What is the both-sides in this case? Setting aside the question of trustworthyness, what trust would a deal require the Republicans to have. The only commitment I see the Dems making here is a singular vote at the beginning. If they don't follow through on that vote, then the deal is off before Republicans give up anything.
The Dems need to trust Republicans/Trump because they make their concession first.
Waterproofing hasn't been relevant to batteries since they were made internal.
I just checked, and a replacement battery for my 2024 HMD Skyline goes for $15.62 plus another $3.25 for the consumable adhesive pad and whatever shipping ends up being [0]. In practice, you might also need to buy tools, which can further drive up the cost.
Finding that source took a bit of knowledge. If you go by what HMD tells it's US users, you would look on iFixit, which would be $30 for an entire kit, which includes the battery, adhesive, and tools (Just the battery and adhesive would run you about $28).
It's not. Those messages are a blatant violation of a law known as the Hatch Act.
In theory, this is enforced by the office of special counsel, which is an independent federal agency. In practice, Trump fired the head of the OSC back in February, and appointed one of his cabinet officials to the role.
In theory, this was completely unlawful, as the OSC was setup by Congress post Watergate [0] specifically to be independent of the President. Indeed a lower court ruled as such; but was overturned on appeal. The problem is that the Supreme Court has recently embraced a view of near unlimited presidential power, including explicit rulings against the constitutionality of laws preventing the president from firing heads of independent agencies. [1].
The court also ruled that the president has near complete immunity to commit crimes (Trump v US 2024). That ruling gives the president literally complete immunity for "core" acts such as issuing pardons. So, he could pardon everyone involved.
In theory, the recourse here is impeachment. But there isn't much stomach to impeach him again after his prior impeachments failed to remove him from office. Those impeachments being for: withholding military aid to Ukraine because they wouldn't investigate the son of his political opponents; and directing a violent insurrection on January 6 to try and remain in power despite loosing the election.
[0] Where then president Nixon directed a break in of the headquarters of his political opponents.
[1] Although, I will note, the Court has made a point of clarifying that the Federal reserve is fine. Undoubtedly because they care about the amount of money they would loose in the economic carnage of that particular agency loosing independence.
You can fill out a form and send it to your HR/payroll department to adjust your withholdings at anytime, and they are supposed to do so no questions asked.
The employee not paying their income tax does not actually have an adverse impact on the employer, so they don't care. Of course, the employee still has the legal obligation to pay; but breaking tax law is pretty inherent with tax protest.
I had a similar realization when studying undergrad linguistics.
One of the classes had us read Chomsky's "Remarks on Nominalization" paper. The overwhelming sense I got from it was that the author did not understand X-Bar theory, despite knowing that Chomsky was the one who came up with it (and not realizing at the time that this paper was essentially Chomsky's first paper on the subject).
I will also say that it is a credit to his writing that the paper still holds up pretty well; even if it spends an entire section coming up with bad answers to what was literally a syntax 201 homework assignment.
Also, it's not like the food gangs steal is getting thrown into the sea, or smuggled into Egypt. It is getting eaten by people in Gaza.
When there is a shortage of food, the people with the guns eat first. That is not fair; but it is a waste of energy to be upset at those people instead of the people who made the political decision to have a food shortage.
Are you saying that Israel and the US acted in bad faith when they agreed to Hamas's more limited counter offer; then pocketed the front loaded benefit of the hostage release before reneging on their half of the agreement?
That would be like agreeing to negotiate so your enemy is not prepared for a surprise bombing campaign. Or bombing the country that volunteered their territory to host negotiations because they were hosting your enemies negotiators.
Or claiming a desire to negotiate while killing the enemy negotiators.
The 20 point plan was never agreed to by anyone. Trump proposed it. Hamas agreed to release the hostages; surrender control of Gaza to a body of Palestinian technocrats.
The GOP has 53 senators. Under current Senate procedural rules, they need 60 votes to pass a budget.
Having said that, they only need 50 votes to change Senate procedural rules. However, for reasons I do not comprehend, Senators from both bodies have been surprisingly resistant to the idea of removing or adding exemptions to the 60 vote requirement.
Federal employees are explicitly guaranteed their back pay.
Part of the problem behind the scenes is that the Democrats do not really trust guarantees passed into law anyone, as Trump has been utilizing the recision process to simply not pay money that Congress has explicitly appropriated into law.
Choking. I spend a fair amount of time in kink clubs, and the choking you see casually thrown into random porn would get you thrown out of all of them; including the ones that allow choking.
Yes, now that you mention it, I have been under increased stress recently. It started around the time I came to your office.
Dr: I'll just put you down as having chronic hypertension.