>both siderism

No, this isn't BOTH siderism (is that a word, if so I'm using the shit out of it!). It's NEITHER siderism. Don't set the house on fire just to get rid of the termites, and don't bulldoze the house to put out the fire... We have to fight smarter and realize that it's indeed a case of US vs THEM, it's just that the us and them aren't red and blue; WE are the people living in fear and subjugation while THEY are playing us against each other so they can keep playing out their hunger games bullshit from the comfortable seats of power.

I mean, PART of the idea is reasonable. I'm just pointing out that the idea taken in its entirety is absurd, and give the choice between assuming you're an absurdist and that you didn't read the article, I guessed the latter. Didn't consider that it was just an imprecise comment, but I'm aware that I'm usually too literal. I have a hard time with interpreting intent when it seems in conflict with the logical implications of words; I've been told it's a problem, and I'm trying to work on it. Sorry.

You didn't read the thing, did you? The headline isn't enough to understand what's ridiculous about this. It would require a passenger at all times to supervise the dog; but it only requires that based on a grammatical interpretation of it. In short, it's another law that lets cops cherry pick when, why, and whom they choose to harass.

>Could the Democrats focus on things like the FL education bullshit and women’s healthcare? Because this is a bill is as ridiculous as some of the Republican policies.

No, in the same way that Republicans can't focus on campaign finance reform and limiting congressional investments and salaries. Doesn't matter if it matches the principles of the platform, it's not the showy shit that makes headlines and gets them re-elected.

NEITHER side is the good side. Sure one side is objectively more (openly, at least) evil, but don't for a second think that either side is a good choice.

edit, just to point out that, I fully understand no Republicans are pushing for those things I mentioned. But both sides pretty happily fought against that kind of reform because it didn't suit their agendas at the time.

I disagree. The wording breaks down to A or B, and C. That comma indicates that it's one of the first two clauses AND the third clause. Of course, that's the problem with using this kind of language and not having it broken into sections so that it's clear what's meant.

Realistically, this is going to be used to selectively enforce yet another BS law that disproportionately affects the lower socioeconomic strata. Look like you might be <insert whatever exploitable demographic officer dickhead picks today>, "I'm sorry ma'am, your pet isn't be appropriately supervised by anyone other than the driver."

Wait... did OpenAI's valuation just drop by 40% when the rest of the world figured out that Musk was attached to it?