VakAttack

Retained the Kentucky governorship, retained the Virginia state house, and also got abortion rights into the Ohio Constitution despite sneaky politicking there. Not necessarily indicative of anything for 2024 with the federal elections, tough Senate slate and obviously we can see what a mess the presidential race is shaping up to be. Good day for the blues, though.

Yes, in a trial, you don't get to give speeches, you respond to questions. Trump tried to do his Trump shtick and that's not going to fly in a court room. As to "the judge passing judgment before the trial" that's now what happened. The trial is essentially in two parts, guilt phase and penalty phase. Trump and his attorneys elected to do a bench trial (that is, no jury), so the judge ruled after the guilt phase was over. Now we're in the penalty portion.

So this got in front of a judge, evidence was presented, and rulings were made in favor of the challenging party. Why oh why wasn't Trump and his attorneys allowed to go in front of judgesohwait they went in front of many of them and got laughed out of court because they had no evidence, and the lawyers themselves mainly refused to make the argument because of said lack of evidence and, you know, not wanting to get disbarred.

Correctamundo. Previous generations opened a bunch of doors...and then closed them behind themselves, put a padlock on them, and are charging exorbitant fees to get thru.

Oh, people have lots of "appreciation" for how the big company got there. Typically, by stepping on the head of regular people and exploiting workers (and/or child labor laws) while minimizing costs to increase profits. All these huge companies and CEOs with their huge salaries, those supercharged profits are only going to the plutocrat class; not the regular workers without whom the company could not function. So all they had to do to improve their lot in their lives was risk their life. And what if they had come back from service maimed and/or with severe PTSD? No, EVERYTHING isn't determined by luck or background, but there is a HUGE correlation. People will often throw around phrases like "the world needs ditch diggers, too" (or some corollary) but then doesn't want to pay said ditch diggers a living wage...well, do we need them or not? Not everybody has the skillset to "raise up." Take @Husker_Du for example. Is he handsome? No. Is he smart? Also no. Is he well endowed? Rumor around the craps table is again, no. Is he....what was I doing again?

Truly unbelievable that we have people in here advocating that you should only be able to leave an unhappy relationship if some third party finds you have met some arbitrary standard for leaving.

You just cited the same person twice, who is apparently complaining that her husband divorced her against her will which started her whole crusade. The idea that people should be forced to stay in unhappy marriages is dumb, treats the person who wants out as property, and is ripe for abuse of the party seeking to end the marriage. We live in an allegedly free society. People should not be forced to stay in relationships they do not want to be in.

Well if the Federalist says it...

Hmmmm..... dangerously close to contradictory ideas here. Also, the idea that the scientific community profit motive in any way compares with fossil fuel industry's profit motive is laughable.

Yes, because of the way they restrict access to guns. There are licensing requirements https://impakter.com/why-gun-ownership-switzerland-not-same-us/

So now you're agreeing that we can restrict access to some inanimate objects, but just not these particular ones. Ok, we're getting somewhere. You pushed back on nuclear weapons and tanks, but didn't mention regular cars. Why should we restrict access to cars but not guns? As to your last question, because we literally have evidence (see: EVERY OTHER "DEVELOPED NATION") to show us that, if the access to these particular inanimate objects was restricted, the numbers of people killed would be dramatically reduced.

This logic of course falls apart with even the slightest scrutiny. Nuclear weapons and tanks are inanimate objects to. Should people just be allowed to possess those, also? We restrict access to inanimate objects ALL THE TIME, mostly to make society safer. Drugs are inanimate objects. So are cars. On and on.

We should do away with fossil fuels...eventually. The EV and other technologies are unfortunately nowhere near ready to handle all of the transportations/travel needs of modern human society. Largely this is due to the fossil fuel lobbies efforts to hinder advancement in that area, but it is what it is.

Given the fact that this is the only "first world" nation where this regularly happens, how could you possibly argue that the easy access to firearms (and notably high-grade firearms) is NOT a root cause for what is happening?

@Plasmodium This is true, especially for rural folks. EVs make more sense in urban and suburban areas, at least for now. It's still developing technology. As to the numbers in the original Tweet (ironic to be criticizing EVs given the owner of Twitter's cash cow is Tesla) I am not an expert so couldn't offhand refute them, but the source is immediately suspicious. A quick Google says that one of the main projects of the Texas Public Policy Foundation is the "Fueling Freedom" project which seeks to "explain the forgotten moral case for fossil fuels" and the TPPF is involves in all sort of the Republican issues of the day.

Well...them and women.

A good point. Truly unfortunate that we live in the only country with so many mentally ill psychopaths.

here you can find him explaining how "no fault" divorce and abortions are the real cause of mass shootings (and all other societal ills). Damn women being allowed to leave their bad marriages!

Or, literally things he has advocated for and introduced legislation on. https://www.axios.com/2023/10/26/mike-johnson-abortion-gay-marriage-transgender?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=news_tab&fbclid=IwAR0tuNkEPxbifBRceIvEBjJgYJkXYHetKdAOXbzwPV_h_r_ysVFt4fXV53k

https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1850961776 Thoughts and prayers, though.

Honestly, the first bullet point they listed was the rebrand, which is thus far and abject failure, since everybody still calls it Twitter and has added no value to anything.

Great. Your $0.02 is worth less than that in this scenario, then, considering the charges are really easy to find.

No. I'm saying that people of the opposing parties can't charge me with any crime at all because I voted D (for the first time in my life)? Trump isn't being charged with voting or being a Republican.

Shot: Another shot: Third shot? Will there ever be a chaser?

It's theoretically possible though realistically improbably for Jeffries to get it. There a bunch of Rs in Biden-won districts, but that takes a lot of courage to cross party lines and most politicians don't have that kind of fortitude.