In the past, the Supreme Court has ruled that penalising someone for failing to file or omitting information on a form which would incriminate them violates Amendment 5.

The case was regarding a tax imposed on gambling. People who ran gambling operations had to pay a tax of 10% of the amounts wagered and register with the IRS. At this time, gambling was illegal (almost) nationwide. The IRS then made those registration records available to gaming authorities, who would use them to prosecute anyone who registered.

The court ruled that forcing them to register and then providing this information to gaming authorities to prosecute people violated Amendment 5, and thus a person so convicted for failing to register could assert an Amendment 5 privilege against conviction.

Edit: Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39

Um… yes??

Did you read the linked article? The regulation doesn’t define ketchup as a vegetable. It explains how that was a thing people concocted to attack the proposed nutritional standards as being too lax.

Not sure if you made the recipe already, but I recommend baking it for longer than it calls for, because the “pourable pizza dough” is really watery and will be undercooked otherwise. You should probably bake it for an additional 7–8 minutes more than it says to bake it for before adding toppings, and then keep it in the oven for another extra 2–3 minutes once toppings are added. I get that school pizza does not necessarily taste great anyway, but I think this change improves the flavour a lot.

The State will spend hundreds of dollars a day to keep someone locked up but don’t worry because they will make it back by skimping on five dollars worth of food and serving people mystery product #4291 instead.

The rectangular pizza is not actually that processed. It comes from a US Department of Agriculture recipe and you can make it at home using common grocery store ingredients, although the USDA recipe is intended to make 100 servings.

The recipe does call for something called “pourable pizza dough” but there’s a recipe for that too and it’s basically just very thick pancake batter.

Edit: https://www.tastinghistory.com/recipes/schoollunchcheesepizza

Ketchup is not considered a vegetable in America. That is a myth. Some random school official essentially made the equivalent of a shit post (said something stupid in a meeting with no serious intent) and local papers ran with it.

This comment does not speak well to your reading comprehension.

Being a poor candidate who is merely tolerated and not appreciated does not automatically cause you to lose. Most people also merely tolerated Biden and many swing voters in 2024 thought they would tolerate Trump despite his fascist tendencies.

It is the combination of being both a poor candidate and being a woman and being a minority that is lethal to a presidential campaign.

Allow me to add some more nuance to this point:

I never said that skin colour or gender prevents someone from winning. What I am saying is that it is a disadvantage compared to running a white male candidate with the same views. Obama did not win because he was black, he won in spite of him being black (and given the Republican reaction to his campaign I think this is broadly agreeable). He won because he had a great platform, was inspiring, and the Republicans had just crashed the economy.

Nobody will refuse to vote for a white male candidate because of their gender or race. If he has good policy positions then he will receive support. White candidates get judged on policy, non-white candidates get judged on both policy and their skin colour. It’s less pronounced on the left because there are fewer racists and sexists here, but it still exists. We need to acknowledge and confront the fact that discriminatory attitudes force minority and female candidates to be better than comparable white male candidates in order to garner the same level of support.

I don’t make excuses for Kamala Harris’s positions. She was a bad candidate. But being a bad candidate doesn’t automatically cause you to lose, as Biden and Trump have proven. It is the combination of being both a bad candidate and a minority and a woman that is lethal to a presidential campaign in America.

Your comment espouses something that is fun to say and makes you feel righteous and correct when saying it but ignores reality. In particular, I point to Hispanic and Asian populations, which make up a large portion of the Democratic voting bloc, and of which a very large number are openly sexist. I am the son of Chinese immigrants, all of whom either vote Democratic or not at all. While my generation is notably far less sexist than my parents’ generation, my parents and grandparents still think that whether a woman is “biologically suited” to be president is worth discussing. It’s not just my family being an outlier either, since this way of thinking is actually pretty pervasive in the Chinese community where I live (Portland, Oregon).

It’s a sad reality, but it’s true that there are a lot of racists and sexists in the US, so nominating a person of colour or a woman as your candidate really does damage your electoral chances.

I mean, a candidate as horrible as Donald Trump has a 100% win rate against women and 0% win rate against men.

The joke is that Harris is bad at winning elections, so anyone who associates with her also loses.

On a side note, strangely enough, with Trump this is a global effect; anyone who associates themselves with Trump too much will lose their election. It happened in Australia and Canada.

Law enforcement shouldn’t be able to get into someone’s mobile phone without a warrant anyway. All this change does is frustrate attempts by police to evade going through the proper legal procedures and abridging the rights of the accused.