GroundedGator

That sounds like a ~~shake down for a bribe~~ perfectly legal solicitation for a campaign contribution.

This is my district and I definitely will not be voting for her.

Not good for any type of boot. I bought a pair on clearance from Sears. Legit wanted a pair of steel toe work boots for yard work and other work around the house. After about 3 years of light wear the soul started to fall away.

I would have been better off with a cheap work boot from Walmart.

The excess is also insane. When people can't afford or won't afford the high beef prices, will the corporations who make it produce less or take it to market to be used in more sustainable products? As a society we've moved to not just make sure enough food is available but that everyone has an opportunity to purchase anything they might want. With fresh foods that means guaranteed waste, which means higher prices to make up for that waste.

My great grandparents ran a grocery store in a very small town. My grandfather ran a butcher counter that he got regular deliveries for and everyone in town knew the schedule, once the meat was gone, that was it until the next delivery. They grew produce in the summer and always canned any excess. There was always enough food for everyone who cared to buy it, but there wasn't so much that everyone could get everything at any time.

Less than what taxpayers have paid directly to Trump organizations I'd imagine

I see you are also older and can talk of such things.

And likely have some not very nice things to say about the Jewish people.

Fetch the super soaker

Or maybe the simplest reason, don't expose the mad king to too much public scrutiny. Having trump speak at an event like this is a benefit to Trump, not the NRA. Just as it is a benefit, it is a detriment if his health and mental ability are in question.

How dare you be present! That's just going to result in emotionally grounded adults with a sense of belonging.

How exactly is this unconstitutional? Where in the Constitution do we have a right to privacy? SCOTUS has ruled in past cases that some portions of the Constitution create zones of privacy or protect against government intrusion, BUT they most recently ruled in Dobbs that a woman's medical decisions should not be private.

This might be the most anemic open ended bill I have ever read. On its face, it has no teeth. The most well defined portions of the bill are to make sure that applications have access to age data. Making this look more like a way for corporations to gather data and verify real people as opposed to online personas.

There is zero regulation actually defined and instead they have a 180 day period to define the regulation and a year for it to be contacted and implemented. The bill could pass tomorrow and we still wouldn't know what age verification looks like.

As scary as these efforts are, they are also a bit humorous to me. By and large software exists independently of its creator, especially in the FOSS space. There would be no way to require an individual to install an OS that supported this or even use an updated browser that supported it.

Ultimately, the only way to really enforce any sort of age verification system is to force all content providers to have an age verification step. This presents as OS level, but you have to give people a reason to upgrade in order to implement. If Wikipedia suddenly required some sort of OS based age verification protocol to access its content, it would become a lot harder to avoid.

They are putting this at the OS level, but I think this is a way to back into removing anonymous access to the Internet.