CalvinBall wrote:3 special elections here in PA that did not get moved. Turnout is going to epically low. Hope we flip one.

pacino wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:3 special elections here in PA that did not get moved. Turnout is going to epically low. Hope we flip one.

Turzai is a terrible person to have even scheduled them for today, let alone keep it there.

traderdave wrote:Ok. Does Sanders step aside now? This is over.

EDIT: I was a little slow on the [Enter] button.

The Savior wrote:Bernie has no rational reason to stay in

CalvinBall wrote:Dan Lipinski may very well lose his primary which would be awesome.

As the country deals with the growing coronavirus pandemic, Republicans in the Idaho state legislature met on Monday to blaze forward with their anti-trans agenda. The state Senate passed a bill, 24-11, banning trans and intersex girls from competing as girls in school athletics, even though there are currently no trans athletes competing in the state.

The bill — which, if signed by Gov. Brad Little, would become the first state-level anti-trans bill passed so far this year — would require female athletes in high schools and colleges to undergo invasive sex testing to determine eligibility to compete in the girls’ division. The bill passed in the state House in late February, by a 24-11 vote.

According to the bill’s text, if a girl’s sex is challenged by an opposing coach, administrator, or parent, it can be proven by presenting “a signed physician’s statement that shall indicate the student’s sex based solely on: The student’s internal and external reproductive anatomy; the student’s normal endogenously produced levels of testosterone; an analysis of the student’s genetic makeup.”

That requirement places an undue burden on female athletes — making them go to the doctor for a genital exam or DNA test in an attempt to prove they meet the state’s standards for girlhood — that simply isn’t enforced upon their male counterparts. It also misunderstands trans kids, and the science behind trans athletes.

jamiethekiller wrote:

Werthless wrote:The point of a UBI is not to cover all bills, my friend. It's to cover the essentials to live. $4k/month is not in the realm of possibility.

Call it what you will. But people making 100k a year are gonna lose their jobs, too, and they have significantly more monthly debt than someone making 30k a year.

You can't have a universal fix for this other than freezing debts and giving away money to people so they can buy food and gas.