The other direct attacks have substance. But calling Trump the weird guy and not saying why he’s weird takes away all the instant counters. And when he throws a tantrum like a toddler because of this, you can damn well keep calling him weird.
Normally I wouldn’t love indulging in ad hominem attacks, but he’s built an entire political strategy around them, and this I think hits that sweet spot where it’s adopting the technique, including the impossibility of logically refuting it, without stooping to the same level of pure meanness and implicit sanctioning of violence.
“If they go low, we dip down just a little bit to tell them how creepy that is.”
Anyone know where 18 years came from? 3 appointments per Senate term? 9 Congressional terms for 9 justices? 4.5 presidential terms?
One would think you’d want it to be an even number of presidential terms, so every president gets one appointment per term or whatever. Otherwise you open yourself up to Garland-esque shenanigans by the Senate.
Because there are 9 justices, so there would be a new appointment every 2 years, giving every presidential term two appointments. So it will exactly avoid all that shit this way.
Historically, the average SC Justice has served about 16 years. 18 seems like a good length to eliminate the extreme cases without affecting the majority.
The video is awful… 1000 other outcomes could have existed here that didn’t involve killing her for no reason. One of the articles attached to the link explains each bad decision made and even how he showed zero lack of remorse. It’s insane that they would tell her to take care of the pot of boiling water only to then use that as the excuse to consider her a threat when they could have easily done this themselves if they were so worried. They also could have just backed away if it was really so concerning to them as well. They also shot her in the head? If you have to shoot someone, is there even an attempt at all anymore to just shoot them in non vital areas so they can be apprehended, or is the outcome supposed to be shoot to kill? Aiming for the head doesn’t sound right for almost all situations.
I hope you’re sitting down for this one because it’s quite shocking; things ammend to the Constitution become a part of the constitution itself, and thus constitutional.
This is just basic logic. One little bottle of fentanyl can contain a vast number of doses. Who’s less likely to be searched with a bottle or two of fentanyl on them, a U.S. citizen crossing the border or literally anyone else? (Hint: not not the U.S. citizen.)
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.