent of the Articles of the Confederacy.
It's a problem I ran into on reddit a lot, people get so hung up on "the way it SHOULD work" vs. the "the way it DOES or WILL work." LOL.
I remember a thread where a guy got sent to prison for life under a three strikes rule and reddit was up in arms because the 3rd strike was for some felony weed possession.
I got downvoted for telling them "Hey, if you live in a 3 strikes state, and you already have 2 felony convictions, you have 2 choices: a) STOP COMMITTING FELONIES or b) GTFO out of Dodge and get to a state WITHOUT a three strikes rule."
Kept having to explain that the law doesn't care if you think making weed illegal is a moral issue. In that state it's illegal. Don't LIKE it? Change it or move to another state.
That's like saying felons being blocked from voting or owning guns isn't a penalty, it's a qualification issue.
If you're making the argument that it's a consequence of criminal action, it very much is a penalty. But people don't face legal consequences without convictions.
Convicting him for insurrection or rebellion would bar him from office under the 14th Amendment, the problem here being none of his charges are for insurrection or rebellion. :(
One count of conspiracy to defraud the United States:
Applies to Trump's repeated and widespread efforts to spread false claims about the November 2020 election while knowing they were not true and for allegedly attempting to illegally discount legitimate votes all with the goal of overturning the 2020 election, prosecutors claim in the indictment.
One count of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding:
Was brought due to the alleged organized planning by Trump and his allies to disrupt the electoral vote's certification in January 2021.
One count of obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding:
Is tied to Trump and his co-conspirators' alleged efforts after the November 2020 election until Jan. 7, 2021, to block the official certification proceeding in Congress.
One count of conspiracy against rights:
Refers to Trump and his co-conspirators alleged attempts to "oppress, threaten and intimidate" people in their right to vote in an election.
Jordan Lund @ jordanlund @lemmy.one Posts 63Comments 1,445Joined 2 yr. ago
One pan to rule them all, eh? ;)
That's the Bialetti Impact covered Saute Pan.
https://a.co/d/bfbwppG
It's non-stick, but with a micro divot texture, so it's safe for metal tools (still a bad idea, get a silicone set).
https://youtu.be/30CdnBWuOpc
Oven safe to 400° F. You can pretty much cook everything in it. If you need more versatility, they have an entire set for around $100, but this pan is NOT included in that set.
https://a.co/d/d9XOJRS
It's deeper than a fry pan, and it has a support handle and a lid.
It basically does everything those infomercial pan sets say they do, except Bialetti is a known and respected brand.
My personal preference is Le Creuset enameled cast iron, that's my go-to. Not everybody can afford it. IIRC Bialetti Impact does NOT work with induction stovetops because it's aluminum. Electric and gas only.
If you have an induction range, look at the Bialetti Sapphire deep saute pan:
https://a.co/d/ejAv6DY
Same deal, deeper than a fry pan, and it has a support handle and a lid.