Ok 👍

Hahahahahahahahahaha! Ok 👍

The entire point of contention is why any member would be ok with non-members using services you pay for without paying.

I feel like you’re projecting. I never said it was your job or mine to police who shops at Costco.

I replied to another comment of yours that was wrong and looked through your comment history. Are you a Costco employee? You are very combative in multiple comment threads.

I have to believe you either work for Costco or have such a cult like love for them you default to shilling on their behalf.

It’s why you can use the pharmacy

Wrong, Costco cannot legally prevent you from using the pharmacy. All health services are available to the public by law. Alcohol too although that law is because they are issued a public license.

Can you provide an example of anything Costco makes available to the general public the same as their members when they don’t have to?

The closest I can think of is online shopping but that adds a 5% surcharge and I don’t even know if you still can do that.

Your membership is paying to be able to shop there, the advantage being the lower prices they achieve by purchasing wholesale and limiting markup, no more than 14% for regular and 15% for Kirkland I think.

Edit: I looked at your comment history. Don’t bother replying, I’m not interested in anything you have to say and I can go to a Costco if I want to be pitched on their membership.

Then don’t expect me to answer on another’s behalf.

Then don’t reply to someone who’s asking a question. Especially when you have nothing to actually contribute to the conversation.

There’s a saying about how it’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

You should have stayed silent because there is certainly no doubt about your foolishness now.

Your question is based on incorrect assumptions.

No, my question was based on what the person I was responding to said before you jumped in with your inanity. Try to keep up.

This is not an accomplishment.

It’s not, it’s what Biden can do. That’s why you still haven’t provided an example or an actual answer to the original question, what else is there for Biden to do?

it could be making a show of looking into it and then not following through.

So you don’t understand how the process works? That’s effectively what you’re saying.

Perhaps you should read up. This is a good explanation from when this was discussed during Obama’s presidency. Do you see anywhere that it says the president can unilaterally legalize or change the schedule of a drug?

There’s a system, it’s part of how that whole checks and balances thing works. Ignorance often leads to anger as you so aptly demonstrate. I honestly wonder if people who comment like you have are being intentional or are unwittingly part of the disinformation machine.

Not expect praise for something that hasn’t happened?

Where did I demand Biden be praised?

Centrists demand credit for non-accomplishments because they prefer to accomplish nothing.

When did I demand Biden get credit?

Often on social media the same people who decry one side behaving like authoritarian dictators act like it’s acceptable for their side to behave like gasp authoritarian dictators.

Yes, some people like to give undue credit but you’re just the other side of that coin shitting on any action that is taken.

Instead of engaging in the discussion you resort to snark, assumptions and insults. It’s clear you have nothing to contribute, engaging with you any further would be a waste of my time.

Have a day!

What more does Biden need to do?

Are you unable to answer the question or do you not have an answer? Is that why you resorted to snark?

What more does Biden need to do? They already directed HHS to consider reclassifying it from schedule I to III and HHS made their recommendation to the DEA who classifies the drugs. I thought it was up to the DEA now?

Again, it doesn’t matter what they tell you.

Wrong again. It very much matters what they tell you because by law they’re not required to tell you anything. They can terminate employment for no reason. Giving a reason is citing cause.

The employer might not fight an unemployment claim but if, for example, they cited performance in the termination meeting and then the employee finds out the employer had made age discriminatory comments, kind of like you did, about them, there’s grounds for wrongful termination.

You seem intent on ignoring the fact that the conversation during a termination from the employee perspective is crucial because companies can, and do, lie to protect themselves.

There’s also special conditions and requirements that go along with a reduction in force (layoffs due to overstaffing) that companies try to sidestep by listing a different reason for the termination.

Being fired without cause means an employee is being let go, but not because of any serious workplace misconduct. Conversely, being fired with cause means the employee committed a serious breach of conduct in their workplace, which led to their termination.

Citing performance is citing cause. You’re wrong and others are right in that citing performance is an attempt to demonstrate cause to avoid severance and/or unemployment. A “layoff” is without cause and entitles them to those benefits.

You’re welcome! Best of luck removing your head from your rectum! 👍

Are you stupid? Perhaps you should take a Civics class rather than making idiotic comments here and relying on others to educate you.

SCOTUS is the final authority on interpretation of the US Constitution. That’s why they can take up the case. If it was a clause in a State Constitution the State Supreme Court has final say and SCOTUS can suck on a lemon.

Administrators at the state and local level are responsible for running elections, from maintaining voter registration records to counting ballots. As a result, election laws and procedures vary widely among states and localities. Each state has an agency that manages elections.

Time for your dumbass to pack up your ignorance and move along. Take your asinine argument that the constitution shouldn’t be adhered to because they might get upset about it.

A village somewhere is missing their idiot because you’re too busy making uninformed comments on the internet.

Why does everybody post this tidbit but not the fact that the White House continued working with the rail companies after all of the strike talk and the Tentative Agreement and many rail workers got sick time as well?

I’m not speaking to their stance on unions, just the fact that the President’s job is to represent their constituency, just like all politicians. An economic crash due to a rail shutdown doesn’t benefit any person in the US.

I support unions and workers right to strike but at the cost of potential economic collapse?

I think more focus should be given to the lack of visible support on pro union/worker legislation.