He had no business being there ANYWAY.

And Congress didn’t “verify” anything. It was a rote formalism with about as much real power regarding the election as the coronation of the king of England.

Schumer resigning as minority leader wouldnt change one damn thing.

The only resignation that would matter would be from his Senate seat, and while Hochul has some progressive bonna fides from her endorsement of Mamdani I dont think there’s a good choice for an appointed senator who could make much of a difference.

Maybe someone like Zephyr Teachout, but I’m not sure she’d want the job or that Hochul would pick her.

(And if AOC herself wants the job, I’d want her to get the benefit of winning a statewide dem primary first.)

So Australia, being a country formally ruled by a crown but governed parliment-style via legislative majority with a designated royal proxy, had the people of said “emergency fallback spare government” talk to each other before actually doing one of the only things they’re still allowed to do?

Was the royal governor thrown in jail? Was the claimed non-involvement of the queen with someone whose literal job was to act in her name used to argue against abolishing the crown of Australia and changing to a formal Republic?

I don’t see the scandal here. If my country’s infamous president claimed that, say, the senate-confirned secretary of defense reached a conclusion on his own but they were discreetly in communication it might at worst be embarrassing, but hardly scandalous.

Is this a weird Australian thing or a weird British thing?

In a winner-take-all election, anything less than a vote for the runner up is an endorsement of the winner.

You’re not “refusing to take part” in the election, you’re just voting “either is fine by me.”

Remember that Bitcoin is still using the inherently wasteful “proof of work” pattern to incentive the necessary hash computations.

And that it’s less of a currency than it is a speculative security. Kind of like in-game currency for a MMO that allows real-money exchange, but without the game and somehow with even less stability or efficiency.

We know a bunch of ways to kill cancer cells. Unfortunately, we usually want to avoid killing the non-cancerous ones, which is considerably harder to do.

That sounds like someone took the transphobic AGP theory and made up a cisgender equivalent.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanchard's_transsexualism_typology