It's telling the truth about the uniparty establishment.
10.03.2026 22:22
👍 1
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
It's telling the truth about the uniparty establishment.
The uniparty establishment in a nutshell.
The security office at a Disney park is not a real jail, it doesn't have lockable cells.
I can only imagine how certain politicians (e.g. Duffy) would react to that.
Tennessee did it even worse - they made camping a felony. (Which includes disenfranchisement, and loss of the ability to own a gun. The GOP are total hypocrites.)
wpln.org/post/three-y...
By the time January 20, 2029 comes around, it'll have been over 13.5 years since June 16, 2015 (the day he announced his campaign). And he'll have had 12 years combined of presidency and "shadow presidency".
Did you hear of the new Washington State sheriff accountability law? (Of course, many sheriffs are mad.)
www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2026/...
A requirement for a proprietary device created by only one manufacturer? That raises serious antitrust concerns in addition to the conflict of interest issue. (@jasoncoxnc.bsky.social might find this familiar)
These are state charges.
I wouldn't be surprised if many or most fossil fuel addicts are also war addicts - in other words, they love fossil fuels because it creates a motive for war.
The actual first folks in line for war should be the politicians who vote for it - and they should be dressed like racing drivers so everyone can see who owns them.
He claims to be "pro-life" and against "weaponization of the federal government" but starvation isn't pro-life and it is weaponization. "Life begins at conception and ends in forced starvation by government."
Curious, were there any dicusssions about construction types on this call?
MAGA logic: "Life begins at conception and ends in a school bombing."
I wouldn't be surprised if many of the fossil fuel addicts are also war addicts - in other words, they love fossil fuels because it creates a motive for war.
Politicians should have to dress like racing drivers.
That bill has a huge (and really bad) flaw: it's a local option not a statewide change. My guess is a very small number of cities and counties will opt in to this.
Extreme home rule is one of the biggest governance problems in this country in so many ways.
I just don't understand why the report totally overlooks construction types.
If they're making up a nonexistent requirement ("shirt-pocket rule") that isn't in any law or code, you may want to consider legal action.
Is there a means by which the state (or someone else) can take the comptroller to court for a violation like this?
There's also this ongoing initiative that may make things easier for non-US manufacturers who want to enter the US market.
federalregister.gov/d/2026-01272
Isn't this the case in most if not all states? (This reminds me of Huntington Beach's attempt to rebel against the state of California. The city even tried to bring a federal lawsuit against its state, which the courts resoundingly rejected.)
If he really wanted to own this and wanted to be ambitious... he could have worked with the legislature and had Colorado one-up every other state and make an all-new code from scratch.
Yes this! There really should be more reliance on construction types in the codes, e.g. right-sizing allowances and requirements based on construction type.
The CA SFM's report also totally ignores the differences between construction types.
Also, the report doesn't even discuss or suggest differentiating based on construction type.
This whole ordeal is a great reason why ethics commitments belong in company bylaws/articles of incorporation in a manner that's as difficult as possible to amend.
This is a great reason why ethics commitments need to go in company bylaws/articles of incorporation, preferably in a way that's as difficult as possible to amend even if the founder isn't around anymore.
My guesses: blatant hypocrisy, double standards, and fear of retaliation (e.g. sanctions).
Here's how serious that last one can get: bsky.app/profile/rand...