Nah.
themeatbridge
I don't begrudge her campaign. Making noise on the national level is a good way to elevate the message and slowly undo the demonization of socialism. It's her supporters acting like Harris is the same as Trump that chap my ass.
I was going to say, being responsible for a new warning label.
And Union employee. He is a graduate student teaching a seminar, and protected by the collective bargaining agreement which requires processes the University ignored.
I'm still disappointed she won the primary.
Mystery blend
I don't believe for a second that Trump doesn't know the situation, but how is that lie better? "Here's a picture of you endorsing a self-styled Nazi." Well, I'm out of the loop on that one. "You endorsed him." Yeah, but they just tell me what to say and do. I don't ask a lot of questions. "Would you denounce him now?" I'm really not sure what I'm supposed to say here. Let me check with Vlad and see what he wants me to do. I'll get back to you.
Donations can't be clawed back, but ongoing donations can be stopped. And you're right that bigger donors exert more influence, and usually get something in return like naming rights for a building or changes to school policies. And that should be transparent, I don't oppose requiring large donations be made public. My point was just that it's always give and take. If the school changes the policy the big donor liked, they will shut off the money faucet. If the school does something most alumni don't like, many of them will stop giving. Recipients of donations always want to keep donors happy, the difference is a matter of scale. How far are they willing to go to keep a donor happy depends on how big the donation is.
Oh, you sweet summer child.
The way they are doing it is horrifying.
Sure, but not just generally "charity." You pick and choose who you donste to, and you donate to charitable organizations that you think do good work. If they started smelting orphans, you'd probably stop writing checks.
History is written by the victors, sort of.