“Liberal” in the sense that he supported Ukraine, but he also voted for Trump and owned automatic rifles.

No political party or ideology has the market cornered on crazy, but one party has nominated an insane dictator as their leader and candidate. One party repeatedly spreads lies and conspiracy theories, challenges science and rational thought, and encourages fringe ideology for the purposes of profiting from chaos.

This was a white, Christian gun nut whose social media history paints a picture of a disillusioned Trump supporter with delusions of grandeur. Calling him “liberal” is a gross oversimplification.

Does the term describe yourself? If not, you haven’t reclaimed it.

It’s a good thing his fenced property was protected by Secret Service agents. Gun control for me but not for thee.

Trump lives on the wrong side of every line. If you can no longer support him after his latest transgression, you are probably on the wrong side of a bunch of issues. I’m glad people are realizing they cannot support him anymore, but there is not nearly enough introspection among former Trumpers.

The delusion is thinking you can change things with a single election. If you don’t like the two party system (and I don’t) then you must get more involved in politics than voting for the president. You would need to elect principled progressives at every level of government, fight against fascism at every opportunity, and diligently protect the progress we have made.

Voting for a third party candidate is like showing up to a birthday party as they’re lighting the candles and complaining that nobody asked you about the decorations. It doesn’t matter if your objections are valid, you’ve missed the window to do anything about it.

Oh no, disingenuous bigots are critical of someone they hate because of something inconsequential.

When his judges are presiding, yes.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Djb1F_VUwAE8z3_?format=jpg&name=900x900

Some wealthy people don’t give a shit whether you believe they have wealth. You don’t need to prove anything to anyone until and unless you make an offer. Ask questions, and don’t answer questions. Give vague, short responses and neglect to elaborate.

Moscow agreed to discharge Indian nationals who were illegally inducted into the Russian Armed Forces during a meeting between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Russian President Vladimir Putin in July.

The way this is written, the dangling modifier makes it sound like the Indian nationals were illegally inducted into the Russian Armed Forces during the meeting. Like Modi met with Putin, and the Indian staff members and security detail that came along were corralled into a bus and shipped to the front lines. Then Modi comes out of the meeting looking like the Vincent Vega meme, and turns to Putin who is like the Fidel Castro Simpsons meme.

Moscow agreed during the meeting to discharge the illegally inducted Indian nationals.

Why do you think you can’t prove Gengis Khan existed?

Claims need proof when there is a call to action. It doesn’t matter to me if you’re from an island or a small town or a big city, unless you’re giving me directions. If you make an extraordinary claim, and you want me to believe you, then I’ll need proof. If you make a mundane claim, then what the fuck do I care if you’re lying? If you claim to have a disease, I’m going to believe you because I’m not a doctor and it costs me nothing to take you at your word.

If you shout “Run, something bad is coming!” I might feel foolish and angry if I later learn you were lying, but I’d rather be foolish and angry than injured or dead. Proof is a luxury when time is of the essence, doubly so when safety is at risk.

There might be some specific nuances to quibnle over, but generally I think we could reach consensus on the guidelines I described.

That’s why regulation exists. Regulate the businesses to prevent pollution. Trying to get polluters to pay is like trying to get the person who opened the champagne to put the cork back in. Even if they succeed, it’s not the same.

I’d support it for fact checking alone. Give them a researcher in their ear who can search the internet for reliable references. It would discourage bullshitting on both sides, and someone like Trump would be instantly shut down.

Gaslight. Obstruct. Project.

She’s certainly exceeded my expectations, and Trump has not met mine, either.

I thought the GOP would have made more out of the lack of primary voting, and been prepared for Harris. The way they were pushing Biden out of the race, I thought for sure they had a strategy to capitalize on the chaos of switching candidates this late in the seasons.

But Harris herded the kittens in the DNC, and came out swinging. Trump, meanwhile, was clearly unprepared for any of it. I’m very happy to have been completely wrong about it.

Plenty means enough to serve a specific purpose, in this case enough to provide judges experience in juvenile murder trials.

Not likely. Brittany Mahomes is a Maga moron and a shitty person.

Sadly, there wre plenty of juveniles who are tried for murder to create experienced judges and courts at every level.

Right, that was the talking point, and that was smart to stick to that. Because it sounds like an answer to the question, but it doesn’t nail down specifics that can be used in attack ads from the right or the left.

Roe V Wade was a court decision that was interpreted and modified through a long history of court decisions. It’s not one set of rights and restrictions.

Here’s an excellent, in-depth summary of all of the relevant court cases that led to the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Org ruling:

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/roe-v-wade-and-supreme-court-abortion-cases?fbclid=IwAR2Kz765sU

To codify Roe V Wade into law would require a constitutional amendment protecting the right to abortion. Anything less will be challenged in court, and unless we can impeach some illegitimate Justices, the SCOTUS is going to continue to push their radical agenda against women.

Why not?