Or white mutiny. Do your job and don't do anything extra that makes your boss look good. Let their behaviour ruin them. Been there done that to a drunken boss who got really snarky with me one day for not "doing her job fast enough" when to do so would have stopped all work for the last hours of the day. Took 90 days for her to be fired, as I predicted.

The very Socialism that the Republicans scream constantly is destroying America.

There was more than one. One of the ones I saw also had a sign indicating he was against "Tranny", I assumed he couldn't spell Tyranny but with all the American fears of trans people that have shown up since then maybe I was wrong.

Have you read Mein Kampf? Trumps actions are straight out of it. What isn't from it is from 1984 by Orwell.

The same for the "Truckers Convoy" in Canada. Way too many Confederate flags. Not to mention one of them in court trying to plead the 5th amendment.

Canada fought Bush II 's softwood lumber tariffs and won at every step. That didn't get them revoked. A deal was finally made but Trump broke it. The Republicans think they are above any agreements.

At that speed a 2 wheeled vehicle is not stable you will wobble all over the path endangering everyone else.

Here at least mopeds have a LEGAL definition, part of which is the ability to go a maximum of 50 kmh. E-bikes are limited to 32 kmh. Most likely your area has (or should have) a legal definition of these terms. Of course the cops here have tried to define an e-bike missing a pedal as an unlicensed motorcycle but EVENTUALLY the courts told them NO.

Sure thing lets put those electric wheelchairs and utility scooters for the handicapped in traffic with cars and transport trucks. Maybe you should be more specific?

A conventional bike can be faster than a legal e-bike and is just as silent. I used to cycle at speeds of up to 38 mph (never had a bike that wouldn't start to shake too hard at that speed to go faster) and the only time my e-bike ever reached that speed was on a long steep hill. I've had groups of cyclists going by me on a shared path with a 15 kmh speed limit doing about 3 times that yell at me (doing 15) "Your dangerous on here", who was the dangerous one? Me obeying the law or them at 3 times the speed and their heads down only occasionally looking where they were going?

Have you considered that some of these e-bike riders may have INJURIES (not related to cycling) which prevent them from pedalling? I'm in that category (though I don't currently have an e-bike). Pedalling a bike makes that injury permanently worse. It isn't laziness but injury. Here the e-bikes have limits that mean quite often cyclists would pass me by. Others may not be able to afford a car (or have a place to park it) or just not like driving.

On the dog issue I've seen dog owners off one side of a biking path in the dark with no lights and their dog on LONG leashes off the other side of the path with no consideration that a cyclist might come along and not see that thin leash in the dark. Many times it has only been my being very aware of the fact people might come out of the bushes had me see something (not always aware of what) and come to a near stop that allowed me to avoid injuring the poor dog (and myself). But it was the dog owner breaking the law not me.

But liars do statistics. When presenting statistics on the increase of e-bike injuries they never like to give the comparison to the increase in e-bikes. More e-bikes should mean more e-bike injuries but in the cases I have seen the rise in injuries is far slower than the rise in e-bikes. As e-bikes become more common people in general (drivers, cylcists and pedestrians not just riders) become more used to them and the accident rate compared to the number of e-bikes DROPS.

Religion sabotaging education as it is harder to convert/hold onto converts if they get well educated.

Have you considered that the rates set back in the 1960s may not have allowed for inflation over the next 6 decades? What was lucrative then likely wasn't 50 years later. Depending how she invested she might no longer have been well off.

I've been called a liar many times because I tried to tell people that most TV actors in the 60s didn't get residuals. Dawn Wells (Maryann on Gilligan's Island) did because her manager/husband asked for them and the studio thought it would flop so they said OK as they didn't expect to pay them. Don Adams of Get Smart was offered 30% ownership if he would take the lowest wage the unions would allow and he took it, his estate is probably still collecting, again the studio thought it would flop.

Others with popular TV shows never saw a dime from reruns. Which is one of the reasons such shows are still on TV, the studios not needing to pay residuals can offer them for less money than newer shows.