Eatspancakes84

And then 2 years pass, and they have completely who banned porn, and why it’s the mistake of Democrats.

Ironically I think policy support would have been much easier had we put boots on the ground right away. There was initially enormous support for Ukraine, and sending out own soldiers would have given voters a continued vested interest in the war.

Not saying the outcome would have been better, and there is always the threat of nuclear war. However, it would totally changed the course and focus of elections, and my impression is that voters like it when politicians take risks, even if it doesn’t pan out (and even if it’s suicidally stupid).

I actually always believed that Bezos was a Democrat, given his ownership of the Post, which has always had a clear anti-Trump message. I think it’s more plausible that he was scared of retaliation or that the GOP has something on him.

Yes it sounds plausible but the timeline does not add up. When Ivanka was 14 they were still friends.

The house and the president will almost certainly swing the same way. This is nothing to worry about.

The motto of the Post is literally “Democracy dies in Darkness”, and it was adopted immediately after Trump was elected. It is deliberately positioned as pro-Democrat and anti Trump. I didn’t have a high esteem of Bezos, but I am still disappointed.

Anybody who cares about Green policy should vote against Trump.

I can articulate it for them. It’s racism and sexism. There was that so hard?

I wonder about the cost of insurance. I would imagine it’s a significant part of the tuition.

Remember that Iran is currently providing drones to Russia, so it’s not as if they are fully separate threats. I would say both are at the moment big concerns, so I can see where the answer is coming from. At the same time, the primary reason for our current struggles with Iran is that Trump sabotaged the Iran nuclear deal. On the other hand, the struggles with Russia are primarily related to Putin.

How could he possibly have been surprised by the response? They are with 9 judges. Three vehemently disagreed with the ruling and even Barret partially disagreed. It’s not like he was looking for some compromise ruling that all judges signed onto. Pathetic reporting.

There are the Trump cases that are objectively easy to prosecute (especially the stolen document case), since the law is clear and no good lawyer wants to represent Trump. Here the DOJ has clearly been dragging his feet for reasons that are unrelated to the legal system.

Then there are these antitrust cases that are objectively EXTREMELY complex, and where the legal arguments have to be very carefully constructed to withstand a challenge from the best lawyers money can buy. Complain about the former, not the latter