I do find it amusing that SCOTUS made a ruling that legalizes having them assassinated as an “official act” though. After all, being in contact with intelligence agencies is definitely an official act as is writing pardons, so he can always pardon the assassin(s) afterward.
Cannon may use this to throw out the documents case.
How? The documents case is about stuff he did after he left office. Things he does after he is no longer President definitionally cannot be official acts of his Presidency.
If being in contact with the DOJ and VP is “official duties” and thus immune to prosecution regardless of the content of the contact, then being in contact with the CIA and asking them to “retire” some justices should be as well under more or less exactly the same line of reasoning.
You don’t get a choice where you get a progressive instead of Manchin. You get Manchin or a far right Republican. I voted for Manchin, for the same reason I voted for Clinton and Biden - they might suck, but holy shit is the alternative WORSE.
Gore probably would have been a top 10 president. But he couldn’t sell himself to voters just a little more. And if memory recalls, he technically didn’t even have to concede. Like, if he had waited I believe the recounts were actively happening. He didn’t even let it run down to the final vote.
He pushed right up to the deadline. Like, Bush v Gore was decided literally hours before the state deadline to certify the vote.
Imagine having a candidate that got more popular after speaking in public…
We literally haven’t even passed that low of a bar in over a decade. I don’t understand what’s happened to people.
I’d be happy if we just had an administration where no one in the DOJ, State Department or Cabinet quits in disgust. The last time that happened was what, Bush Sr.?
If the President can communicate with the DoJ or VP, even about doing something illegal or as part of some illegal scheme and be immune to prosecution because being in contact with the VP and DoJ are part of his duties, why would talking to the CIA to ask them to “retire” SCOTUS justices not be an official act that’s immune to prosecution?
I used to joke back in 2014 that if Milo Yian-whatever, Ben Shapiro and Gavin McInnes just had a biweekly meeting and decided on a hand sign, an image and a word to use heavily in social media for the following month that everything could be made into a dogwhistle within a year.
We really don’t do that here, because we skip the rehab part almost entirely because it’s bad for the profit margins of private prisons.
You misunderstand the dynamic. Most GOP voters are going to vote and are going to vote for the Republican, regardless of how awful that Republican is. Voting is a civic duty and party above all are kinda core ideas for them.
Dem voters are a lot more flighty in general. Any barrier to voting no matter how small (even having to rise from the couch) impacts Dem voters more than GOP ones.
There are more Dem voters than GOP ones except maybe in very red states. It’s about turnout - US voter turnout is God awful and it’s worse among Dems than GOP.
That’s why the debate was so bad for the Dems, because it’s not about whether or not it pulls voters to Trump but about what it does to Dem turnout.
It only works if you can get about 70 million to go along with you and vote for the same independent.
…as opposed to Trump ranting about deciding whether or not to abort after the baby is born?
It’s not the best explanation of the Roe v Wade view of things, but it’s far from the worst and a damn sight better than anything any Republican is going to say on the topic.
they set up state border crossings
That’s one of the few things that is almost certainly unconstitutional and I don’t think even this SCOTUS would let fly. Free travel between the states and federal power over interstate commerce are just too big a deal.
Not necessarily. Elections are run by the states, which makes changing FPTP a lot more manageable than changing, say, House apportionment (which would take a federal law), abolishing the Senate (Constitutional Amendment), eliminating the electoral college (Constitutional Amendment) or most other things people suggest to “fix” our elections.
It being a state thing means that you only need to get state legislatures (or in states with ballot initiatives enough voters) on board which is easier than moving Congress and that you can do it piecemeal - you can change individual states at a time and then use the success of the policy in the first states to promote the idea in other states. State laws are easier for the people to actually have an impact on.
I’d love to see states switch over to approval voting - it solves most of the problems with FPTP and it’s dead simple to explain. Instead of picking your top pick, pick everyone you’d approve of. Whoever gets the most votes wins. No multiple rounds, or your vote counting for a different candidate depending on previous rounds or anything else. The only ballot change is “Choose every candidate you support” in place of “Choose one candidate”, stubborn voters who don’t want to understand a new system can just do exactly what they’ve always done without issue and most voting systems currently out there already effectively support it.
it would be nice if the democrats fucking tried.
They think they don’t have to, they just have to keep you scared enough of the GOP that you’ll vote for them out of terror. It’s how Biden won the first time, after all.
Flexible enough that Access Software built a library called RealSound that could do 6-bit PCM audio over it. Which isn’t great but is dramatically better than you’d expect. A bit over a dozen or so games used it.
I had one called Mean Streets that used it for things like voice. The game came with instructions for how to build a cable to connect your internal speaker to an RCA cable to run to a stereo or similar.
As far as the US goes, Democrats are basically the best you get that has any chance of winning an election and she was their choice for 2016. I even held my nose and voted for her in the general (but not in the primary).
I won’t argue that progressives and the like shouldn’t be trying to either drag the party leftward or organize at a scale that they can actually win elections at some levels without needing the name Democrat behind them.
To be fair that’s an improvement over the previous test since you could reuse the frogs while you had to kill the rabbit. Even older ones involved peeing on grain. We’ve known that there was something different about the urine of women when they are pregnant for a shockingly long time, but couldn’t explain exactly what in any real detail until fairly recently.
And I absolutely believe you’d hear some folks joking around about “coming for their children.”
I strongly suspect if he ever responded with a source it would involve a carefully trimmed clip from that SF gay men’s chorus piece that caused a stir a while back, found a link for it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArOQF4kadHA
An entire piece built around the lines “we’ll convert your children” and “we’re coming for your children” that’s pretty prone to having unfortunate clips cut from it to scare right wingers.
“LGBTQ+” is not an organization. It’s not a religion or a creed. It doesn’t “say” anything - and, in fact, isn’t even an “it” in the context you’re using!
It’s a term for a group of people that have nothing to do with each other, other than some shared traits. In your comment, replace “LGBTQ+” with another word for a group of unrelated humans. “Blondes,” maybe, or “women,” “men,” “dark skinned folk,” “humans,” etc. You can’t put something like “Americans” or “Christians” in that sentence, because those are too specific.
Can you see the problem now?
Except in that case you can’t exclude anyone from “the LGBTQ+ community” provided they are not straight or not cis. See people talking about Milo Yian-etc back in 2014-2020, or people’s reaction to radqueer shit.
Most still do so long as the line being drawn is “is there any hypothetical situation in which a 17 year old can legally marry?” Most of those specifically allow older teens (16 or 17 depending on the state) to marry under narrow circumstances, usually requiring any minor have parental consent and/or court approval before allowing it. All states allowed under-18 marriage in some conditions until 2018, and only about a dozen have set a hard 18 limit with no exceptions since then.
With CA being one of the worst offenders in that it has no hard legal minimum age of marriage at all and relies on parents and courts to prevent serious abuse (no minimum but requires approval from one parent or guardian and the court). MA was very similar with no hard minimum at all until recently passing a hard 18 minimum.
Which means if you have the right people in your pocket (a parent or guardian and a judge) you could hypothetically marry someone very underage in CA then cart them off to a state where marriage is an explicit exception to age of consent (such as NM) and engage in legal CSA.