I think you meant revenue and not profit. I believe that they are still operating at a loss of several hundred million dollars with a shrinking user base.

Roughly 3 months to go in this game of hot potato before Trump can sell his shares without special permission from the board.

"Am I going to fight this case until I die? Yeah,” Giuliani said. “I’d rather die poor with my principles than cave in to a destruction of my country that I love so much.”

Da fuq is he talking about?

Isn’t Reagan suspected of a similar prioritizing political points over the safety of US citizens?

Darn it. That is disappointing.

It then ruled that the First Amendment does not apply “where a defendant creates unreasonably dangerous conditions, and where his creation of those conditions causes a plaintiff to sustain injuries.”

Did they just make it easier for Trump to be held accountable for Jan 6?

I get that it started 60 years ago with white flight and was exasperated 40 years ago with the consolidation of major changes, but why has their been no progress in correcting this? Why are zoning laws not being updated? Why do grocery store chains think inner cities are riskier? Why are new stores, like the referenced Whole Foods, not lasting? Why the focus on supermarkets instead of smaller neighborhood grocery stores that don’t have the same logistic issues?

Those questions are not directed at you. They are more a representation my disappointment and disillusionment. Thank you for the reply.

I guess that I was hoping that there would be more current information and not just an article about how nobody cares so nothing has been done in more than half a century.

Can somebody help me out? The title of the article suggests it will provide insight into the cause of large grocery retailers avoiding certain communities but all I am seeing is talk about the what and nothing about the why. Did I miss it or did I just fall for clickbait?

“MAGA is now in control of the Republican Party!!” Greene wrote on X

Missed opportunity if the Dems don’t share this to energize their base.

Yeah, kinda. Except that the laws already exist. So somebody ineligible could fight to be on the ballot (or somebody else could fight to have them removed), which would result in a court case. Which is what just happened.

If SCOTUS had decided to hear Trumps immunity arguments sooner rather than later than there would be a chance of him being ejudicated of insurrection before the election. Until that verdict, he remains eligible since Congress failed to impeach him when they had the chance.

The constitution lists the following 3 criteria for running for president.

• Be a natural-born citizen of the United States
• Be at least 35 years old
• Have been a resident of the United States for 14 years

Your kid could run if / when they meet these criteria, but not your dog.

The constitution also defines citizen as “persons”, which would further disqualify your dog.

The link to the cartoon is in the last paragraph.

… the justices said the court’s rules and principles are, for the most part, “not new.” However, “codification” of existing principles is meant to clear up concerns about the justices operating without oversight.

Sooooo the same failed guidelines that are not enforced and carry zero consequences for selling their judgements? That’s what they think will restore trust in their court instead of deepening the image of rampant corruption and politicking?