What a misleading article. It feels like they had to try as hard as possible to make it seem like A both sides issues, but their one example of a democrat doing this is Robert reich writing an article for the guardian saying Elon musk should be jailed. Neither of which are running for political office.

To me it seems like there is something they’re scared of, otherwise they’d just let the courts handle it instead passing legislation to retroactively try and get the entire lawsuit thrown out. 🤷‍♂️

That’s pretty weird.

I believe they prefer to go by Lois Einhorn now.

I still need chips to do that. But even with chips on the sandwich, i’d need them on the side also. Otherwise, I’m still just eating a sandwich and for some reason it makes me uncomfortable and likely to stop eating after just a few bites.

Are you telling me that the laws of physics cease to exist on your stove!?

What an absurd burden to put on someone. If I can opt in electronically, I should be able to opt out electronically.

I can’t eat a sandwich if I don’t have chips with it.

“A man wanted just two slices of cheese on his sandwich, so when his wife used three slices in his grilled cheese sandwich, he became irate.”

Another stable genius, folks /s

There aren’t laws saying the company had to tell the truth, so if they lie, what’s the punishment?

Edit: also, wouldn’t the power to punish them have to come from some sort of law or regulation? 🤔

They talk about broken promises and misrepresentation of what they would do after the merger. Corporations aren’t people and don’t have morals to stop them from breaking promises or just flat out lying. The only way they will do anything is if it makes them money or they are forced (regulated)

I thought burrito season was over.