You'd rather have people die than Trump have a win.

#4 | Posted by visitor_

Lol. Dems did not torpedo this deal. It was completely due to Republican incompetence. And we said from the beginning that he doesn't know what he is doing. That he oversimplifies very complex issues, says he can fix them and the gullible mouth breathers believe him. I wish he wasn't so stupid and incompetent. But the facts, like this one, do not lie. So we have to content ourselves with saying "I told you so", because we did.

I see, Cl*nton on the list, but not president. Innocent.
Tr*mp on the list when he wasn't the president. Guilty.

#25 | Posted by notmymonkey

I have no reason to believe Clinton is innocent. They are both probably guilty.

I agree with you that Clinton does not represent my values. I will never vote for him, and will support his removal from any and all public offices or positions of power.

Now your turn. Will you say the same about Trump? Or, like the rest of the pedophile supporting conservatives, does Trump still represent your values and you are committed to supporting him and keeping him in public office and positions of power?

Replacing an employee usually ends up costing between 50% and 100% of their salary. Do conservatives have no idea about the realities of business? Why did they waste all this money by firing all these people?

It'd be great if both sides could f off with the Gerrymandering.

#18 | Posted by kwrx25

California's gerrymandering was specifically in response to Texas's. Without Texas blatantly trying to gerrymander first, liberals in CA would not even be considering it.

Also, California gerrymandering will automatically revert back to its un-gerrymandered state at the next redistricting (after the next census). The only way they could keep it us with a brand new ballot initiative.

Liberals intentionally set it up to try to get rid of gerrymandering (while not unilaterally disarming).

Republicans in Texas are all in on gerrymandering and have shown every intention of gerrymandering as much as possible in the future.

Daylight's a burning.

#7 | Posted by Twinpac

Which is all the more important for a sundowner. ;)

Are you suggesting one is less illegal than the other?

#20 | Posted by sentinel

I would say that there are things that are "more" illegal than others. Carrying out the initial strike might or might not be illegal. An argument could be made that it was illegal, but a decent argument could be made that it wasn't. I would not be in favor of the people who carried out the first strike being tried for murder, even if a court came to the conclusion it was an illegal order.

The second strike was very definitively, was "more", illegal. The people who carried out that strike should be tried and jailed for murder, as well as anyone who ordered it. Anyone who would order it or carry it out is scum and should be removed from society in order to protect said society.

#6 | Posted by snoofy

And people often screw up at least once. Usually many times.

These are the "second amendment solutions" Republicans are always going on about, right?

Republicans are punishing poor people, elderly people, and children, intentionally trying to make them starve, for political purposes... theoretically for political gain?

I was just looking at another thread where BillJohnson was talking about being a Christian.

How does this conform with Christian values?

It's also a knee-jerk reaction to the spike in cancer since the shot became available.

#3 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Is it a spike in cancer since the shot became available, or a spike in cancer since COVID?

As far as I could find, the shot did cause some adverse reactions, so saying the shot caused damage was probably accurate. BUT, for pretty much every adverse reaction the shot caused, (like myocarditis,) getting COVID without the shot caused the same damage but much worse. So if you choice was only between getting the shot and not getting the shot, it is better to not get the shot. But that was not the choice. The choice was between getting the shot before getting covid, or getting covid without the shot. Because everyone ended up getting covid at some point. And in that case, as far as I have been able to tell, the outcomes for EVERY demographic was significantly better if you got the shot.

If you have evidence that shows to the contrary, I would love to see it.

#15 Here you go dummy #2.
www.politico.com

#18 | Posted by fishpaw

Why do Republicans need a CR in the first place? The way it is supposed to work is they actually go through the appropriations process to fund the government. That ends in reconciliation, which is filibuster proof, so Republicans actually would not need any Democrats to pass it.

So why is the House not working to go through the PROPER process to fund the government, and instead are refusing to do any work on it unless Dems pass their stopgap measure?

Pregnant Women Post Series of Tylenol Videos in Defiance of Trump
www.newsweek.com

I think I'll post this one. The videos I saw where all YouTube.

#29 | Posted by HeliumRat

You said women were overdosing on Tylenol, and one of them died. I don't see where in the article you posted where it says that. Can you post a quote?

If you have to lie about people dying to make your point, then your point is probably pretty weak to begin with.

I do believe that Biden would have had the power and right to overrule the DOJ and release the files. And maybe you blame him for not doing that. But, to me, the investigation being active during his tenure gives him enough cover so that I do not believe he was wrong for not releasing them.

OTOH, the investigation is officially closed now, so Trump does not have that cover. AND Trump promised to release the files, so him refusing to do so now definitely makes you wonder.

If you really believe these files contain some "nasty stuff" especially with Trump's name on it.....it IS a fair question to ask why Biden didn't release them
Just pretend to be Zed "Release the ---- files"...except go back in time 2 years.

#38 | Posted by eberly

Eb,

During Biden's tenure it was an active investigation. During an active investigation that type of information should not be released because it could undermine future prosecutions. But the investigation was closed in July of this year. Once the investigation is closed, there is no reason not to release the files.

On a more pragmatic note, conservatives love to claim lawfare. If Biden had released files saying that Trump was implicated with Epstein, Trump would have claimed it was a "Democrat Hoax" and all the obedient little conservative sheep would have believed him. Biden releasing the files would have made it LESS likely that justice would have been served. But now that it is Trump refusing to release the files even the obedient little conservative sheep are having a hard time going along with it being a "Democrat Hoax" (even though Trump is STILL claiming that is the case).