"Person who assaulted, charged with assault"

Why is this news?

Median earnings grew faster than inflation every quarter between Q2 2022 and Q4 2023, a year and a half straight. Ticked down in Q1 2024 but basically back to pre pandemic levels.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

They remanded to the lower courts to determine that. But like it does have some implication. They definitely did not say everything the president does is an official action.

Didn't they just legalize "any" official action?

People aren't reading the article. They did not rule that he is immune because his acts were official.

They ruled that official acts, and not unofficial acts, convey immunity, and remanded to lower courts to determine whether his acts should be considered official or unofficial.

It was always short sighted tax policy. We're just living with the blowback.

But in 1954, apparently intending to stimulate capital investment in manufacturing in order to counter a mild recession, Congress replaced the straight-line approach with "accelerated depreciation," which enabled owners to take huge deductions in the early years of a project’s life. This, Hanchett says, "transformed real-estate development into a lucrative ‘tax shelter.’ An investor making a profit from rental of a new building usually avoided all taxes on that income, since the ‘loss’ from depreciation canceled it out. And when the depreciation exceeded profits from the building itself—as it virtually always did in early years—the investor could use the excess ‘loss’ to cut other income taxes." With realestate values going up during the 1950s and ’60s, savvy investors "could build a structure, claim ‘losses’ for several years while enjoying tax-free income, then sell the project for more than they had originally invested."

Since the "accelerated depreciation" rule did not apply to renovation of existing buildings, investors "now looked away from established downtowns, where vacant land was scarce and new construction difficult," Hanchett says. "Instead, they rushed to put their money into projects at the suburban fringe—especially into shopping centers.

http://archive.wilsonquarterly.com/in-essence/why-america-got-malled

But Slightly More Rotting Corpse has the better environmental policy which we'll need before the last remnant of Florida is fully swallowed by the sea in the next 4 years.

He has a large majority of delegates. There is no way to force him out of the candidacy, he already won it.

So he would have been wrong if the Comey announcement didn't come out and turn people off from voting for Hillary. Bad process, right result.

I actually think you had a flawed process if you were projecting a Trump win in 2016, getting that "right" doesn't impress me. Comey re-announcing new emails was 11 days before the election, there wasn't time to see what people thought of it.

Edit: The downvoters don't remember the election. Clinton was winning basically every poll, her numbers peaked after the Access Hollywood tape and dropped from that peak, she was still winning polls by 4 points on election day. There are vagueries of voting behavior based on weather in different locations and the vote was super close in the swing states. Even with perfect state by state information adjusted by poll error, it was less than 50/50 Trump would win. It was a bad prediction.

It happened to happen, because things with 40% odds happen 40% of the time, but predicting the 40% outcome is bad process.

The "spandrel hypothesis" is the front runner explanation. Essentially we didn't evolve to have chins but rather evolved other things that are helpful, and the chin is a byproduct of that other evolution. Not harmful so it didn't get selected away, but not helpful.

So, obviously, people don't generally change their legal gender for an advantage somewhere. But if they do, that's a pretty good sign, not that it's too easy to change your gender, but that there's a gender bias in the law.

So arguably, the easier it is to change your legal gender, the less of a problem gender-based affirmative action is. Conservatives must love this! End liberal overreach in one easy step!

This is why I don't take family photos with a hat or flag that announces my political affiliation.

I think it's clear he's a fan of Apple and Tesla but he does make negative statements about them, the Cyber truck was not a positive review and he always criticized the fit and finish of Teslas. And he critiques Apple's idiosyncracies like the proprietary charger and lack of calculator app on the iPad.

I guess my point is that he's not a journalist he's a reviewer, we are tuning in for his judgement, his opinion. If he personally likes the products from a certain company, that's not a bias that impacts his capacity to do his job well.

Like movie reviewer giving Pixar a bunch of 10/10 reviews, and then criticizing Cars 2 as a mediocre cash grab. Maybe they are biased for Pixar, or maybe Pixar just puts out a lot of good movies. As long as you're calling out the bad moves, that's what we want from a reviewer.

The fair concern is when he gets exclusive access like this, I don't necessarily care about the puff piece interview but you hope it doesn't influence his future reviews.

The actual reason why is that everyone was expecting Hillary to win and she had vowed to "end private prisons."

So everyone was calculating in a 90% or whatever chance Hillary wins, with some percentage chance she actually fulfilled her promise. Instead they got a 100% chance they would stay around for 4 years and probably get a tax cut. Pretty big adjustment is appropriate.

(Also old 2016 articles about Hillary are so quaint. They even mention Obama closing Guantanamo lmao)

Yeah the guy who was going to pass permanent corporate tax cuts and temporary individual tax cuts, funded by chaining individual tax brackets so taxes go up for individuals after 10 years, won. That's great for corporate profits. And great for the 10% who own 90% of stocks.

It's horrible tax policy and detrimental to the majority of Americans but it absolutely should make stocks increase.

With hindsight 2008 Obama/McCain and 1992 Clinton/HW were the only two presidential campaigns in living memory with decent candidates on both sides.

(Depending on your opinions of Dukakis and whether or not 1988 was in your living memory I suppose)

I don't think anyone would notice on the cloverloop.

Non-politicized decisions are wacky, the Sackler decision had Gorsuch and Jackson in the majority and Kavanaugh and Sotomayor in the minority.

"Coincidentally," the abortion and gun rulings are all exactly the same 6-3 teams based on who appointed them.

It's pretty much settled fact that this Supreme Court puts ideology over impartiality.

1. It's a very progressive district, that's how she got elected in the first place. This is not a surprise.

2. I bet my politics fit closer to the other guy, but I'd still vote for AOC between the two because she has a national influence and disproportionate power in the Caucus. If you're actually voting to influence Congress towards helping your district in particular, AOC might get that done even if it's secondary to her national political project. Some moderate guy in a safe D seat would absolutely never get anything for your district.