> Rob Vigors and Karen Ridge are understood to have walked onto Robby Wirramanda's property at Mildura and taken an issue with an Aboriginal flag flying on the property.
@Memor-X Curious if the franchise takeover is in their franchise agreement or if they were effectively bought out (which would be unfortunate given the circumstances)
> Franchisee engages in public conduct which reflects materially and unfavourably upon the operation of the Restaurant, the reputation of the McDonald s System, or the good will associated with the McDonald's trademarks; provided that engaging in legitimate political activity (including testifying, lobbying, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation) shall not be grounds for termination;
also would not be surprised if there is a broad termination clause in there saying something like "McDonald reserves the right to terminate Franchisee in their discretion"
Yeah, usually terminating the franchise would just mean the restaurant shutting down though, so the fact they were actually able to acquire them is interesting
And good, the employees shouldn't have to suffer due to that dude
user15026
If this is how that dude acts in public I worry very much for how he treated his employees
> For the reasons given above, President Trump’s abuse of power encompassed both the constitutional offense of “Bribery” and multiple federal crimes. He has betrayed the national interest, the people of this Nation, and should not be permitted to be above the law. It is therefore all the more vital that he be removed from office.
and p 128:
> By virtue of the conduct encompassed by the First Article of Impeachment, President Trump “has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law.”
@Frank we will see what we shall see. My fervent hope is that Democratic challengers to GOP senators are poised and ready to take advantage; to (rightly) paint them as defenders of Trump's corruption.
Note that many GOP senators have been largely successful at "no-commenting" their way through the entire Trump presidency
@Frank Probably because he knows that Democratic leadership is under the mistaken assumption that him saying these things will hurt him in future elections.
@Unionhawk Eh, not sure that's the proper takeaway. This is a Republican problem, not a partisanship problem that exists equally on both sides. Democrats wouldn't blindly defend a Democratic president who had done these kinds of things
> Rep. Adam Schiff: "I don't think any of us have any question that had Barack Obama engaged in the activity ... every one of these Republicans would be voting to impeach him."
> "I hope to hell ... if it were Barack Obama, I would vote to impeach him."
That there's that flexibility is arguably a structural deficiency though
The Framers made the mistake of not anticipating "Debate me" being reduced from "the only thing for wealthy men to occupy their time with" to "Ben Shapiro", alas
@TimStone I wouldn't disagree that blind partisan loyalty is one of (several) current issues not anticipated by the founders. But I'm not sure what the remedy would be, even if you could pass a constitutional amendment.
@BradC I mean, I think part of the problem is that the presidential election is two iterations of FPTP, which takes the worst parts of FPTP and exacerbates them. It pushes things towards a two party system even faster.
@BradC I think there are a lot of things that are dependent on cooperation by the chamber speakers that inhibit dissent? Hard to say exactly what the remedy is
@Unionhawk Actually, I think you'll see a Democratic president would be willing to implement many ideas that ultimately reduce the power of the president, even at their own expense
And sure, the GOP (and the media) might characterize that as dems "playing the same game" or whatever, but I think its more accurately catching up to the actual rules of the game the GOP has been playing for a long time
For example: I think that if Dems retake the Senate (and the House and White House), they'd be FOOLS if they didn't abolish the filibuster so they could get things done.
@Yuuki I think it's complicated, and I hope that the party will see that no the manifesto was decent we just need a leader that people like (but also need to figure out how to work with a press that will probably smear any labour leader in exactly the same way)
Wild idea: if less than 50% of the population votes, everybody gets thrown out of office, and candidates are barred from participating again for at least a term.
@Frank Regarding "playing by the same rules" vs "descending to their level", I think it will depend on the specific issue of each moment. But I am desperate for them to stop taking bad faith arguments seriously. That would make a lot of difference, to me.
Too much desire to bend over backwards to appear "fair and balanced and compromising", when the GOP will never compromise. So stop engaging in that way, and simply strongly support your own agenda
@BradC stop taking bad faith arguments seriously. Totally hear you. But...what can you do? You're debating for your audience, and refusing to take their crap seriously can hurt any chances of winning over the people on the fence.
So you have to weigh what's important. And it seems to me that doing what your base supports should be more important than some fan fiction of seeming fair and balanced
@Frank I think there are many of the newly elected Dems that don't think so. And as they continue to gain power in the party, that will hopefully change
The Dems can look fair and balanced because they're hoping to win over the reasonable middle.
The left have no one else, so they're in the bag regardless.
If there was a third party option, the Dems'd would have to firm up their policy, because then someone else could strip the left or center away from them.
(this article is mostly saying that there are different types of centrist or undecided voters, in various degrees of overlapping groups; but that they mostly do not fall into the traditional view of what people mean when they talk about that group)
In a similar way, I think the "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" demographic is vastly overstated, which is why the new billionaire boys jumping into the race don't have much of a chance, in my opinion
But what is real is the perception among many that more centrist Democrats have a better chance in the general.
I think that's pretty much the only reason that Biden continues to poll so high. He's the "safe bet"
> “I know firsthand the professionalism of the men and women of the F.B.I. The aspersions cast upon them by the president and my longtime friend, Attorney General William P. Barr, are troubling in the extreme. Calling F.B.I. professionals ‘scum,”’ as the president did, is a slur against people who risk their lives to keep us safe,” he wrote.
> “Mr. Barr’s charges of bias within the F.B.I., made without providing any evidence and in direct dispute of the findings of the nonpartisan inspector general, risk inflicting enduring damage on this critically important institution.”
> The whistleblower, who to Trump’s consternation remains unidentified, raised the concern that the president’s actions leading up to and on that phone call amount to interference in the coming presidential election. Agree or disagree with the conclusion, or whether the president’s conduct warrants impeachment, the actions described in the complaint stand up to factual scrutiny.
The local news is reporting that two kids came home and found "two women dead inside" and I feel chances are good that they're related to at least one of them but you would not get that from the framing 🤔
@TimStone So apparently the reason why inclined sleepers are bad are because babies can't breathe if they roll over and nobody thought "hey, things roll over easier when they're on a ramp"?
that's literally why ramps exist, because it's easier to roll things over when you put them on a ramp
I think inclined sleepers make your head portion higher than your feet portion or vice-versa.
> Pros: +$15,000 to your bank account. > Cons: You live in Topeka, Kansas.
> The program would require people to live in the county and work for employers that, in turn, would pay up to $15,000 in moving costs, as a bonus or to help with buying a home. Renters would get $10,000.
> Cons: You live in Topeka, Kansas and you also own a house in Topeka, Kansas.
> It’s likely Boeing will stop 737 MAX production this week or next and keep the assembly lines closed until the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) clears the jet to return to commercial service, which is currently expected around mid-February or early March, the person said.
Apparently
This would be a big impact on the region, affect a whole lot of workers.
i suppose these planes take a lot of time, effort, and money to make so you stand to lose a lot of money if you just stop for what could be a ban for only one or two months, while waiting on re-approval
I think they actually assemble them in like a week and a half somehow? So I'm still a little surprised. The plane does have some advantages if it like, doesn't kill everyone, so maybe airlines just hedged their bets on existing orders?
