I don’t know that he has refused, but he definitely allowed Russia to play him like a fiddle in having him publish the DNC hack (and let’s not forget, it was a hack, not a leak) while holding on to RNC hacked data.

I have questions on if Trump wins in 2016 without Assange, and that’s enough to make me hate him.

I still remember how, as people on the ground in Michigan were seeing it coming and begging for more GOTV volunteers, her campaign flatly refused, instead sending volunteers to Iowa thinking she could win a red state and dunk on Trump. After all, the info on the ground couldn’t be better than their New York polling.

She thought she could just with by being not Trump (which, sure, should have been enough), but decided to not provide anything to vote for, rather than just voting against Trump.

She wins, we still have Roe and a bevy of other positive SCOTUS decisions from a 5-4 liberal court (maybe even 6-3). But she and Ginsburg screwed us over.

This case isn’t about a fed, it’s a local official.

There are other rules governing most federal employees. This is only one specific federal criminal law.

People are way overreacting to this. This decision was 100% about a federal statute. Unaffected are the MANY, MANY state and local laws preventing state and local government employees from taking gifts.

Edit: for y’all downvoters, even the linked article states

In any event, the decision in *Snyder *is narrow. It does not rule that Congress could not ban gratuities. It simply rules that this particular statute only reaches bribes.

Yet another thing that tens of millions of people across the country would instantly lose their job for

Would they? Vendors in the private sector are constantly handing out goodies to clients. Sports tickets, food, gift baskets and more. Hell, I’ve seen vendors pay for vacations in the private sector.

Also, as the case states, these things are largely illegal to varying degrees at the state level for state and local employees. This decision just said the Feds can’t pile on with additional charges.

Or, better yet, do we need to embrace the idea that infinite growth isn’t possible, and adopt economic systems that do not rely on it?

Always someone else’s fault.

I paid attention. I just don’t agree and in your reasoning poor.

We can save more infants, so that means no more meat. That is some non sequitor.

So you want us to somehow magically have the greenhouse gas emissions of an Indian, but think we can just have a high standard of living by having Soviet-style housing blocks (famous for being bleak and depressing)? That does not seem grounded in reality.

Edit: and meat is one of the few things I can eat. Not giving that up. Humans have eaten meat since before civilization. It’s a clear sign that overpopulation is a major issue that something that humans have done for eons is suddenly a problem.