You’re mistaken. Here, Vox does a good job of explaining it.

They said their problem is with the way Trump did this. Reno did it the exact same way. They referenced Reno as a contradiction to the way Sessions did it and that is not accurate.

Actually Janet Reno did the exact same thing Sessions just did with the incoming Clinton administration.

Deputies, whom are usually career federal attorneys, stand in until successors can be named.

Janet Reno did the same thing and the Republicans were up in arms about it. So is it unusual? Yes. Is it unprecedented? No.

Of course it is. It was proven. And the results were able to be duplicated multiple times.....you have no idea how science works do you?

That’s actually exactly how it works.

It’s not which is why I hate these type of studies. It’s not provable and therefore not scientific and yet you’ll have people throwing this study in people’s faces. It’s a fun experiment but it should not be taken seriously and yet people will quickly use it to advance their agenda.

I have no dog in this fight but if you’re under the impression that the left hasn’t lost ground then I don’t know what to tell you. Both on the federal level and the state level, democrats have gotten their asses handed to them for the last four years. That’s not biased or make me a Trump lover. It’s just easily…

I’m calling bullshit on this. As you say yourself these two brands have been a cluster fuck for decades, and now because of one year where they may have just broken even! but we’re unable to do so because of the pound, Britain is at fault. Not buying it. They should have sold these brands years ago when it became…

All good points. I was referring to ICE’s but I definitely see the pluses with moving to electrification.

1st Gear: Haven’t there been multiple articles on this website that the 54 mpg target was impossible to achieve and that the CAFE standards were a farce anyways?? I could be horribly wrong but iirc there were a few around this.

He’s pulling a Loretta Lynch awfully early in his term.

I didn’t focus on the low or high range. You did. I spoke on averages only. Your numbers are also off. For women it’s 30-95 and for men it’s 300-1200. I also never insinuated that they would be 10x stronger. I used it as context for the advantages that he has over another girl. I don’t understand exactly what it is…

By your own facts the low side of a male is 10x higher than the low range of a female....The high side of a male is 23x that of the low side of a female. I’m talking averages.

Yeah it’s weird. In my state there is no girls division in wrestling so if they’re good enough to compete against boys, they wrestle against boys. The national teams have girls divisions but they am still wrestle against boys if they want to iirc.

I wrestled for eight years. There’s a huge advantage. Take a 125 lbs boy and put him up against a 125 lbs girl with both having equal skill and the boy wins 90% of the time. The physiological differences are pretty big even if they weigh the same.

Agreed. The rule of unintended consequences has deservedly blown up in these assholes faces.

Oh don’t get me wrong, I totally agree with everything else you’re saying. But I can see why other parents who have girls that have trained incredibly hard have to compete against someone with a very large advantage.

Correct. But the therapeutic testosterone range for a boy is over 8-10x that of a girl. When body builders and baseball players used steroids, they were at most 3x the average range. Even though it is a therapeutic amount of testosterone, it’s still an incredible advantage.