The courts have to start finding these people in contempt and deputizing people to go enforce those orders on behalf of the court if law enforcement won't. The House won't exercise its duty to be a check on the President. The Senate has barely made a few weak gestures. All that's left are the courts. Well, and We The People.
This is the inauguration all over again. This idiot thinks he has massive support from the people for his garish displays, until it gets close to time that will reveal how broadly hated he actually is, then either he or his team change things up to protect his fragile ego.
I'm very much against conspiracy theories, especially concerning our elections which are administered by many many independent entities. I was very concerned as I watched electronic voting machines - especially without paper trails - become more and more popular over the past 30 years. Even more as the industry consolidated and it came down to a handful of private, for-profit manufacturers.
The thing I've read about that is keeping the door of conspiracy open in my mind is the "drop off" rate, which has to do with the number of "President only" ballots, where only the President is chosen, and no down ballot votes are cast.
Apparently Trump's ballots have an unusually high - like statistically unlikely - drop off. And it's either only in or mostly in/more pronounced in swing states.
Even Chris Titus picked it up (3 hrs total, sorry)
now telegram is going to insert random information about South African White genocide to every conversation. or it will be in every recommended reply at least.
I'm starting from the assumption that OP genuinely wants to talk to women without being creepy (for lack of a better term), presuming that comes from his intrinsic association between "talking to a woman" and "attempting to establish a romantic relationship with that woman."
That's a thought that's undesirable and presumably persistent. Sort of the definition of "intrusive."
I'm aware that the pop psych understanding of the phrase is specifically about violent or violence associated thoughts but those are the ones more people have and that probably are more disturbing than annoying.
When your parents say, "did you talk to any of them," they mean did you strike up a conversation with a woman with no presumption of potential romantic outcome.
When you say it, it seems like you're assuming there's a potential for a romantic outcome in every conversation between heterosexual men and women.
Your goal should be to strike up a conversation with a woman about random topics of interest, including very shallow ones, with no expectation that you're evaluating her as a potential mate, and she's not evaluating you.
Yes, we're all subject to intrusive thoughts so from time to time, you'll fail at this goal and start thinking about a romantic path. That's fine. Just acknowledge it to yourself and endeavor to do better.
It will probably take time and practice. Give yourself grace to try and fail and learn. You'll know you're succeeding when you realize you had a conversation with a woman without her gender being a consequential thought in your mind.
The same federal laws from Reconstruction applied across the whole country. Except there were "creative" legislators, executives, lawyers, and citizen organizations in the South that found loopholesto exploit. Most people in the North didn't do that (obviously there were exceptions).
Add to that the violent, murderous rampages that occurred against successful black people and neighborhoods, and "Reconstruction" was very complex in its implementation.
They don't know what Skydance is, and definitely don't care about it (that's not necessarily 'good').
They sort of know what Paramount is, from movie title sequences, but they don't care about it more than any other movie production company. (Again that's not necessarily 'good.')
Going public like this is a great answer to Trump's bullying.
right but if I'm thinking correctly (maybe not) then if it "merely" wasn't harmful, wouldn't there be room for variation within the species of toxicity?
I feel like if evolution is correct (I'm confident it is) then it must be evolutionarily advantageous to have the capacity to kill a herd of elephants with one's toxin, assuming all animals in the group have that capacity.
Europe, to its credit, has acted on some of the science. Paraquat — the herbicide chemically similar to MPTP — was finally banned in 2007, although only after Sweden took the European Commission to court for ignoring the evidence of its neurotoxicity. Other pesticides with known links to Parkinson’s, such as rotenone and maneb, are no longer approved.
...
Among the chemicals still in use, none has drawn more scrutiny — or survived more court battles — than glyphosate.
this is the video that gave me a useful tool for stopping my intrusive thoughts, in case anyone is looking for relief
https://youtu.be/kvtYjdriSpM
(there are tons so I'm sure there might be better ones or ones that work better for other people...)