But this raises the important question whether in a functioning democracy it is ever okay for the police to investigate who marked a specific ballot.
Does Germany have a post-war law that makes this a crime? I thought the had a lot of anti-Nazi laws on the books.
Edit: Turns out it is. Under Section 86a of the German Criminal Code (StGB), it “prohibits the distribution and public use of symbols of unconstitutional organizations and those similar to them. This includes symbols of parties or organizations banned in Germany, especially those associated with National Socialism, as well as their propaganda materials. Violations can lead to imprisonment or fines.”
Many of us are in the habit of mentally calculating it wherever we live though.
For example, my state sales tax is 6.88%, my county has a .25% tax on top of that, and then there’s a metro area tax of 1% on top of that, my city does not impose a separate tax of their own, so total sales tax in my city is 8.13%.
When shopping we’ll do the mental math (roughly) and factor that in so it might say $39.99 + tax but I know that it’ll be a little under $44 with tax.
It’s inconvenient but, like most things, we get used to it and adapt. Also, while tax varies a lot by state, most of us don’t venture too far out of our home area so tax is roughly the same all the places we regularly go.
It would be nice to have the price listed as the price you pay but it doesn’t work as well with our current system.
I must be ugly as sin. My wife and I have been married almost five years and I have yet to be in a situation where a woman is pursuing me and I can shout, “I don’t know you! You’re not my wife!” and run away.
There's loads (almost all ?) of public institutions which have become tools for the authoritarian regime.
Yep, there sure are. Anything to support that the OCE (a non-partisan independent board) or House Ethics Committee (a bi-partisan committee made up of 5 members of each party) is one of them?
This institution is not "working as intended" if it asks a democrat to repay an event ticket
OCE referred it to the HEC, they reviewed it and found that while AOC made full effort to abide by the gift policy there were a few things missed. They asked her to rectify it and she agreed. She also acknowledged their findings (“She accepts the ruling and will remedy the remaining amounts, as she’s done at each step in this process“). What’s not working there?
but gives a republican a free pass on insider trading.
“the committee said that it reviewed allegations referred by the Office of Congressional Conduct and “did not find evidence that he knowingly or intentionally caused his spouse to trade based on insider information.”
Any actual tangible proof or evidence they’re lying? Or maybe you have a view like the MAGAs and want to suspend due process for those you don’t like?
One person received a benefit of a few hundred dollars and the other received a benefit of possibly a few million dollars.
Do you notice how you worded this?
“One person received a benefit of a few hundred dollars”
“other received a benefit of possibly a few million dollars”. Possibly.
The committee said that it reviewed allegations referred by the Office of Congressional Conduct and “did not find evidence that he knowingly or intentionally caused his spouse to trade based on insider information.”
But the report said that the panel “did not receive full cooperation from Mrs. Kelly and was therefore unable to determine whether her stock purchase was improper.”
I think it’s very likely they engaged in insider trading, but if they have nothing to actually prove it, what are you expecting from the process?
I'll remind you that insider trading is theft.
It sure is. Who handles financial crimes? The DoJ and the SEC, yet no investigation was opened. Probably because those organizations have been hamstrung and stacked with loyalists at positions of power? Although the case for Rep. Kelly was referred to House Ethics in 2021…
Maybe that’s where you should be. Personally, I don’t like misinformation but since you do I’m guessing your values would align nicely with c/conservative.
On June 23, 2022, the Office of Congressional Ethics transmitted a referral to the Committee on Ethics of the United States House of Representatives regarding Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
The committee called on Ocasio-Cortez to “make additional payments of personal funds to compensate for the fair market value of certain expenses.”
A spokesperson for Ocasio-Cortez said that the congresswoman intends to “remedy the remaining amounts.”
“The Congresswoman appreciates the Committee finding that she made efforts to ensure her compliance with House Rules and sought to act consistently with her ethical requirements as a Member of the House. She accepts the ruling and will remedy the remaining amounts, as she’s done at each step in this process,” her chief of staff Mike Casca said in a statement provided to CNN.
The House Ethics Committee is bipartisan and reviews matters referred to it by the Office of Congressional Ethics.
The Office of Congressional Ethics is “a nonpartisan, independent entity charged with reviewing allegations of misconduct against members of the House of Representatives and their staff and, when appropriate, referring matters to the United States House Committee on Ethics.
It’s also worth noting that “the OCE was created by House Resolution 895 of the 110th United States Congress in March 2008, 191 in the wake of across-the-board Democratic victories in the 2006 elections. It was created under the leadership of then-Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi as part of her effort to clean up what she called the "culture of corruption" in official Washington, which had garnered so much attention in the preceding congressional sessions.”
This specific incidence is less “fascism” and more “checks and balances working as intended”.
Tl;dr (took me a while to get to the potential “why” which was my first question)
Market analysts propose five theories for Amazon's strategic withdrawal:
First, the move serves as an incrementality stress test, similar to Amazon's 2020 experiment to determine which traffic requires paid search investment.
Second, it represents a post-Prime Day detox strategy, eliminating external advertising spend while maintaining pristine return on advertising spend metrics during back-to-school demand periods.
Third, the withdrawal constitutes a margin optimization play. By eliminating payments to Google, Amazon keeps customer acquisition costs internal while directing shoppers to its own platform.
Fourth, the move demonstrates negotiation leverage, potentially pressuring Google to reduce advertising fees through the withdrawal of substantial advertising spend estimated at hundreds of millions of euros.
Fifth, the removal reflects Amazon's broader strategy in search competition. With Rufus AI assistant and generative search answers expanding globally, Amazon seeks full-funnel customer control before Google's Performance Max campaigns further penetrate e-commerce territory.
My misunderstanding. I read the first sentence of your original comment as “this is good for me” and then the rest as “It’s counter to their recent actions and I want to get off the rollercoaster”.
There’s one specific paragraph in that article that is not covered in this one:
New York City has begun a crackdown on e-bikes and scooters riders. It follows actions by city officials from Paris to Honolulu to Hoboken, N.J., who are responding to residents angry about zippy vehicles with silent electric motors zooming down sidewalks and streets, often startling people, and occasionally hitting pedestrians.
Article title: