At least 1 english language cookbook from before 1982 has the word "ciabatta".
My grandma, aunt, and a former boss. Admittedly not great sources, but ask any boomer who toured or lived in Italy during that era if they had a ciabatta back then.
A google books search for pre-1982 books brings up at least one cookbook https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=ciabatta&tbs=,cdr:1,cd_max:Dec+31_2+1982&num=100
I don't believe that, tons of people claim to have been eating Ciabattas in the 60s and 70s.
They can't all be misremembering.
No, the Good Samaritan Act says free food doesn't have to be inspected as long as it's given "in good faith apparently wholesome food or apparently fit grocery products to a nonprofit organization for ultimate distribution to needy individuals"
All fifty states and the District of Columbia have additional food donation statues that limit food donor’s liability—these currently vary widely, such as by who (i.e., donors, nonprofit organizations), and what foods and food products are covered.
state laws may provide greater protection against liability, but not less
The point is that it's a self-imposed handicap. If a party has 50%+ in both houses and the presidency, they have the ability to pass whatever they like and choose not to use it.
You only need 50%+ of the senate to change the rules that allow the filibuster.
There is some irony in that every time I talk to conservative friends/family about the things I loath Biden for, they're reasons they should love him, if only the media reported on it.
He's weak on the border? The one he tried to close, but was blocked by republicans, so he went around congress to illegally kick out refugees?
There's too many brown people? He's deported more people than Trump did.
He's left Israel out to dry? He sent everything that was allocated to them, and more, and even bombed Yemen to support the genocide of Gaza.
Abortion? Who exactly is letting Roe lie dead?
Welfare? He ended covid protections, child poverty skyrocketed.
Do you remember the PUMAs in 2008? More Bernie Bros were willing to vote Hillary in the general than PUMAs were willing to vote Obama.
But we're getting distracted, you can't blame Bernie supporters because the politician chosen by the DNC had the blood of millions on her hands, and was just generally unlikable.
You run a politician that offers the people fuckall, of course they're not gonna take a day off work to vote for you, they'd rather have the money.
No, but he wrote the 94 crime bill, which heuristically targeted black people with the 100:1 rule.
We're getting away from the main point.
non-ideological judgement is impossible because "impartially" applying for example, textualism is still ideological, because the choice to use textualism vs any other method is ideological.
Before Super Tuesday in 2019, Bernie was the forerunner despite the DNC's best efforts.
So every conservative democrat dropped out and endorsed Biden while the candidate who shared many of Bernie's policies split the progressive vote (ensuring none of the progressive policies the former Reagan campaigner was running on would actually be implemented).
liberals tend to favour fairness of outcome
You're confusing liberals and socialists. Here's Liberalism: A counter-history, which examines the history and evolution of liberalism. It contextualizes both the historical promotion of political rights and seeming contradictions like their removal under liberalism.
When you go by policy, he would have trounced Trump.
People want free healthcare, people want less war, people want to know their kids will get just as good of an education as the kids of rich people.
Then again, he'd have had the media aligned against him, so maybe they would have convinced the people it's good when you have to put off medical treatments for months so you get them all in a year where you meet your deductible
it still wasn’t three years.
Oh no it was closer to 2.5 years than 3.5 years!
Come on, you know this doesn't refute my point.
Telling them to “fuck off” is meaningless nonsense.
The SCOTUS has no means to enforce its decisions. It knows this and has historically kowtowed to the executive when faced with its own marginalization.
The president literally can just ignore them, as Trump did when they made a ruling he didn't like such as DACA. There's some other precedents: https://revealnews.org/blog/a-brief-history-of-presidents-telling-so-called-judges-to-get-lost/
He took an action that took 3 years to complete instead of ending it on day one and telling the courts to fuck off.
That's keeping it in place for 3 years.
This isn't misinformation, this is you being intentionally dense.
It doesn't matter if his excuse was some court he can just ignore and face no consequences asked him to keep it in place or if did it on a whim, he had the power to change it, he didn't use it. It was in place for like 3 and a half years.
You're not calling out misinformation, you're quibbling.
Nobody is talking about the Muslim ban, we're talking about the more recent attempt to close the mexican border.
But it's irrelevant, you're still missing the point.
My point is that Biden's unpopular actions decrease how many people will vote for him. This is how Biden ensures Trump will come to power.
Trump’s Title 42 and Muslim ban were far worse.
Biden waited 3.5 years to end title 42 and tried to close the border. He has deported more people than Trump.
POTUS has no reasonable control over grocery store prices
He literally does though. But there's a million other things he could have done when he had control. Instead we just get excuses about how powerless the party controlling both houses and the presidency was because of Manchin or the parliamentarian or the SCOTUS or some rules the dems set for themselves or norms or whatever.
There's no point in quibbling about whether Biden was less bad than trump, these actions decrease how many people will vote for him. Implementing policy that makes you lose the election is refusing to stand in republican's way.
Democrats resubmit border shutdown bill
The bipartisan border enforcement compromise, blocked by Republicans in February, is all but certain to be thwarted again. Democrats aim to tag the G.O.P. as the culprit in its failure.
>Among other changes to immigration law, the measure would make it more difficult to gain asylum in the United States and increase detentions and deportations of those crossing into the country without authorization. It would also effectively close the border altogether if the average number of migrants encountered by immigration officials exceeded a certain threshold — an average of 5,000 over the course of a week or 8,500 on any given day. The bill also would give the president power to close the border unilaterally if migrant encounters reach an average of 4,000 per day over a week.