And there are, they in statute but Flock cameras are not one of them currently. Is it illegal for a private business to have cameras pointing into public streets from their property?

The only difference with Flock is they have permission from your City/State to place them in public areas. That's who you need to talk to to change that. It's been done in places already, we can wax philosophic afterwards.

So why hasn't 2.5 centuries of Supreme and Federal court rulings agree with you?

More evidence the biggest threat to America and it's values are not immigrants but white conservatives.

Uh huh and who is in your eyes the king we all need right now

And how do you know that?

With such sensitive and new geopolitical, technological and socioeconomic issues to deal with that we elected such a responsible group of thoughtful individuals to guide us through these situations. I am sure they are giving the proper consideration and delicate balance this requires.

Yeah that's a wholly different story which is what i meant by de facto illegal on just having cameras out there . From my knowledge that is also going to be a local/state thing, there is nothing unconstitutional or illegal Federally about law enforcement or even a private company having that data if it was recorded out in public. I am not a lawyer.

You don't have a right to privacy in public, this has a lot of precedent about it.

If you don't want Flock cameras you have to ban them via law at you local or state level but there's nothing de facto illegal about them being outside in public.

People keep saying this but is it actually true? What company actually went broke because of woke and specifically because of woke?

A week of bad PR maybe but beyond that? I think this is made up and there is evidence of the opposite direction as well but enough either way to make this more than just feel good rhetoric.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a...

An estimated 20 million individuals have gained coverage under the ACA. Since open enrollment began in 2013, more than 15 million individuals enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP. In addition, 12.7 million were enrolled in Marketplace plans after the third open enrollment period (not everyone enrolled in Marketplace plans or Medicaid was previously uninsured).

Insurance coverage among Americans has significantly increased since ACA implementation, especially those in Medicaid expansion states and among subpopulations targeted by the law, namely the poor, childless adults, ethnic minorities, and young adults.

https://www.kff.org/affordable...

I mean the data is the data, more people have health insurance now than they did before 2010, the ACA market has like 12m signups per year, even if say half of those would have other insurance options sure but that's still more and if you want to say "Medicaid expansion doesn't count" then sure you can say that but fact is before the ACA less people had access to health insurance.

Can't just say metrics don't exist, this is fairly trivial to measure. Show me your chart.

But you definitely aren't obsessed with race.

You know as a liberal I'm not necessarily opposed to Senate by State Legislature, I think it would help make people more aware of theit state elections more. I think a new amendment could be fitted with rules that avoids the issues that brought about the 17th to begin with (corruption, deadlocks, different rules) so maybe you pair it with some standardized rules for the Houses on how the selection works.

It is not the only systemic issue though for sure so surely we can agree also with expanding The House, a full gerrymandering ban nationwide, maybe enacting proportional representation, since we are talking about original, spiritual intent here that is just as if not more important.

No, it succeeded in *some* of its goals. It reduced the number of uninsured, helped many millions who did not have access to insurance gain access. The preexisting conditions change is so successful and popular that Republicans and Trump try and take credit for it. Also while it's biggest failure was controlling costs it also very much kept the rate of rise in costs down from where it was pre-2010 and where it was expected to go from there.

It certainly didn't help that Republican's refused to partake in any of it, have sued and their media has lambasted it at every turn and then picked it apart piece by piece.

Now the rub for the folks who dislike the ACA is that it is in fact the conservative health insurance system and the only viable replacements are the systems elsewhere in the world which are more subsidized and regulated. It's why we haven't seen the "replace" and only "repeals".

It's either go more socialized or bring back the early 2000s' era which is not a great campaign issue. Good luck.

Are you kidding me? "Bidenflation"? It was all over the news for years, it's probably the #1 issue that won Trump the election. This is revisionist history, sorry.

December 19, 2008: President Bush approved a bailout plan and gave General Motors and Chrysler $13.4 billion in financing from TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) funds, as well as $4 billion to be "withdrawn later".

It's intentional that bad faith actors try and pin Obama with TARP. It's the same when Trump gets a pass for the economy in 2020 but Biden must take all the blame for 2021.

Ok, what is is the 3rd option for coal?

Sure, whatever makes you feel better about it. For nuclear power in particular amongst energy generation I think it's the only option that's been proven to work.

France, China, India, Brazil, Canada, you look at the under construction list of reactors worldwide and I believe all of them have a an SOE behind them. The economics of nuclear are unique enough amongst energy generation it just totally gears it towards that model.