I don't necessarily disagree, but on the other hand:I hate this idea that it's Obama's fault we had Trump. Obama would have CRUSHED Trump if he could have ran for a third term.
https://twitter.com/sethdmichaels/status/1023553450867609606/photo/1
I don't necessarily disagree, but on the other hand:I hate this idea that it's Obama's fault we had Trump. Obama would have CRUSHED Trump if he could have ran for a third term.
It's a seismograph and it was a warning to us all along that he was coming.
Trump didn't win voters who were concerned about the economy, he won voters who were worried about brown peopleI don't necessarily disagree, but on the other hand:
https://twitter.com/sethdmichaels/status/1023553450867609606/photo/1
Everyone sucks on Israel because there's no good options there.
Doubt it. I know terms are meaningless, but he's more a social democrat than democratic socialist.
Everyone sucks on Israel because there's no good options there.
I don't like the idea of flagging anyone "the next Obama" before there are any candidates, but it's kinda hard to ignore in this case when ex-Obama people discuss it? Like, how are people supposed to not ever mention it after that?
No major party candidate in this country will actually try to put Israel in its place, lol. A total death sentence, especially because there's a gigantic difference between why the left might want to support Israel vs why the right does. Obama's obvious annoyance with them through his second term is as close to the international norm we're probably ever going to get. There's a reason they were desperate for Trump.
Everyone sucks on Israel because there's no good options there.
Nate seems to want to live in a world where white men can't be held accountable for what they say, even if it is obviously abhorrent. He also seems to think we should force private companies to advertise on programs that they do not wish too. It is a completely gross stance from top to bottom.
The tweet before those two listed argues that the advertising boycotts could put increased pressure on networks to programs that cater to "both sides" while simultaneously having a pro-corporate angle. That doesn't seem like a person who wants a world where white men can't be held accountable, his concern is that advertising boycotts could sanitise controversial political programming in the vein of something like Spitting Image as they're all dependent on advertising to exist.
The specific problem with Nate's take is that this isn't a once off situation for Tucker. The guy made a living off dog whistling, which aren't really dog whistles anymore, and telling verifiable lies. Tucker wouldn't be losing his advertisers if he presented his show like Maher, who is also a islamophobe, and could keep the "gaffes" to a relative minimum so that people could argue his racism was just a "gaffe".
Nate is still denser plutonium because that take only makes sense if he ignores all context behind this advertising boycott.
It's a fitting signature
He isn't being dense. He wants people to ignore all context. That is his goal.
A constitutional crisis I imagineInteresting talk on Don Lemon show . The federal government will not charge or indict a sitting president but a STATE like NY could. Is this true? If so what would happen if NY filed state charges against Trump while he was in office and he lands in NYC?
I wonder if it's ever been tested. Sounds like a constitutional landmine.Interesting talk on Don Lemon show . The federal government will not charge or indict a sitting president but a STATE like NY could. Is this true? If so what would happen if NY filed state charges against Trump while he was in office and he lands in NYC?
I donno, giving everyone equal rights seems like a decent option.Everyone sucks on Israel because there's no good options there.
Unless Nate Silver has a long streak of being an apologist for racism and white supremacy, I'm not seeing how Nate Silver is anything but being dense.
Either way, they should still be able to go after the organization.
Sure, there's no binding precedent whether a sitting president can be indicted - the only real "ruling" we have on it is a justice department OLC opinion, which is only binding on federal prosecutors. A state could ignore that and bring charges if they're ballsy enough. As for what would happen - Trump would immediately contest the legality of indicting him and I'm sure it would have to make its way to SCOTUS for a final decision before the state is allowed to move forward with the charges.Interesting talk on Don Lemon show . The federal government will not charge or indict a sitting president but a STATE like NY could. Is this true? If so what would happen if NY filed state charges against Trump while he was in office and he lands in NYC?
They're still there, though most of them are "privatized" now.
Good.The last-minute GOP pushes to strip the Michigan Secretary of State of her powers, and to fuck up pensions in Kentucky, each failed tonight.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/n...s-bid-strip-power-secretary-state/2358789002/
https://amp.cincinnati.com/amp/2357790002
If Facebook is doing it though who else is? Let's not overlook that...Beyond disgusting. I'm glad that I never bothered with my Facebook account and deleted that shit.
Company legit needs to be smacked down hard.
It's always funny when I hear shit from people that will never be affected by the kind of stuff Tucker is spouting argue for reason. It's the whole order vs justice reasoning that MLK wrote about. If Nate was an immigrant from a "shithole country", guarantee his outlook would be different.
I mean, how do you prove that signature is on that document? Who has the original? Wouldnt that be Russia? Or is it typical to physically sign 2 copies? It's not hard to paste a signature onto a document if its a digital photo copy. You know that will be their defense after Rudy said nobody signed it.
I can't pretend to completely understand where he's coming from, but I feel safe blaming his libertarian leanings for this stupidity.
Sure but i was just curious how do you technically prove it if its a digital copy.
And me.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, If it's Harris/Beto then it guarantees 16 years of Democratic rule. No other ticket combo does that.