The state was Utah, the governor quoted the following in his veto statement:
Here are the numbers that have most impacted my decision: 75,000, 4, 1, 86 and 56.
- 75,000 high school kids participating in high school sports in Utah.
- 4 transgender kids playing high school sports in Utah.
- 1 transgender student playing girls sports.
- 86% of trans youth reporting suicidality.
- 56% of trans youth having attempted suicide.
The veto was overridden.
I got a hail of down votes just two weeks ago for saying Democrats are appealing to the Republicans 10-20 years ago, and now here we are.
Couldn’t the campaign be about championing progressive change on popular issues rather than capitulating to Republican narratives on immigration and crime, and being “honored” by the endorsement of war criminals?
And who is writing shit like “most lethal fighting force” into her convention acceptance speech, while Trump is out there on the road saying no more wars. I don’t believe him, but plenty of moms and dads of soldiers will.
Right, the party with the most seats won would get first shot at forming government.
If your assumption is that the Conservatives would win the next election with a majority, then they would be able to form government without needing to rely on any other party (like the Libs rely on the NDP now).
Since political parties in parliamentary democracies typically vote uniformly, a majority party is generally able to pass legislation regardless of the position of opposition parties, which is why I questioned the presumption of gridlock.
NDP +Libs outnumber them now, yes. I assumed by “Cons can grab majority” you meant a majority of seats following an election, no?
They keep bragging about many Republicans they had on stage. Great, I guess the Democrats are just the Republicans from 10-20 years ago if those speakers find the current Democratic party palatable. I’m sure that will rally people to vote blue like they did in 2008. Was it caving on immigration, peace, and crime what made Obama so popular?
Not true. Trump prominently mentioned his son Barron and his proficiency with “the cyber”, eight years ago.
Cons can grab majority but will be gridlocked on every move
Genuine question, why the assumption of gridlock if the conservatives form government with a majority?
Just leave that to your friendly local warlord to settle.
Twitch disabled the account following the Jan. 6 riot on the US Capitol in 2021 due to “the current extraordinary circumstances and the President’s incendiary rhetoric” before issuing an indefinite suspension two weeks later, according to a Twitch spokesperson.
Guess we’ll all just collectively forget about this now that’s he’s the Republican nominee again ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Totally agree with you. But this:
this view holds the client up as a victim and the sex worker as some kind of intrusive parasite who has failed to know her place.
Is because their golden god can do no wrong. That every law he broke was somehow not his fault, and clearly the fault of the accuser or corrupt prosecutors. They will shift the focus away from an argument they can’t win, campaign funds being used for non-campaign purposes, to anything they can get the base whipped up about.
But my complaint isn’t even about that. My problem is that this article demonizes these Trump supporters for one wrong reason. That characterizing customers of sex work as weirdos for admitting it, regardless of their presidential candidate of choice, hurts the effort to legitimize sex work. There’s a lot of fish in the barrel of criticism for this group, no need for the author and OP to support a conservative anti-sex work narrative at the same time.
Sex work is work. And if it’s work, there are customers.
There’s probably a long list of reasons to criticize these Trump supporters, including not understanding what this case in particular is about, but being customers of sex work ain’t it.
Demonizing customers of sex work maintains the taboo and hurts the movement to legitimize, legalize, regulate, and provide normal employment benefits to sex work.
In the latest version I found of Nate Silver’s model (not 538), he has Ohio coming in at 52.4% for Trump and 43.6% for Harris, an 8.8% spread. I did not dig deeper to find the dates or particular polls from Ohio he’s basing that on.
However, based on these numbers, he is likely modelling that Trump wins Ohio in 90%+ of outcomes to Harris’s <5% of outcomes.
This is the same way he spoke to his model in previous elections. It wasn’t that Hillary was expected to win 80-90% of the popular vote or electoral college just weeks before the 2016 election, it was that his model had her winning that percentage of the outcomes when he ran the model.