buddhabound

"Basically how the government was going to be run..." in regards to WHAT, Nikki?!?

We've driven that route for 5 years now, and I don't know that I've ever seen a charging station. I'm sure there is one, somewhere, but that's not something I want to try and yolo my way through.

I'm a big fan of the Ioniq5, and if Hyundai weren't having so many issues with their business lately, that'd be my first choice. We're keeping our current vehicle when it's time for a new one, so we can use that for trips. What I need more than anything is something dependable and reasonable (features and price) for my wife to take to work every day.

Personally, I think a PHEV is a better option for that because she can use gas if absolutely necessary, and if everything goes as planned, she can use the electric for all of her daily driving. The reliability of predicability is what I'm hauling a gasoline engine around for. If I'm spending $40-50k on a vehicle, I want to know that it's going to last for 8-10 years, that the company isn't going to randomly brick a feature because they feel like it today, and that the company I'm giving money to has engineered the best product they can.

She will also gleefully sign any anti-abortion legislation the Republicans come up with if she's president. She's firmly anti-choice and has no problem with a 6-week ban. She says her anti-choice beliefs are based on the fact that her husband was adopted and he's a blessing she lives with every day.

https://apnews.com/article/nikki-haley-abortion-republican-primary-1827870a52349f3ee2f0c2b50e110b3b

I'd like to find a PHEV. It would be perfect for most of our daily driving - 12 miles to work. And we live ~500 miles from family, so we still need to be able to take the kids to see the grandparents for holidays. Subaru had a PHEV Crosstrek for a couple of years, but stopped making it available after 2019, iirc.

I'm hoping there are more PHEV models available when we're ready to buy a new car in a few years.

"B-b-but he wasn't convicted!"

Ayo, if you want to run for office, try not to even be fucking insurrection-adjacent. Then it's not even a question. This clown pushed the boundaries of the law until they broke, and now wants to say he should just be given a free pass. No. He could have coasted and told his supporters to go home, and blamed Biden for making lemonade poison. They would have made him even more of a golden idol. Instead, he fucked around, and now has court cases out the ass to find out with.

What an absolute loser.

They actually don't have time. The first of the primary caucuses happen in less than a month. You're talking about putting a full slate of unvetted candidates in front of a national primary with less than a month before voters would have to choose.

The Democrats made an error. They thought the Republicans surely would nominate someone else. They didn't know Trump would quote Hitler a few days ago. They're trying to run in an election with an incumbent. That's how the parties have operated since.. maybe the beginning. I don't know that I know of a time when an eligible incumbent presidential candidate didn't run. Maybe Washington?

Democrats are making the same mistake that voters are. They're treating Trump like a beatable candidate, and expecting voters to act rationally. But yet, we see people saying the same irrational thing you are, that it's better to sit out and let Trump get elected again than it is to vote for a milquetoast candidate like Biden. That's it's better for the worst evil to be elected than to vote for the lesser evil. It's irrational. And yet, here we are, with someone thinking that the Dems can spin up a national primary for couple hundred million people in a couple of weeks.

I'm GenX, and I wouldn't answer a poll if you paid me. I will vote, and I will never vote for a Republican for the rest of my life. If there's no Dem candidate on the ballot for a specific office, I leave it blank so they can see how many votes they're not getting when they don't run a candidate.

Read about the ramifications of SB-8. Private citizens can sue anyone who assisted or advised her in getting an abortion for $10,000 each. There is no real limit to who can be sued, as long as some tangential relationship can be made between her and getting the medical care she requires. While they can't go after her directly, almost everyone else is fair game. The limits aren't well defined, and courts haven't ruled to clarify. A pilot who pilots the plane she flies on to another state could be sued, if someone can identify a pilot by name and they can be served by Texas courts.

She ran unopposed in the last election after claiming she was going to retire. However, because the local Democratic party can't get its shit together to run a candidate, she just filed her papers and extended her career of taking those free tax dollars and putting them in her pocket.

It's terrible, and he's a terrible person. But, I had concerns that this case getting decided too fast would hurt the other case trying to overturn TX's ban. One of the arguments in the state-wide ban case was that women could go to the court and get permission for abortion as needed. That's a horrible solution that doesn't scale, but if this case was too quick to resolve, the court could use it for cover and not have to rule on the overall ban in TX.

Paxton acting like such an entitled prick about this ruling might actually help both cases survive. This case will get a stronger opinion by the judge, and the other case won't be able to just point to this case as a "see you don't need us" scapegoat way out of actually ruling on the larger ban question state-wide.

Abortion bans don't stop abortions. People with the means will travel out of state. People without the means to travel will obtain abortions by whatever means necessary. Women will die.

There were reasons why Roe was decided the way it was. Some people have forgotten history or never learned it. Women they know and women they love will die. They will remember, they will learn. It will be too late.

There are some interesting snippets in there about what she learned about how the Dem party operates vs the Republicans from when she was part of the Jan 6th committee.

In the Dems' case, the reps themselves do a lot of the work - they're actual lawyers and qualified people who can dig into the substance of an issue and go through the details in a knowledgeable way. The reps, in contrast, rely on staffers for most everything that isn't the most basic understanding. She said that the difference between how the Dem and Rep parties operate are like night and day.

I think the snippet is included as part of Lawrence O'Donnell's interview with Nancy Pelosi last night, but I might be wrong. I watched a lot of Liz Cheney talking on the news last, and heard a lot of snippets from her audiobook yesterday as well, so I'm not 100% sure, but I think the source is either Lawrence or Nicole Wallace's show.