There is, it’s the constitution. You can’t be a member of the House without being 25 or a senator without being 30.

Buried lead:

It’s LEDE, not lead.

It took me 40+ years to learn this, just passing it along.

I believe they’re confusing the term victim with the word volunteer.

Don’t worry, at least there are two pizzas for 50 people!

The protests should be louder, more numerous, and more in their face.

What’s the goal of the protests? For fewer people to vote for Harris or for Harris to change her position? Coming out against Israel, even if it’s the proper position, is going to turn off a lot of voters. It seems these protests will, if they have any effect at all, cause fewer people to vote for Harris. A Trump reelection is a fundamental threat to every issue I care about. These protests are flawed at every level. Perfect should not be the enemy of good, and Harris is, unequivocally, a positive for Palestinians.

Where’s Joe Biden now?

I’m going to guess the White House, but I’m not sure, it wasn’t my turn to watch him.

I assume you’re alluding to Harris replacing Biden, which doesn’t address my point. Dem and Rep running, one of them will be president.

The United States has a FPTP system, you’re never going to get a third party candidate to win the presidency. You would need to reform the system.

Do NOT say fundamental change can’t be made or started in the middle of a general election. Protest works and that scares some of you

You legally cannot change the election process two months before an election.

Protest is fine, but you should ask what your goal is. Trump is worse than Harris on Gaza, Palestine, and Israel. Frankly, it’s not even close. So if your protest would cause people to not vote for Harris, then you’re helping to elect Trump. Actions have consequences, just be sure you understand what they are.

For the record I’m for a Palestinian state and against genocide, but there are actions that further those causes and actions that don’t.

or choose neither and take a goddamn stand for once and show these puppets of the elites it is all or nothing

There is no “neither” option. One of them WILL be president. Let me save you time and there’s never going to be a candidate but you agree with on every issue.

If you want to make a fundamental change in the electoral process, the middle of a general election isn’t the time. You literally cannot change the process at this point.

The name of the game this November is turnout. There are undoubtedly more people who support Harris than Trump, but will they vote? Touching the Israel issue is guaranteed to turn off a large block of voters, no matter which side you support. There’s no winning this issue politically.

Either Harris or Trump will be president in 2025, choose which one more closely aligns to your values and policy goals. If you care about Gaza and Palestinians, I don’t know how that choice isn’t Harris.

That’s completely unfair, you couldn’t name one two seven…let’s go with seven other examples of that!

/s

I don’t think I’ve read an interview from anyone who has worked with Trump that doesn’t say he’s one of the dumbest people they’ve ever interacted with. He’s absolutely a con man but he’s also stupid.

Legally, you do. You may not like it but that’s how it works.

I’m an attorney, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

My argument isn’t about how it should be. People should be decent. They often aren’t. My statement is about the legal implications of the decision. Breasts either remain sexual which means all naughty bits are on the table or… they aren’t and are legally no different than any other nonsexual thing.

This isn’t how sexual harassment is determined at all. Nothing you’ve said has any connection to reality.

Can you take someone to court for looking at your legs? Sure. Will it have a good chance of success? No.

YES! If you’re in a workplace and that behavior is happening and it consistent, it is a hostile work environment. It would be no different if the unwanted attention was on a leg, an arm, or a breast.

If you legalize it you have acknowledged that a woman’s breasts are not sexual. There is no recourse.

No, you literally do not have to do that. You can legalize toplessness and every other aspect of every other law would remain the same.

Your argument essentially means that a person staring at a woman’s leg constantly could not constitute harassment, and that simply isn’t true.

All you would end up doing is creating a new business for accountants to devalue someone’s holdings. I assume that you are saying that the wealth will be the value of the asset less any loan against the property, because that’s the only way a first-time home buyer would be taxed nearly nothing. Why wouldn’t the wealthy simply take loans against their assets thereby devaluing them for the purposes of a wealth calculation? The same way that they borrow against their stock portfolio.

Dems not catching up to other left parties in other countries isn’t Dems moving right. The examples I gave demonstrate a clear, if only moderate, move to the left. Their move is barely perceptible, but certainly not to the right.

But if you tax based on wealth, doesn’t that make home ownership less possible? Property taxes aren’t going away, but now a wealth tax is going to hit property owners? Sales tax is extremely regressive. Income tax is one of the few ways to do progressive taxing.

Your argument is that the Dems have moved to the right, but I’m struggling to think of any examples of that in the last 30+ years. During Clinton’s term they passed DOMA and DADT, and now they’re in favor of same sex marriage and trans rights. The ACA, CFPB, attempts at student loan forgiveness, lowering prescription prices, etc. I just don’t see how the left has moved to the right, although I agree that the right has moved right.

I never understand people who make comments like this, what were you expecting going into Twisters? Citizen Kane? I watched Twisters today, it was a mindlessly fun little movie, exactly as expected.

The first three are great, the fourth idea is insane. Why shouldn’t people pay into their government? If you’re poor, like the first $25k, fine let that be tax free, but why not keep the money in the government coffers and provide single payer healthcare, free college tuition, student debt forgiveness, municipal broadband? Our taxes are not high compared to other western nations.

That’s not really true though. There were very few SCOTUS precedents on the 2A, really just Cruikshank and Presser until recently. Heller really changed it all in 2008, being the first court to find an individual right. And the 2A didn’t get incorporated until 2010 in McDonald.

The issue is that bad precedent is begging to be overturned. I can’t imagine Bruen standing for a long time without being overturned or distinguished by a subsequent case.

I agree with the right, but Bruen was a trainwreck of a decision. Historical perspective is an absolutely ridiculous basis for determining the outer limits of the right.