What? You didn't get to rule on a case solely based on your fucking betting pool.
This is exactly how injunctions work. It's a combination of "how likely is the party asking for the injunction to win" and "how much damage will be done if the injunction is not granted". It's the same logic used to block abortion laws from going into effect and things like Trump's gag order being enforced, while those actual cases work their way through the courts.
I had to downvote you to get the "total" (heart) to show up. You can see in the comment below yours that if there are only all up- or downvotes, it just shows that.
Now congressional Republicans want the justice department to release the audio of the interview.
To be clear on this, they already have the transcripts. They just want to be able to chop up audio so they can put clips of it on TV.
This sort of power-trip bullshit pisses me off so much. Kid's "horsing around" in the hallway and it's your job to keep the hallways calm? Then tell them to stop. Is it a pattern of behavior and they don't listen? Assign them an official punishment with the power you've been given: detention of some kind (probably a lunch detention).
Trying to make them do pushups? Fuck off, this is school not the fucking army.
You clearly didn't read the article. She specifically endorsed the candidate for the school board that she ousted previously. She's speaking against the party line. There is a real shift that happened for her, and her actions speak to it.
When I was practicing jujitsu, our instructors were pretty unanimous that they would rather be robbed by someone with a gun than with a knife. Not that your odds are great against any weapons, but a gun only has one dangerous bit. The first time I was learning to disarm someone armed with a knife I was told "If you fight someone with a knife, you're going to get cut, no question."
Don't a lot of CPUs like Snapdragons already have "performance cores" and "efficiency cores" that the kernel has to be able to recognize in order to switch between them? This sounds neat but I'm just curious what's different between these situations.
The last time there was a major schism the nations of the day were explicitly aligned with one side of the other of the schism and the states attempted to crush the other side of the schism by force. Part of the separation of church and state in modern nations is meant to prevent church issues from becoming state issues (see the recent mainstream schism in the Methodist chuch which was completely peaceful and over similar issues).
There's a very wide range of options between "doing nothing" and "intentionally bombing civilians"
And yet when I say this people look at me like I'm crazy and tell me "Sir this is a Wendy's"
Seriously, though, Approval Voting is literally the simplest voting method (vote yes or no on each candidate) and yet it has zero traction.
I don't disagree that their priorities are wrong, but this is not an aberration, this is the norm (and that norm should change)