Like when Trumpy hid classified documents in his bathroom to impede a criminal investigation?
You mean like that?

#32 | Posted by donnerboy

No. Trump is a Republican. Republicans are allowed to impede investigations. It is only illegal if a Democrat does it.

Don't call me maga you simpleminded ----.

#22 | Posted by john_savage2

Then stop acting like a MAGA.

You give anecdotal evidence from a person who is most likely ignorant.

If you have any evidence that people who got the covid shot died at a HIGHER RATE than people who did not, I would love to hear it.

I recently saw a study that talked about the rates at which the covid shot induced myocarditis. Which it did. But then it pointed out that getting covid without getting the shot induced myocarditis at a rate 10x higher.

I will acknowledge that it is possible that the covid shot causes clots. But you have to compare that to the baseline, yo people who do not get the shot. Otherwise it is all ignorant FUD.

Wear my gay trash you lowly actual player. Your personal opinion is irrelevant; MY personal opinion is superior, even though I don't play baseball.

#5 | Posted by john_savage2

I don't really care about the opinions of sport players in general, one way or the other. Being willing to poison your body with steroids does not make you smarter or make your opinions wiser or more valid.

Do you think that being able to swing a bat with inhuman strength (or throw a ball at inhuman speed) for some reason means their opinions should carry more weight? Why?

I thought he was supposed to drain the swamp, not turn the reflecting pool into one.

We have unwritten back channel commitments.

#12 | Posted by et_al

He is getting totally played.

I am sure he is going to whine that they didn't do what they told him they would (and no one else heard or can confirm). And say it isn't his fault that the US got screwed over, it us because Iran is full of meanies.

Blue wave vs. Red Seawall.

I'd proffer, that is an appropriate distillation.

#3 | Posted by LampLighter

Gerrymandering does not matter in the Senate.

I've been calling Talarico Beto 2.0. It's more like Beta.

#21 | Posted by BellRinger

Do you have to be a pedophile to be an alpha?

Do you have to defend pedophiles to be an alpha?

Do you have to pardon pedophiles to be an alpha?

With the examples Republicans have shown of what an "alpha" is, I would much prefer to be called a Beta.

Supporting mainstream Democrats is a dirty trick?

#5 | Posted by visitor_

The fact that Republican leadership is surreptitiously supporting them shows that they are not mainstream. The anti-Semitism and weaponization of the government is not a Democrat position. Republicans, like you, are trying to pretend it is. But things like this show them to be lies.

There are many situations where both have legitimate grievances and both can be wrong in the way they react to them.

#7 | Posted by sentinel

Yeah, anyone who says "someone has got to be wrong" is a hack.

I think Israel is more in the wrong here, but it comes from an unresolvable situation. Israel got formed out of stolen Palestinian lands. But the Israeli people who are there now were not the ones who did it, probably were not even born when it happened. So kicking them off the land would not be "fair" either.

At this point I don't know what the right thing to do is. And I don't think anybody else does either.

I am not a fan of corporations having political power or a political voice, but the people of Delaware can run their state as they wish. As long as this is limited to local elections it is none of my business.

I think it is a terrible idea and I would not want to live in Delaware, but with a population of a little over a million, it seems most people share that sentiment.

So, how much of the $1.7B does she get?

"Corporations are people, my friend!"

#92 | Posted by lee_the_agent

I agree. The problem is all the MAGA incels.

The problem is that no woman wants to have sex with them. Can we just force them to have sex with each other? That would solve the problem, right?

The 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791. The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, only 77 years later. The 2nd amendment was "incorporated" (finally had the 14th Amendment applied to it) in 2008, 140 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified. Less than 20 years ago. And that is justified by "originalism"?

For over 90% of our nation's history the consensus was that states and localities could regulate guns.

Claiming it is a right that the states have to respect is a VERY modern occurrence. Which seems like the exact opposite of originalism.

However the text of the Reconstruction Amendments changed that.

#65 | Posted by et_al

But, was that the intent if the reconstruction amendments when they were passed? Did they intend for that to be used to ban states from regulating guns?

I am fine with a living constitution interpretation. As I said, I am not an originalist. The problem that I have is the picking and choosing. The conservatives on the Supreme Court want to on the one hand use originalism as a justification for banning gun control regulations. But on the other, they want to take an interpretive view of the 14th amendment so that they can apply the second amendment to states as well.

I've seen several documentary/investigative journalism pieces on the increased ownership of firearms by women, African Americans, trans folks ect because they feel they NEED to protect themselves in today's climate. The people I've seen at ranges I've frequented match that reporting.

#67 | Posted by jpw

But are those people also the ones who want "more guns everywhere"?

Just because someone goes to a range, or owns a gun, does not mean they are also opposed to gun control regulations.

Lol. Little snowflake got triggered.

Though, I would enjoy it if someone could refute my understanding of the original scope of the Constitution and second amendment. You know... some intelligent conversation.

I also do not claim to be an originalist.

Conservatives on the Supreme Court do, though. Claim at least. They obviously do not live it.

what people at that time meant by the word "well regulated"/

#29 | Posted by shrimptacodan

Regulated by the states, not the federal government.

I thought that would be pretty obvious.

Besides all of that, it's a U.S. constitutional right, guaranteed to anyone no matter what state they live in.

#5 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Not when the Constitution was written.

When the US Constitution was written, it applied ONLY to the federal government.

Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state, governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments.

Because it failed.

The Republicans were probably naive enough to believe, or at least desperate enough to hope, that if they got a couple of ships through then it would be like a dam breaking and others would suddenly believe it is safe.

But it is obviously not safe, and no one is going to risk their ships. Probably the only way they got those two ships to try was because they didn't have a choice... they had already had an agreement where they could be called up as an auxiliary part of the US navy.

My guess is that Trump TACO'd because he had no other choice. He could not force anyone else to transit the strait, and no one is stupid enough to do it willingly, even with US "protection".

You might even say the war in Iran was... 86'd? "

There is no statute of limitations for murder. The only reason he is not being charged is because of who is currently running the executive branch.

The person running the executive branch will change at some point.

The only person who died (according to the attached article) was a 2 month old child - too young to get the vaccine. And the mother took the booster shot during pregnancy.

#4 | Posted by lfthndthrds

The problem is there will always be kids who are too young to get the vaccine. And they are the ones who are most at risk of dying from these diseases.

They rely on herd immunity to not be exposed to these diseases (same for measles), especially small children rely on it so they are not exposed before they are old enough to get the vaccine and the protection it provides.

You not vaccinating your kid doesn't just risk your kid. It risks other, and younger, kids much more.

If the Clintons can testify so can Pam Blondi.

#4 | Posted by catdog

I am looking forward to Trump being called to testify the day after he leaves office.