- Oct 25, 2017
I can't wait to destroy Freedom ™
The 2017 ATL mayoral contest was really funny, it was Bottoms vs. Mary Norwood, an "Independent" (Republican) who previously ran in 2009 and lost by 700 votes. This time, Norwood ran again and lost...by 700 votes.
like when the cornerstone of Obama's healthcare plan was "no individual mandate"?Warren will definitely not back off of M4A after the primary, nor should she. It would be a disastrous look for her among both people who do and don’t support the policy because she would be reneging on a commitment that she doubled and tripled down on in very public, detailed ways.
The biggest argument against is they would have to pay income tax.
This wasn't a positive promotion but just making people aware of the shit that people are doing.
TIL MSN still existsPretty eye opening article about the deep st...I mean career foreign service officials.
Please remove it!
Glad I am not running for president!I think it is right both to say that M4A may not be a good general election message and that it’s not necessarily great for Warren if she gets nominated and then walks it back. And, separately, that it’s easy to imagine relatively moderate Dem senators just killing M4A anyway.
I don’t know what the right solution is, though!
Obviously i'm incredibly biased, but i feel like if PR had 2 senators then the president wouldn't throw paper towels at them after a catastrophic natural disaster. The senators would be worth every penny.
Oh yeah. And they'd get more reps, too. And they wouldn't be subject to some stupid tax shenanigans.
Oh absolutely. Donald Trump probably doesn't even know that PR is a US territory.
That's not a guarentee. Trump is doing everything he can to cut off all kinds of federal funding to Califoronia.
4.5M people voted for Trump in CA, but fuck 'em is his response. When it's CA burning, all he offers is ridiculous "ideas", threats to cut funding, insults, etc. When Russia was burning, different response:
India's rightwing March continues.
Background: in 1992, Hindu extremists demolished Babri Mosque, a 14th century mosque erected by Mughal emperor Babur (or during his reign) in the town of Ayodhya. The Hindu extremists claim that Babur destroyed a revered Hindu holy site: a temple devoted to Hindu God Ram's birth place. Since 92 and more recently since 2010, the case has been litigated in courts. Hindu extremists have made a makeshift temple on top of the site since the demolition. Today India Supreme Court said Hindus have a right to build a real temple on the place where Babri Masjid once stood.
Pic from pre-destruction
The ruling paves the way for Hindus to build a temple where the Babri Mosque once stood, a decision that raised fears of sectarian tensions.www.nytimes.com
The ruling greenlighted construction of a Hindu temple on a site where a mosque had stood before Hindu devotees destroyed it in 1992 with sledgehammers and their bare hands. The demolition of the Babri Mosque in the city of Ayodhya set the tone for sectarian tensions that haunt India today.
The prime minister, Narendra Modi, and his Bharatiya Janata Party swept India’s elections in May by campaigning on a Hindu nationalist agenda, and the court case became an emotionally charged flash point. The party cast its quest to build a temple as a key step in establishing India as Hindu, wiping away centuries of oppression at the hands of the Muslim Mughal Empire and British colonialists.
Many Hindus believe that the disputed site was the birthplace of their revered god Ram and that an earlier temple was demolished during Mughal rule to build the mosque. The case has been in Indian courts since the 1950s, but when it reached the Supreme Court in 2010, the deity Ram was given legal standing, awkwardly pitting the god Hindus revere most against the country’s Muslim population.
Many of India’s Muslims fear that the court’s decision will relegate them to second-class citizenship and empower Hindu extremists. Though many appeared to accept the ruling with sullen resignation, they see an India where mob lynchings of Muslims are seldom condemned by the government and where members of the governing party are implicated in sectarian violence.
After the court announced its verdict, senior government officials were quick to call journalists in and promise — anonymously — that no more mosques would be destroyed and that they, too, wanted to move on and focus on building the nation. Before this year’s election, Mr. Modi promised to deliver ambitious growth, to make India a $5 trillion economy by 2025. But growth so far has been sluggish, with unemployment reaching a 45-year high.
Officials calling in anonymously says a lot.Sitting in the courtyard of his home in Ayodhya, Haji Mahboob Ahmad, a litigant who had wanted the mosque to be rebuilt, said that Muslims would accept a ruling against them but that he feared that right-wing Hindu forces would be emboldened and more mosques would be destroyed.
“Violence against Muslims will rise, and it will become institutionalized,” said Mr. Ahmad, 75, who had to flee the town for a month after the mosque was demolished nearly 30 years ago.