PeepinGoodArgs

Exactly

What’s particularly strange about it is that it doesn’t really serve any purpose for a vast majority of people aside from a government-approved official statement that someone finds their in-laws unbearable.

That's a pretty good purpose. Everybody can save face by taking part in bureaucracy. That sounds like I'm being facetious, but I'm serious. Think about the alternative: avoiding them awkwardly all the time or telling them to screw themselves directly, which will engender negative feelings. At least with the bureaucracy, the sentiment gets filtered through a impartial, uncaring medium.

While he had fake electors last time, they weren't as widespread as they've become over the last 4 years. He also didn't have the coordination of the Heritage Foundation either like he does now. He also didn't have a House of Representatives willing to steal the election last time.

He has a lot going for his machinations this time.

What did your neighbor say about it?

You're only partially right. There was a penalty for not having healthcare that was reduced to $0 where it has stayed since 2017. When that happened premiums shot up because healthier people decided to not get insurance. Considering health insurance is about pooling risk, healthier people left weren't there to subsidize the relatively sicker folks. So, it's also a problem of incentives

Coffee badging is the practice of going into the office for a few hours to “show face,” which could entail coffee with co-workers or sitting in on a work meeting — but then leaving to work remotely.

So, they comply institutional requirements to waste time for no reason before going elsewhere to do work? And this is characterized as being disengaged?

This doesn't make any sense. Is this a joke? Who came up with this? Wtf is this journalism?

That's racism with extra steps

Americans are not required to have health insurance. Generally, health insurance is tied to one's job. Perhaps OP is a business owner and has decided to forego insurance for other things? Idk. And neither do you.

Also, it's not like American health insurance is effective in reducing hospital bills to the point of being reasonable. It's a trope that health insurance is a scam because it's so bad.

Also, like all economic decisions, health insurance vs a home is a trade off, one that OP made for whatever reason. It's not something to blame them for.

And finally, it sounds like they can afford their home just fine with outfit tradeoffs.

This is ignorance and/or maliciousness.

You're implicitly generating a fantasy to say this person pays too much for their home when that information is only compared to hospital bills. Idk about you, but I don't have hospital bills every year or even every decade like a monthly mortgage. To "put myself in a situation where I can't afford my house" may mean just getting cancer or getting diabetes or dealing with another disease or ailment that I wasn't before.

So either you don't know how hospital bills can be financially debilitating. Or you do and you're blaming them for addressing their health, as if they should just die.

Which is it?

There is literally nothing any President going forward can promise without Congress completely having the President's back or the Justices agreeing with the President.

This was always true. The Affordable Care Act was met with repeated judicial challenges and survived thanks to judicial interpretation.

Regulatory rules have alsp always been subject to judicial review, especially after the public comment period. If an agency does not respond to comments, a rule can be struck down as arbitrary.

The difference now is that the courts can evaluate rules not based on scientific and administrative expertise but on ~~ideology~~ whether they adhere to the legal authority Congress granted them. Chevron deference implied that Congress gave agencies the legal authority to adapt to new situations. The misanthropes of the Supreme Court disagree because, for them, the Constitution is a dead document allowing adaptation to anything at all.

Who doesn't want peace? Not many.

One of the most difficult things for me to learn was that some people really prefer violence over more peaceful alternatives. I still haven't quite wrapped my head around it, but I accept it.

I've engaged with the articles core argument about the legitimatization of violence, but the only answer is more violence for some of you people.

Fight fire with fire and watch the whole world burn. Just like it is because of the oppressor's violence.

What liberal position would?