And provides zero details
These are in the fact sheet, here's a quick summary: contraceptives are now available w/o cost sharing (i.e. for free) - both OTC and prescribed, private insurance is now required to disclose that it's available w/o cost sharing or prescription, offering grants for expanding coverage of contraceptives, etc.
Actually, if you read the original survery, it's not even 10% of Dems who would agree with that,
Only 9% agree.
Actually have some good news here. If you look at the survey itself, it explains that this was part of the question,
if Trump loses the election, he should declare
In other words, that 19% is assuming that he'll declare it stolen.
If it was genuine (no interference) then I can see how having nearly half the folks opposed to joining could cause some, erm, friction in the union.
But I'm willing to make an exception in this case - when Russian disinformation gets involved, it makes sense to move the bar in the opposite direction to counter them!
If I have read both correctly, they are actually different articles - this one is about warning that the Economist polling model (has moved to favour a GOP presidency) and the other one is warning about the different polling model from The Hill (which has also moved to favour a GOP presidency).
I can see the benefit of posting all of them together at once though (hey ma, look at this! all the polling models I can find are starting to agree on the outcome!)
Weird, it's not showing up for me. (That is, the article shows up just fine, no paywall, despite multiple reloads.) I've never seen a paywall from CNN.
Now I find myself wondering what that CNN paywall looks like...
It’s logical to assume if he’s being this blatant because even a little digging would show obvious crimes.
Are you saying that he'll be expected to go to jail if Harris wins? I think you just made my day.
Well, it’s probably all hypothetical, Biden wouldn’t have the balls to do anything.
Biden was never a tough-as-nails prosecutor. But this is how Harris made her name, so there's every reason to expect she's do things differently after Jan 20.
The logic doesn't even make sense. Interpol has non-country members such as Gibraltar and American Samoa ...
Even other parts of China (Hong Kong and Macao) are members of Interpol. So there's really no justification to not have Taiwan join - even if it has to do so under a funky name like "Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu"
Right? The one started in 1950 ended with a ceasefire but there was never a treaty ending the hostilities.
I guess they mean ending the ceasefire and a return to active wartime hostilities but the way they say it is certainly funny.
You know what would be great? If Dems signed up for this, got their $1 mil, and then they voted blue anyways. In some battleground states, like Georgia, it's illegal to take a selfie or otherwise share proof of how you voted as per https://www.vox.com/21523858/ballot-selfies-state-rules so Musk and his PAC would never find out.
Is there a lot that a President can do about housing prices?
I am just wondering if going to the legislator (thus picking a senator, even voting for a third party senatorial candidate) or the state level (e.g. the governor, even an independent party governor candidate) or some combination would be a better fit for this specific problem?
From the Fact Sheet,
Basically this is a set of administrative rule and executive action updates. Stuff the White House can do w/o needing new legislation from Congress.