I absolutely loathe expressions like “days off” and “personal time.” It just has a connotation that your life is by default your employer’s. That kind of subliminal messaging can get fucked.
First, their parents were sleeper agents in Slovenia, not the US.
But, okay. Let’s say that it was the US involved, not Slovenia.
The US, unlike Slovenia, uses jus soli – if you’re born on American soil, whether your parents are present legally or not (with very, very few exceptions, like for diplomats and soldiers of a foreign power occupying American territory), you are an American citizen.
But even then, it sounds like the kids were born prior to the parents entering the country, so they wouldn’t have been American citizens. Their parents apparently got visas on forged Argentinian passports, and I assume that whatever visa the kids were on was contingent on that, so the visa would presumably have been invalidated.
Besides, I assume that their parents didn’t want to leave them behind. I mean, yeah, their parents were spies, but I don’t expect that we’re going to take someone’s kids over that.
And the kids didn’t think that they were Slovenian, but rather from Argentina. Up until the plane ride, that’s probably where they expected to wind up.
IIRC they were in a foster family due to both parents being in prison for a year+, with them having a weird legal status. It sucks to be these kids and I don’t think someone asked them.
Canada uses Jus Soli too (as well as Jus Sanguinis), but they fought to not grant citizenship to a kid born in Canada whose parents turned out to be spies.
The government’s argument was that since the parents were on fraudulent documents and were effectively working for the Russian embassy, their kids shouldn’t have Canadian citizenship.
16 is a little young to be out on your own. In particular, you don’t have any relatives who can help you because… well your parents were spies living under a cover identity.
The BORN identity: Russian secret agent Anna Chapman gives birth to her first child in Moscow but refuses to name the father
Anna Chapman was stripped of her British citizenship after the spy claims
She was deported from the United States in 2010 and runs an antique shop
You may be thinking of some Russian sleeper agents in Canada who had a son who was something like 17 or 18, was totally in the dark about what his parents were doing, and very much did not want to leave Canada and go to Russia.
kagis
It sounds like he fought to remain a Canadan citizen and won.
Alexander Vavilov had his citizenship revoked after his parents, who worked for Russia’s foreign intelligence service, were arrested in 2010.
He was born in Canada, and until their arrest he believed his parents were Canadian too.
It is the first time he has spoken since Canada’s Supreme Court ruled his citizenship was valid.
“I am who I am - whatever you learn about your heritage I don’t think it defines you as a person,” Mr Vavilov told the media in Toronto on Friday.
He said the court victory was recognition that he not only feels like a Canadian, but is one in the eyes of the law.
The government said that since his parents worked for a foreign government at the time of his birth, being born on Canadian soil was not enough to grant him citizenship.
Thus began Mr Vavilov’s long fight to restore his citizenship.
Typically, being born in Canada grants a child automatic citizenship. But there are exceptions for the children of diplomats. The government said that exception should apply to him - Mr Vavilov’s legal team disagreed.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that since his parents were not granted diplomatic status, his citizenship is valid.
EDIT: He was 16 when they were arrested, and it sounds like most of that time had lived in the US as a Canadian, and that he is in Russia but was looking for work in Canada.
He told the media that he wants a future in Canada but his next steps depend on his prospects - he will move back for a good work opportunity.
The problem is that doing any of these things in a matter which will stick will require amendments, because that is the only process that this compromised Supreme Court might respect. (And even that is not a given: I wouldn’t put it past them to say that any amendment not passed by a Founding Father is invalid, or something).
So the first thing that needs to be done is to “pack” the court. (I prefer the term “unfuck”, but that is less PC). This can only be done if Democrats take the Presidency and both houses of Congres, and nuke the filibuster. But it’s that important. Dial the fucker up to 13, then go to Republicans and say “OK, now we need to work to fix the courts together. You can decline, but if you do you will watch Momala appoint 4 additional justices under the old rules, to lifetime terms, and bank on getting your own trifecta to re-fuck the Court”.
While we have the amendment process open, we also need to set a limit to how long Congress can deliberate on any appointment, not just SC. Once a President makes an appointment, the Senate shouldn’t be able to sit on it indefinitely. It should be guaranteed to get a vote in the full Senate within X legislative days. The Senate can vote it down, of course, but then the President can nominate someone else. Republican Senators challenged Obama to make a centrist pick for the SC, and he did. Mitch and Lindsey sat on it for months because they knew that it would pass if it went to the full Senate. This process basically gives the Senate Leader a veto over both the President and the will of the overall Senate, and cannot be what the Founders intended.
Technically speaking the filibuster is only acceptable because the rules of congress allow them, but the rules are changed and Agreed on by all members every year. So “nuke the filibuster” would mean to disallow it in the procedural rules of congress.
There is an old army manual that says if you are ever forced to work for the enemy, try to push as many things as possible into committee decisions, because it looks like its helping, but also slows everything down to a crawl/halt.
The US Senate only has 100 members (2 per state), and since the body is so small they pride themselves on not limiting debates there. But at some point they do need to decide to progress to a vote, and to do that someone makes a “cloture” motion to close debate on that issue and proceed to a vote. In the US Senate, a cloture motion needs 60 votes to pass.
What this means is that if a minority wants to kill a bill, all they need to do is maintain 41 votes against ending debate. It can never proceed to a vote, then, even if more than 50 Senators are in favor. This is what we call a fillibuster: when enough Senators prevent a measure from being voted on.
This filibuster is just a Senate rule, though, and can be removed by a simple majority vote of the Senate. In the current Democratic majority, though, there were just enough Senators who didn’t want to nuke the rule to keep it in place. They are leaving, though, so if Democrats retain the Senate they will probably have the votes to change the rule.
The drawback is that someday, Republicans will take back the Senate, and if there is no filibuster Democrats in the Minority will have lost a key tool to gum up a Republican majority. But the SC is more important than all that. We need to reform the court ASAP, no matter the political cost.
I have absolutely no experience or stakes in this, but from my outside perspective, I doubt a Republican majority would keep the filibuster themselves once it’s an advantage to the Democrats. That trust to not abuse it and have it not be abused against you has been completely eroded in the past years.
Democrats in the Minority will have lost a key tool to gum up a Republican majority
Quick, name the last time Democrats with a Senate minority actually used the filibuster to block the Republican agenda. Whereas Republicans only have to threaten to filibuster (and not actually stand there talking for days on end) to block the Democratic agenda.
Right now, any one senator can stop a vote on any bill by announcing they filibuster it.
That used to (decades ago) require them to stand and talk as long as they were able, to delay voting on the bill.
Now without the “talking filibuster” requirement, it becomes trivially easy for any senator to stop anything they don’t like.
A filibuster can be broken, and a vote can be forced to happen, if 60 of the 100 senators agree to it.
That almost never happens, as no one party ever gets a 60 seat “super-majority”.
Removing the filibuster will allow most any bill to pass with a standard 51% majority.
Stopping the minority party from blocking everything they don’t like.
The rules of the Senate itself can be changed with with a simple 51% majority, since they aren’t Laws that govern the land.
So it is possible to eliminate the filibuster without requiring a filibuster breaking super-majority.
Exactly. The path to an amendment is super difficult, and Conservative states have no incentive to do so while they have so thoroughly captured the Supreme Court. That’s why you pack the Court first. Appoint 4 liberal justices in their early 40s to lifetime appointments, and you will see much more of a push from those Conservative states for reforms.
The democrats have no intention of getting this to pass. They just want to use it to get out the vote. The constitutional ammendment process was created to expect both parties to work together, that just isn’t the way things are anymore. So passing a constitutional ammendment is pretty much impossible.
Right. The only way to get Republicans to consider an amendment is to make the status quo untenable to them, so they prefer change.
That’s why you pack the court with 4 40-yr-old Liberals who can use the current rules to push the Court leftward for 30+ years . That will get them to change the rules quickly.
I’m not from the US so sorry if this is a dumb question, but why would this push the court leftwards for 30+ years? Wouldn’t the republicans just pack the court at the next opportunity to swing it back in their favour?
Appointing a justice can be very difficult to do if your party doesn’t control the Senate. If Democrats control the Senate or the presidency, then Republicans won’t be able to stack the court.
Packing the court requires an act of Congress, which the President would then need to sign. So it’s not practical to do in a partisan fashion unless one party has the Presidency and both Houses of Congress. If Democrats get that in the next Congress, and expand the Court, then Republicans need to win them all back at the same time to mess with it.
And without an amendment, the only practical way to mess with the court is to increase it.
Yeah, but then the dems won’t want the change since they control the court at that point. Both sides are in this for themselves, that is the nature of a system based on popularity.
The last ammendment was in 92. The political landscape has changed since then. Both sides run mainly on opposing the other, which means bipartisan anything is very unlikely. They couldn’t even pass an immigration reform bill because the conservatives didn’t want to give Biden a win. This would be even harder.
Harris’s stepkids call her “Momala”. I think she needs to lean into the nickname, particularly since the couchfucker is implying she is somehow unqualified because she doesn’t have kids of her own.
Look, fuck Alex Jones, but the title of the Twitter Space was “Will the Deep State Assassinate Biden If He Refuses To Leave?”
Which is some crazy conspiratorial nonsense, but it is pretty far from a call to assassinate Biden. It does technically have the words “assassinate Biden” in it, so the headline is correct on a literal level, but this is some serious click bait…
You could just as easily say “Rawstory posts article with ‘Assassinate Biden’ in the title”, and be just as correct.
You make a good point, but I still think that this is more stochastic terrorism from the right. They’re putting the notion of assassinating the president out there into the weak minds of their listeners, who will take that information and do with it what they will. It’s so indirect that Jones and co have plausible deniability.
Note how they don’t ask if the derp state will assassinate Trump, even though he’s supposed to be its enemy.
They’re putting the notion of assassinating the president out there into the weak minds of their listeners, who will take that information and do with it what they will.
I do understand they can do multiple things at once even if they can barely walk and chew gum, and I would like if they were wiped from the face of the earth, but I would much rather that they turn their attention towards the president, instead of putting their attention on trans people or whatever racial minority comes up week by week to rile up the base. The president has a large amount of protection on him at all times, the chances that any right wing nutjob can target him effectively strike me as shockingly low, and if they did target him, then probably you’d see something actually happen to prosecute them. Basically nobody else has that same level of protection.
They’re putting the notion of assassinating the president out there into the weak minds of their listeners
While I don’t think you’re wrong, AJ has been talking about the president being assassinated for more than a decade. He was sure Trump was going to be assassinated almost constantly during his administration (poisoned cokes and hamberders were popular options).
People should stop giving that coked out drunkard any publicity, that’s literally all he wants. Well, that and to sell you all kinds of InfoWars Dr Jones Naturals supplements THAT ARE IN NO WAY ASSOCIATED WITH INFOWARS, even though his dad owns it and sells all the same products and his mom is talking to him about his dad retiring.
Yes you are, you’re pretending the title doesn’t contain the words “assassinate Biden”, when it clearly does. Now you’re pretending this was ever about truth and lies, when it never was.
It’s about perception, conveying the quite accurate perception that Alex Jones aids a politically unhinged and destabilizing political atmosphere.
He should be painted as such, instead you’re out here pretending like he’s a good honest man, that is being lied about.
You’re lending your honesty and labour, to a side of politics unworthy of the honour.
You have fallen into the trap of telling the Nazis there are Jews in the basement, thinking it will prove that you’re a good person, when it in fact just makes you culpable for the success of fascists.
“If Netanyahu comes to address Congress, I would be more than glad to show the ICC the way to the House floor to issue that warrant,” said Rep. Mark Pocan.
Instead, because it was established in the middle of our aughts war crime spree, we passed the Invade the Hague if they Arrest any of Our War Criminals Act.
We really need laws against these laws where they just bundle a bunch of good things with a bunch of fucking terrible things, just to get it passed.
Tiktok and Ukraine Aid are entirely different issues, and they really shouldn’t be in the same fucking bill.
Further, “banning” Tiktok is going to just about as well as those “Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics” did in the fucking 90’s. A lot of time, effort, and wasted money for barely any real-world impact.
Tiktok is already becoming unpopular, because just like with Facebook, everyone’s parents want to stay cool and hip and know what the youth are up to. Now its filled with millennials like myself who are pushing out Gen Z because they don’t want us shitting up their spaces. Just like we didn’t want our parents/adults invading our spaces and why millennials bailed on Facebook when it became Boomer central.
You’ve got many good points, and I’m not defending the Tiktok ban (or whatever technical thing it is), but counterpoint your last one:
Look what Facebook did to the boomers. Do we want to go through that again but with Millennials and Tiktok? Our generation has more experience with social media, granted. Still, that’s part joke and part something I think about as an older, non-Tiktok millennial.
Do we want to go through that again but with Millennials and Tiktok?
No, but I don’t think banning an app will solve the problem, just like banning drugs doesn’t solve that issue. We need good education so people have critical thinking skills and can make good decisions for themselves. Even if a legal method was used to address the issue, banning a specific app will do little. I think you’d have to address the algorithmic delivery of content altogether to do this.
Can I ask what the problem is? I was of the understanding that the problem with TikTok was that they basically lied under oath to congress and were actively sending personal user data to China. Not sure anything but an outright ban will achieve any sort of remedy.
Yes, Tik Tok is as bad as any other social media PLUS it’s directly controlled by a hostile nation state to the US. It should absolutely be banned and/or completely divested from China.
Anyone saying this is unfair, go to China and see what their blocks look like for Western companies.
Tik Tok is a terrible platform allowing such direct access to US citizens to a foreign government.
While I do agree on including “unrelated” things together, these all sound like they are separate bills in this case.
Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan are all separate bills for “foreign aid”. The article isn’t 100% clear, but TikTok sounds like there is some separation. The reason I think they’re separate is that the article mentioned that they voted on each item, meaning that there’s at least 3-4 different votes.
It’s all the game of politics. “Shake my hand and I’ll shake yours” stuff, and Johnson, regardless of his overall beliefs, seems like he’s well-versed in the game.
If banning TikTok, as inane as that is, ensures we continue to aid Ukraine, then fine, ban it. eye roll
Israel, however, is the matter of getting enough of Rs to vote Yea to outweigh the Maggots. I don’t like it, but the feds spend billions of dollars on tons of stuff I dislike. If allowing a continued genocide in one country means that the same won’t happen in two others…(sigh)
Israel, however, is the matter of getting enough of Rs to vote Yea to outweigh the Maggots. I don’t like it, but the feds spend billions of dollars on tons of stuff I dislike. If allowing a continued genocide in one country means that the same won’t happen in two others…(sigh)
Thank you for actually understanding that there is nuance to all of this. The people screeching about it are rightfully upset, but they seem to completely miss the point that all of these aid packages have to make it through a highly dysfunctional congress.
This passed the Senate weeks ago and stalled in the House. The only reason this is even passing is because republicans began drafting an independent bill to fund Israel after the Iran attack, and Biden said he’d veto it if it didn’t include funding for Ukraine and Taiwan.
Israel, however, is the matter of getting enough of Rs to vote Yea to outweigh the Maggots. I don’t like it, but the feds spend billions of dollars on tons of stuff I dislike. If allowing a continued genocide in one country means that the same won’t happen in two others…(sigh)
And it's not as if a lack of funding would stop them anyway. It's largely symbolic and to ensure Israel keeps buying American.
TikTok and Ukraine aid were voted on and passed separately; furthermore, the vote wasn’t for an outright ban, but rather a threat of banning if TikTok does not divest from China.
millennials bailed on Facebook when it became Boomer central
I get your point, but it wasn’t everyone’s reason for leaving. For example, I enjoyed having my family members on the same platform as me, but I actually left because of the shit moderation team that punishes the good people and praises the terrible ones. Resentment grows when you’re punished over some bullshit arbitrary reason because a mod with an agenda got some bullshit report.
Sorry for the tangent to your main points, but social media has bigger problems than one group invading another.
At the very least, we need a way to bring popular legislation to the floor without party gatekeepers holding it back. Ukraine arguably could have passed with ease - if a standalone bill made it to the floor.
It would get passed with ease together too, as the hangups were because of Ukraine which the speaker and his orange handler had problems with.
The only reason this was brought to a vote is because two Republicans threatened to resign, which would give Democrats control of the house, which would be a much better outcome, as Republicans essentially are freezing the Congress.
To your last point, the bill is targeted at any app owned by a foreign adversary, so whether or not kids move away from tiktok, it will accomplish the same objective.
While I agree with you in general, this is not what happened in this case.
The House voted on the four bills in succession, one day after a rare and extraordinary bipartisan coalition teed up the votes, with more Democrats (165) than Republicans (151) voting for the “rule” to proceed to the measures.
There was roughly speaking the Ukraine bill, the Israel bill, the Taiwan and other aid bill, and the tik tok bill. All separately passed. Ukraine funding was not on the same bill passed as the TikTok thing today.
Combining issues in bills isn’t always bad and can be a vehicle toward compromise too. Separating things can even be a way of killing a bill. There are pros and cons, really depends on the situation.
I agree on keeping bills separate, but you seem to be confused. Tiktok wasn’t in the same bill, the help for Ukraine, Taiwan and Israel was bundled together.
The reason for it was that the current speaker actually wanted help for Israel and Taiwan but was holding the bill because of Ukraine, which his orange friend doesn’t support.
This is why it was held. Why the speaker had a sudden change of heart?
It was because two Republicans threatened to resign, leaving Democrats in majority and getting speakership (I wish that outcome would actually happened).
So he brought those bills to vote, but he split the bills. Because of it, now they have to go back to Senate, adding another unnecessary delay.
This is why it was held. Why the speaker had a sudden change of heart?
nah, it was:
Mr. Johnson attributed his turnabout in part to the intelligence briefings he received, a striking assertion from a leader of a party that has embraced former President Donald J. Trump’s deep mistrust of the intelligence community. Source: www.nytimes.com/…/mike-johnson-turnaround.html
In some ways, a bit scary that what they told him really convinced him so readily. On the other hand I’m glad he was able to turn down local US politics (something I don’t feel Republicans have been doing recently) and focus on external politics.
There was one bill that included help for Ukraine, Taiwan and Israel. Republicans only had problems with the former.
If Ukraine was so important why did Mike split the bill. By splitting it, he made a change and because of that the bill needs to be voted on yet again in the Senate. If he didn’t split it, Biden could just sign it immediately.
Sorry, I saw similar comments and people saying that finally understands how urgent it is based on CIA briefing (as he said).
The thing is that I don’t buy it. If he really thought it was as important and urgent, he would not split the bill and Biden likely would sign it on the same day, but instead it went back to the Senate.
My belief is that his position was threatened, and if he get replaced (especially if it is true that two Republicans threatened to resign) he won’t be able to block other bills for Biden, because Democrats would control the house.
So to take Bush down, Clinton’s team drew up a plan to pump Trump up. Shortly after her kickoff, top aides organized a strategy call, whose agenda included a memo to the Democratic National Committee: “This memo is intended to outline the strategy and goals a potential Hillary Clinton presidential campaign would have regarding the 2016 Republican presidential field,” it read.
“The variety of candidates is a positive here, and many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right. In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more ‘Pied Piper’ candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party,” read the memo.
“Pied Piper candidates include, but aren’t limited to:
• Ted Cruz
• Donald Trump
• Ben Carson
We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to [take] them seriously."
While the campaign also kept a close eye on Rubio, monitoring his announcement speech and tightly designing the tweeted responses to his moves, Clinton’s team in Brooklyn was delightedly puzzled by Trump’s shift into the pole position that July after attacking John McCain by declaring, “I like people who weren’t captured.”
Eleven days after those comments about McCain, Clinton aides sought to push the plan even further: An agenda item for top aides’ message planning meeting read, “How do we prevent Bush from bettering himself/how do we maximize Trump and others?"
I remember something like this happening in Germany...some people like Von schleicher and Von Papen thinking if they propped up Hitler it would help the conservative old Gaurd consolidate power...not exactly the same but it looks the same and smells like shit to me
I remember something similar, the far left in Germany stabbing the Social Democrats in the back thinking Hitler coming to power would teach those establishment politicians a lesson and surely they’d get to bulldoze their way to lead next time!
I don't think it's fair to put Trump all on her. If we were to ask anyone 10 years ago if someone like Trump could win the presidency we all would have laughed. No surprise they tried to prop up an opposing candidate they thought was bad.
Not just kids, white kids, nobody else needs to have it explained to them why throwing the election to punish the establishment does nothing to help anyone and in fact makes you not just a collaborator, but the most insidious and/or idiotic sort of one imaginable.
Their thinking is either, “I know how to defeat the fascists! Let the fascists win!” or much more likely underneath, “I know exactly where I stand on the hit list, I can wait it out for enough bodies to pile up so I can file my demands with the bodies as set dressing!”
The white left would see us all be made corpses before they ever tolerated the possibility that we might not choose to follow them without being convinced and compromised with.
I’ve read through several of your comments in this thread. Do you know any IRL leftists, or are you just assuming everyone is white from talking to people on lemmy?
Most of the leftists I know IRL aren’t white. And I’m sure some of them didn’t bother to vote for Hillary.
Literally everyone I know is either a leftist or comfortable in leftist spaces, and literally everyone I know thinks that the white “left” fuckasses who threw 2016 because counting votes instead of individual donors didn’t let them feel pandered to enough aren’t worth the air they breathe to spew their bullshit about what we made them do to us.
Dobbs is the white “left’s” child, they had the chance to abort, but they actively chose not to, and now they don’t get to abandon that child just because the fact that it wanders the neighborhood skinning small animals reflects bad on them.
Any real leftist with functioning brain cells either voted for Hillary or has owned up to the severe mistake that not doing that was, anyone else is just red-washing them being a fascist collaborator, and would live to see trial among the rest of the lot if the revolution they claim they want instead of voting ever actually came.
They don’t get to call themselves socialists while selling out the common laborer to republican governance, they don’t get to call themselves an ally while standing by as women are hung by the umbilical chord because republicans would rather let them die than allow the possibility that a woman can “pull a fast one on them,” they don’t get to call themselves anti-imperialists while making space for the president who handed Israel Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights getting back into office if it means they get to feel valid about using my people’s corpses as set dressing for the whole sickening display they want to paint for themselves as the saviors of us lowly ungratefuls who shall descend upon us with their divinely inspired marching orders that will surely brint about world peace and global communist revolution and surely won’t just get us all killed while they sigh and gaslight the survivors about how we just didn’t revolution hard enough for their brilliant plans to work.
Willful blindness to the perspective of the PoC who find themselves most at risk whenever one of these vote strike or punishment vote movements spins up
I agree that any leftist person with two brain cells to rub together ought to have voted for Clinton in the general. I voted Sanders in the primary, and I certainly turned out for her. Maybe it’s just because I’ve blocked most of the tankie dipshits masquerading as leftists, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone claim otherwise that wasn’t a bona fide fash.
I saw Trump coming. He did something no one else was doing at the time: acknowledge just how miserable life was for many Americans at the time. Other politicians have been content to pretend everything is great save for their pet policy projects, Trump said it’s all bad. In a post-COVID world this would be more effective save for his own history of failure and inaction, but people often have short memories and they will forget quickly if they get angry about something else.
Last thing anyone needs is the narcissist Hillary Clinton inserting herself where she doesn’t belong. I imagine voting enthusiasm will already be low because the choice between a failed conman and Weekend at Biden’s isn’t particularly enticing, so maybe Hillary can just fuck off for a bit and not make it worse.
Why not? Her supporters blame Trump on anyone who ever thought about voting for Sanders in the primaries, regardless of who they voted for in the general, and have for nearly 8 years now.
Sanders campaigned for her in states she ignored because they were full of worthless flyover hayseeds who were beneath her. Her campaign didn’t seem to understand how the electoral college functions.
Her campaign WANTED to go up against Trump because they were unforgivably stupid enough to think that Republicans would be less energized by a charismatic con man than by Jeb Bush, Republicans’ presumptive frontrunner that no one wanted.
Since when was she a centrist? Her congressional voting and action history put her way left of the party, way farther than Obama, and second only to Bernie Sanders.
Yes and yes. Obama ran on a public option and no individual mandate. Clinton ran on no public option and an individual mandate. The Heritage Foundation plan was still to the left of what Clinton ran on.
We got what Clinton wanted, but the voters wanted what Obama was selling. Even though it turned out to be a bill of goods.
I remember the 08 campaign. Her cronies also made a huge stink about flag pins, started the “Obama isn’t a citizen” rumors that Trump would run with later, and once she had lost the nomination because the party didn’t successfully quash her opposition for her, her supporters started a PAC to get McCain/Palin elected because Clinton’s cult would rather have Palin as VP than have a black man be president.
Clinton’s VP pick of Tim Kaine in 2016 was an additional “fuck you” to everyone to her left. I get that you’re trying to pretend that Clinton is someone that the left should be happy with, but Clinton is centrist at best. She’s a corporate owned neoliberal from the “triangulate between the meekest Democrat and the vilest republican” Third Way James Carville wing of the party.
Oh, fun, we're going back to the usual BS that tried to be thrown at her, despite her having the longest history of supporting the LGBT community out of anyone involved. I also remember leftists getting super pissed off when so many of the LGBT community supported her (though not the young ones who didn't live through the period) because of her long history of supporting the community and being there, both personally and with her political position.
With her being likely the first Congressperson to force equal federal compensation and benefits for same sex couples that worked in her office or, later as SoS, who were in her department. Even if those couples weren't married in the time period before that became legal.
Apologies for actually knowing the history of the subject. I've had these debates with misinformed people on subject regarding Clinton, Biden, and so many others going back years. For some reason, far left people actively fall for made up right wing BS claims about Democrats.
Such a good clickbait title. The actual article is like, yeah of course he’d sue, it would be weird if he didn’t. I wanted to know about the guy in the bathroom about to join the mile high club who’s suing for getting cockblocked
As a primary (elementary) teacher I once had a grade 2 kid with scolded fingers from her mum. My principal ordered me to go home and paid for a taxi that day. Fortunately I have never crossed paths with that mother again.
What a strangely hostile response to a perfectly reasonable question. If you don’t want people to comment on what you say, you really shouldn’t participate.
Clearly the guy is ashamed of his job for the majority of his life and the reason he didn’t want to share it is probably the reason they let themselves get stuck there for decades.
It’s a shame more people don’t accept help from others even in the form of discussion
|Clearly the guy is ashamed of his job for the majority of his life and the reason he didn’t want to share it is probably the reason they let themselves get stuck there for decades.
I was never stuck at any job and when I had my Heart Attack I was doing quite well.
Lmao.
What help>? To be criticized for not owning Apple stock?
Get over your disappointment of not being able to pry into my life,
You’ve hit it on the head and all the naysayers here are just being oppositional. This is sort of like that fake Libertarian rage you see periodically.
Is them saying 45 years of working not enough? If they would have thought their job mattered they would have said that. You guys are just horny to say they did something wrong and they are cutting you off.
You’re projecting. I actually don’t care about the person or their story, but noticed someone have a little temper tantrum when someone asked a question in response.
It is interesting that you assume that people are looking to break this person down, it really comes off as projection. In fact, we are curious about the type of job he had because that changes things. If he was a government employee, then retirement is required. If he was in public sector, then what you get will depend on employer. If you’re a contractor, then it is fully up to you to put money into it. We have no idea who this person is or what their experiences are like. Assuming the worst from us says more about you than anything.
Participate in posting my personal work history which as zero to do with this thread and would do nothing to add to it except to invade my privacy? Ok Chief.
It’s called having a conversation…… someone says something. Someone else asks a question to stoke the conversation….
And like. Context as well. yes it is a diff conversation if they worked 45 years min wage vs 45 years as a mega corp ceo lol. It def is a valid question for someone to understand the conversation that’s happening.
No ones being hostile by trying to get context to continue the conversation that was totally friendly until they got butthurt for some weird reason.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.