I think Biden was right to drop out. Harris may have her own baggage to contend with but I think she can stir up the base better than Biden could.
A big issue will be the choice of running mate and hopefully the Democrats won't make a really big mistake in the choice. Josh Shapiro from Pennsylvania would be my guess.
Joe Biden has dropped out of the 2024 presidential race and endorsed Kamala Harris for the Democratic nomination.
Let the games begin!
Trump has selected JD Vance, the junior senator from Ohio as his VP choice.
Oh good lord. The only good thing that I can say about Vance is that he's an ex-marine.
He's opposed to abortion even in cases of rape or incest. He explains his opposition as that "two wrongs don't make a right."
He supports a nationwide ban on abortions after 15 weeks and opposes same sex marriage.
He's a converted Catholic. He's opposed to supporting Ukraine but in favor of supporting Israel. So he's 50% correct there.
He's also young at only 39 years old which means he could be a major player for a long time. He has a JD from Yale so he's not stupid and that could be a real problem.
Trump could have made a worse choice but this one isn't all that great.
Judge Eileen Cannon has dismissed the documents case against Donald Trump.
The rationale is that Special Prosecutor Jack Smith wasn't properly appointed because he wasn't approved by Congress and his budget wasn't specifically authorized by Congress.
This is an argument that has been made and rejected many times in the past. It's nonsense. The DOJ has a budget authorized by Congress and has always been able to use that budget for special prosecutors.
Think how difficult it would be to appoint a special prosecutor if every time they had to be approved by Congress and have a specific budget allocated by Congress?
I wonder how many people in prison thanks to special prosecutors can now challenge their convictions?
Trump's wins over the last couple of weeks almost make me believe there's a devil and Trump has made a deal with him. This is a federal case. If Trump wins the election, which looks almost certain, he can pardon himself. Our "justice" system really is a joke.Shots were apparently fired at Donald Trump during a rally in Pennsylvania. He appeared to be OK as secret service agents rushed him off stage.
We eat a fair amount of soft Taco shells. I use them for sandwiches and we do have Tacos from time to time. During the pandemic I started buying them from Amazon in 12 packs of ten Taco shells.
May 13th, 2020 - $20.88
June 30th, 2020 - $20.88
August 19th, 2020 - $27.49
September 23rd, 2020 -$21.00
November 13th, 2020 - $21.00
December 19th, 2020 - $21.00
March 12th, 2021 - $20.88
May 23rd, 2021 - $21.00
September 5th, 2021 - $26.03
November 9th, 2021 - $27.66
March 21st, 2022 - $29.51
July 10th, 2022 - $22.99
October 5th, 2022 - $26.88
February 20th, 2023 - $26.88
June 24th, 2023 - $29.28
January 8th, 2024 - $29.88
July 5th, 2024 - $33.99
However this was the first time I found other options. There was a 6 pack of 10 and a 5 pack of 6. The 6 pack of 10 at $15.99 actually turned out to be about 2 cents per Taco shell less expensive so that was the one I actually bought this time. The 5 pack of 6 was priced at $18.99 which was completely ridiculous.
Atheism can be EITHER a lack of belief in a god (weak atheism) or the position that there is no god (strong atheism). The position that that there is no god is a positive claim and carries a burden of proof.
The lack of belief in a god is not a positive claim. The lack of belief that there is no god is a perfectly valid way to describe a weak theism. However religion DOES NOT position itself that way and neither do most theists. They make the positive claim that a god exists. Atheists simply reject that claim.
No, a burden does not attach to the rejection of a claim. Consider a criminal trial. The positive claim by the prosecution is that the defendant committed a crime. It has the burden of proof to demonstrate that claim. The defense rejects the claim. The defense DOES NOT have to demonstrate that the defendant is innocent but simply that the prosecution has not met its burden of proof.
Atheists find god not guilty of existing.
This is basic epistemology 101. The person making the positive claim has the burden of proof. Those rejecting the claim need only show why the evidence is insufficient to justify belief. You can apply this to fairies, unicorns, leprechauns and big foot. I reject the claim that these things exist. By doing so I don't acquire a burden of proof to show that they don't.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a president has immunity from subsequent prosecution for the execution of official actions while in office.
The media, and others, are treating this like it's a shock. If you think about it then it makes a lot of sense. The key here is "official actions."
Let me make this simple. If it's illegal then it's by definition not an official action.
