Yes and to be clear other than this “ban gerrymandering” basically means nothing
Posts by I'm not Gritty, but I'm gritty
Have as much glee as you want but every “what VA did is outrageous” will help them when they declare enough dem victories invalid and refuse to seat a dem majority in either house based on “voter fraud” and “dem govt corruption”
I’m making fun of the degree of anti-NYT sentiment here. There are genuinely people here who say you literally cannot rely on anything published in the NYT.
It’s journalistic malpractice for @theathletic.com to let Lew Wolf talk about why the A’s moved without discussing the fact that he spent nearly 10 years defrauding Alameda County with a fake stadium in Fremont to secure permits and tax breaks for mixed use developments.
This can't be true. It relies entirely on a NYT article and bsky has made it clear we must ignore everything the NYT says
Well, usually evidence is used to prove an assertion, but they don't seem to make the "trend" assertion, so I'm not sure what evidence is missing.
If the rest of the article suddenly shifts to claiming a trend, I'll concede I'm incorrect. But I'm not buying an Atlantic subscription because I never actually read it when I had one.
That makes sense since neither the title nor free part of the article argues it's a trend. If 10 families did this last year and 15 do it this year, then the headline is true even if 15 (or fewer) do it next year. No trend, true headline.
If Trump had been president during Vietnam, billions would have died in a nuclear exchange with Russia
There is, of course, no such thing as a Braves Sweep in the postseason.
A "Braves sweep" is when your team loses all the games in a regular season series. The term was coined in the early-to-mid- 1980s when we all watched Braves games on Superstation TBS. So, in this case, the Phillies obtained a Braves Sweep. Nice that it was against the Braves, I geuss.
I call the dudes who work for Trump the Lick Him cabinet, because they love to lick assholes.
of course you can withdraw a subpoena. The only real question is whether withdrawal robs you of the ability to re-subpoena on the same subjects.
I'm told I was wrong and this song was not used in the TV show, so I retract my prior claim
Whaddaya know. I stand corrected.
"Do you not understand my question? I'd suggest if you can't understand this question you are facially incapable of holding the office you are up for. If you do understand my question, I'd ask you show the American you are capable of such understanding by answering the question."
it was the theme song for the show, so I'm not sure that was confusion so much.
originally it was about one kind of gun, and then on re-use it was about another, less metaphorical kind of gun
I'd like to see Bruce fight Trump in an MMA cage
The 25th Amendment is for (a) people who temporarily can't do the job, but will be able to do it later; and (b) people so severely compromised that they can't even pretend to read a declaration and sign it.
No. With a sensible Congress, it still would be easier to remove via impeachment. 25th only works for short term removal or for a president who is incapable of signing a declaration of competence. Whatever is wrong with Trump, he's still able to sign a document and act like he knows what it says.
Also because the 25th Amendment ultimately requires 2/3 of each house of Congress to remove him. That's even harder than impeachment, so unless you need him out of power for a few hours only (e.g., to execute a coup), why is anybody even discussing the 25th?
WOW: A stunning new report in the WSJ reveals that military advisers intentionally excluded Donald Trump from the command room during the recent high-stakes operation to extract a downed U.S. airman in Iran, because they feared his erratic behavior could jeopardize the mission. 1/
To what end? They vote to temporarily remove him, he signs the competence declaration, and then 2/3 of both houses have to vote to keep him out.
It is significantly harder to get rid of a president using the 25th Amendment than it is to impeach him.
The second sentence should start with "therefore," not "yet."
What about "listen to Putin"? Isn't that part of his FP too?
Was Garrett Anderson the only player to play for the California, Anaheim and Los Angeles Angels?
can this be waterboarding instead?