The CO Rs have stated they'll just remove themselves from the primary system and do a caucus. Which doesn't make sense to me because if SCOTUS rules, or abstains from hearing the case, then it doesn't matter what they do for the primary.
Key clarification for everyone - this is only for the PRIMARY ballot so far. Colorado has a hybrid primary system where you can only vote for the party you are affiliated with. If you are unaffiliated you choose which party you want a ballot for.
ETA for even further clarification: The ruling is stayed until SCOTUS gives directive. So there's a good chance Trump will be on the primary ballot anyway. However, should SCOTUS give the ok he would then be removed from the CO ballot. For write-ins, I would imagine SCOTUS would have to cover that but if they say he's an insurrectionist, write-ins would need to be discarded as Trump wouldn't be an eligible candidate.
I don't know if I give a shit anymore about the Democrats old standby of justifying doing nothing because it might set a precedent. If we can't hold the line to uphold the law and the constitution, then what exactly are we doing?
One of the courts that decided not to rule on this matter said (paraphrased), "It's not the job of the courts to decide political matters." It struck me as dumb since they rule on matters of the constitution all the time. No one wants to touch this to see where it would go, and CO has decided to test the waters. I'm all in.
I was pressed at little kid baseball practice why DS wasn't going to play football. I mentioned the rate of head injuries and the other parent acted like I was nuts.
I can see how my comment comes across as blaming people for not doing research. I was specifically responding to the question asked.
My original comment was more to point out that the supposed professionals were prescribing something with little to no research to support the outcome they promised.
When I was in elementary school my dentist wanted to snip the thingie under my tongue, saying by 4th grade I wouldn't be able to pronounce the letter 'S' properly. I said hell no, and lo and behold, no issues. I remember another friend getting a lip tie snip around that age, too. I wonder if they still push this on older kids or just on infants and vulnerable moms.
The article said that rates are rising for older kids, too.
The story also states there is very limited medical evidence that they do work, and that issues reported would most often have worked themselves out in time.
And how does any layperson assess that, especially if a presumed medical professional says they have the solution to your problem? (mostly rhetorical since I doubt there is a good answer, and sleep-deprived new parents are a very easy mark in this case)
Even with the internet at our fingertips, it's difficult to find the 'right' medical evidence for every potential medical decision. And that's if you even have the time and resources to try to go digging. So yea, frustrating problem with no good solution, and not just for this procedure in particular.
My test is if I Google a medical procedure and little to no scholarly articles pop up then I know to look farther.
Like one day I got curious about elderberry syrup everyone was pushing during cold season. First page there were two scholarly articles saying there was little evidence it worked, plus several news articles discussing the same thing. Googling isn't hard, and a little knowledge of knowing what sources to trust goes a long way.
Friends, the intent of the story is not if a tongue tie release worked for your kids. The intent is to highlight that the people recommending the procedures are most often unlicensed, and those performing the procedures are doing it mostly for profit whether the procedure needs done or not.
The story also states there is very limited medical evidence that they do work, and that issues reported would most often have worked themselves out in time.
Well, since you're asking - questioning scripture interpretations is not a symptom of neurodivergence. As someone whose formative religious years was spent around 6+ retired pastors, and several practicing pastors of various denominations getting together to talk, it's on the weird end for me to hear of people deferring and accepting one interpretation because someone went to seminary school. As is one on one coaching on how to think regarding scripture. Those ladies and men would go at it for hours, and never once shot down ideas, nor defer because someone had more supposed education.
Hmmm. This exchange, and your interpretation of it, make me feel like you have gotten into a downward spiral with Kyle and definitely need to reassess.
I see absolutely nothing in that exchange that suggests he is calling your H a liar, and the fact that you jumped to that conclusion suggests that he has you so on edge as to set every interaction up for failure.
I’m not sure what the solution is, and I commend you for wanting to help him, but honestly, your reaction is almost more baffling than his, this time.
DH explicitly said he was invited to the party. He replied by asking if tomorrow DH was going to tell him he was uninvited. To me, that says he didn't believe DH when DH told him he was invited. When you don't believe someone, aren't you saying you think they're lying?
That said, yes, I do believe we've gotten into a spiral and need to make some adjustments in our own attitude and they way we talk with him, and about him to each other.
If you're truly dealing with someone neurodivergent, no I wouldn't think that at all. Their brains are making different connections than yours.
I’m the churchgoer who said this is all bananas, but I want to add some context. My church does lot of stuff with people that are right out of jail and with people that have mental health issues. I’m not saying the church should cut this guy off.
I agree with this. My church, even though I'm no longer an active member, was very involved with the unhoused community. There was a lot of training of the laypeople involved, guidelines for "after hours" contact, etc. This church and church group seem to be very suburban, and idealistic with none of the nitty gritty. Like the original assertion that people are to bring a dish if they are able, but with the strong mindset that everyone should be able to bring something. If there truly was a mindset that no one cares if you bring anything, it wouldn't be in the OP.
Meeting him where he's at means not centering yourself in the conversation. "He thinks I'm (or husband) is lying" is making you the center. He does not have the capacity, or even capability, to think of others. He is solely able to care about himself and only about himself. You, your group, God, are not going to be able to change that. You, your group, God are not going to be able to change him or anything about him. This is truly one of those situations where you have to let go.
I agree with whoever said that you have to meet him where he's at if you want to continue to have him in your group.
It's really easy to manipulate church groups because people are trying to act in a manner that they think the church would want them to, even if it goes against what you typically would do outside of a church setting. Which is why he's being drawn to church groups, as he knows people will interact with him where they normally wouldn't. On some level he probably does know that his mental state is not being properly managed.
I'm also struggling with the whole organized church aspect of the story, as that seems really weird to me too. Like the 1:1 being coached how to interpret the bible based on how the church sees things is a bit too "conform or else" for me. Related to my above point, churches probably aren't this person's best aspect of human contact even if they're his only "sure thing" for having people interact with him because they're not going to give him what he needs without expecting some sort of conformity from him.
So, all in all, those are my two cents without giving any actual advice.
3 hostages mistakenly killed by troops had been holding a white flag, Israeli military official says
The account of how the hostages died also raised questions about the conduct of Israeli ground troops. Palestinians on several occasions reported that Israeli soldiers opened fire as civilians tried to flee to safety.