The President is the Commander in Chief - he could override all those decisions on who to promote, theoretically. At least that's how I understand it.
If they have a smart group that is actually planning this, that group could then vet a bunch of other people that their data suggests would be more amenable to their agenda and present a list of alternate promotions to the Republican president, which he could then order the military to make happen.
These days I imagine a database of ads can be built up. Every time a new ad appears, it could well be in the database within a day. Then within 5 or 10 frames, the ad could be detected and the database would know exactly how long to skip forward.
There is one other thing that could be done...but won't be.
Qui tacet consentire videtur ubi loqui debuit ac potuit. "He who is silent, when he ought to have spoken and was able to, is taken to agree."
If they simply decided to adopt a silence gives consent rule for the Senate's role of advice and consent for all appointments, they would no longer be able to obstruct by simply holding off on things. The senate could still deny consent by voting against a candidate and explicitly not confirming them, but doing nothing would automatically become consent and pass unopposed.
This is what Obama should have done with Merrick Garland, not to mention all those other federal judge appointments. Simply go 'okay, you're not voting on it, which means you're silent, which means you consent. All appointments approved!'
Edit: Although truthfully the idea that the Senate needs to confirm every military promotion is so insanely stupid that I can't understand how it's ever become the standard. The only reason Tuberville can do this is because these promotions are usually passed behind the scenes with unanimous consent - he can't actually block them...he can just make them be voted on. And yet, the volume of promotions means that simply voting on them would take up all of the Senate's time. The Senate really should only need to confirm the highest levels, not every single promotion in the entire military.
It's like Civ Gandhi with nuclear weapons. Aggression goes negative and wraps around to the max.
This is absolutely untrue. Trump doesn't deserve his trial delayed, but it is absolutely the case that sometimes people who are actually innocent need more time for their defense to be prepared, and this idea shouldn't be perpetuated in general as it can bias potential jurors.
Yep, good explanation; but to add to this...
The important factor here as far as what an individual uses is the tracked metrics. When a browser looks at a website, it identifies itself and its engine. Therefore actually using an engine other than Chromium is important because it goes into use stats across all websites the individual visits.
And like with all collective endeavors, while an individual contribution is insignificant, the whole is made up of those individual contributions. It also only takes a few percentage points of users for a business to in theory want to avoid excluding those users and thus keep them developing for multiple browsers.
Well if one of the forms is going to become the neutral, how about making the feminine form the default neutral instead, eh?
Or they could lower their corporate profit margin so neither is necessary. Don't make excuses for them and act like there's not a huge amount of money being hoovered up by profit.
Hah, meanwhile I think partner sounds bad, because it will never stop making me think of a law firm.
Depending on where you live and when you began behaving like this and calling her your wife, you may in fact be married.
Recent times have shown two important things to me.
One: People want to create regardless of any reward related to it. The excuse that people need to be rewarded in order to do anything valuable is completely wrong. People, in general, want to do things that other people find valuable and beneficial and bring joy to other people. We are very social, and that desire is nearly universal. If one has no concerns over their continued comfortable existence, then the vast majority of people would dedicate themselves to something they enjoy which is also useful and helpful to others.
Two: People will very happily give rewards to those who create things that they want and enjoy. Even people who themselves have little, will give some to those who have brought them happiness and joy with their work and effort. We see this in all the people donating even when they receive nothing in return for it.
Point two suggests that universal income is theoretically unnecessary, but point two is unreliable. Yes, people will give, but they won't give in a steady, reliable way that can be counted on to meet another's needs regularly. And just as importantly, they don't really give if the quality of the creations are low, which...fair enough, however, this limits the potential creator's ability to practice and get better, since they cannot devote their efforts to the thing they enjoy that would, if they got good at it, be enjoyed by many; instead they are forced to devote their efforts to continued survival and comfortable existence.
You know, this explanation makes it make sense to me a lot more than most of the others I've ever gotten.