Hodad

Sigh. You quoted some rando who is quoting/promoting... his own "article." It's not clear whether he atually published this article anywhere or whether it's just pure fakery, but Robert Trivers has got to be in his 80s at this point. I don't reckon that's him. You should be embarrassed reposting random shit from Twitter. Are you even remotely concerned with whether you're spreading truth or lies? Could you at least do us the courtesy of using real news sources? And we'll pretend that you follow "@babygravy" for the "articles."

Well, ^^this is fascinating. You've completely reinvented your standards of evidence in service to Dear Leader. And you're not even a little embarrassed about becoming a poster child for parasocial relationships. It's not like we're "discovering" that Trump is a virulent racist. That's very old news. Whether it's truth or fiction (let's be real, very likely true) you don't mind either way. So why are you even pretending to care if he was dismissive and disrespectful Black girls?

Never has been free-for-all voting. That's a myth lie that you insist on repeating. You could choose to educate yourself on voter registration and day-of processes, but you'd rather spew nonsense--it's far less effort! And, as a foreigner, your ignorant proclamations about the circumstances under which American citizens may exercise their rights are particularly hollow.

A. Apples to oranges. Voting is a right, not a privelege. B. Voting in an election is a one-time opportunity, tied to a specific point in time. If you forget your ID on the way to the bar, that's inconvenient. If you forget your ID on voting day and are refused, that's it, you've lost your vote and lost your right. C. Voter identity is already established at the time of registration. If you get carded at the door, you don't need to show ID every time you order a drink. D. There is no problem with voter impersonation fraud. It's just not a real issue. Never has been. The systems already in place are sufficient. E. If a subset of the government creates new laws to "solve" a problem that doesn't exist, you should be looking for their ulterior motives. And, spoiler, we know what that motive is.

You simply shouldn't talk about economics. You get it wrong every time. High interest rates against modest inflation make the dollar MORE attractive to investors, not less. They strengthen the dollar. You've got it ass backward. In spite of the strong fundamentals he inherited, Trump is personally responsible for weakening the dollar. His behavior has damaged the brand. His tariff and trade policies are erratic, unpredictable and illogical. His alienation of allies and threats against NATO members are driving more uncertainty and negative sentiment. The dollar was attractive because it, like America's role in the world order, was steady and reliable. That was the brand. Trump is single-handedly destroying that. People just aren't as confident putting money into an asset that is no longer stable and predictable. And they literally don't like us. Trump is doing more for competitor China than Nixon ever did, driving the world to that economy at the expense of the American people. Because he's a goddamn buffoon.

WTF? Pretti didn't attack the agents. They attacked him. It's all on video. He's standing in front of the woman they just assaulted with his arms outstretched and they spray him in the face.

It's missing?

Ugh. Just like the J6 pardons, Trump is happy to have criminals in his pocket, and him in theirs. What a crook.

Let's be real, it was never expected to make money. I can't imagine that there's ever been a less earned biopic. Some of the cultists will attend, but I didn't think even most of them are interested. It was definitely quid pro quo. The highest price ever paid for a documentary--for a person who has never accomplished anything. They aren't fooling anyone.

No, you're lying, and pretty blatantly. Reich, talking about the recent events in Minneapolis said this: "His latest lies and those of his surrounding sycophants are so blatant and disgusting that some Republicans, like my breakfast companion, are abandoning the GOP altogether." And your response is to post a link with data for one state, data which ends November 2025. You get an F. Not even a good attempt.

You watched, with your own eyes, a man getting taken down, beaten by 5 or 6 guys, and shot in the back while unarmed--and then shot in the back many more times while he lay face down on the ground, and you're not willing to acknowledge that it's murder? Regardless of what the courts say, you have a conscience and judgement, yeah? You watched a murder take place, but because of politics you're unwilling to acknowledge it. That's disturbing.

That's incorrect. We have always had deportations, often at higher volumes, and there were never protestors in the streets. We have never had masked goon squads abducting and beating people in the street. And now there are protesters in the streets as a result. The means have changed. The means are the problem. The protests are a reaction to the means. You people sound like idlots when you pretend that protestors are in the streets to protect pedophiles. No one can take you seriously with that bullshit.

You didn't answer the question. It's not hard. Can people disagree with or protest a means without opposing the end?

All along I've thought you people were just brazenly dishonest with these bullshit arguments that wouldn't fool a child. Alternatively, it could be that you're just too dense to understand that there is a difference between means and end. Huddle up and let us know.

Article is spot on. The terror isn't an accident, it's the objective. Trump is following the playbook, and his cultists will follow him anywhere. Fortunately, Trump is driven by ego rather than true idealism. That may be our salvation. He won't change course because his actions are evil, but he might be persuaded if they make him more unpopular. That's a chance we wouldn't have with a true believer.

MAGA: "Well, shit. The video evidence shows they executed an unarmed man who hadn't done much of anything. But maybe he did something slightly naughty some other day?!? Yeah, that's the ticket.

I don't even think that's a quibble. Progressives provide the directional pull. Liberals perform the practical work of transformation. Conservatives are dragged kicking and screaming until they eventually arrive at the destination and then forget what they were so scared of in the first place. Well, at least that's how it's worked historically. At some point, Rush Limbaugh killed conservatism by convincing a LOT of dumb people that "conservative" actually just means the "opposite of Democrat." Which is silly. The groundwork was laid for the politics of spite. Now we have MAGA and it's more radical than the progressives have ever been.

Lol. No, you're calling dictionaries and encyclopedias wrong. Jeebus, you know people can see what you post right? Like everyone sees what's happened here?

During his January 2017 confirmation hearing for Attorney General, Sessions was asked about communications between the Trump campaign and Russian government officials and stated he was "not aware of any of those activities" and "did not have communications with the Russians". It later emerged that he had met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak on at least two occasions during the campign.

Yes I typically ignore most of your copy+paste Gish gallop ADD bullshit and focus on one of your lies at a time. If you had a paper trail of your wife having secret meetings and elaborately concealed communications with another man, you'd damn sure consider that "evidence" even if you couldn't definitively prove what was happening in the cheap motel room. No problem? And there's far more evidence than that in the Manafort case. No You keep trying to pretend like it was just an innocent, casual marketing meeting. But have you ever known anyone to deploy extensive spycraft techniques to conceal casual, innocent conversations? That sounds reasonable to you? You really think Manafort didn't know what Kilimnik was going to do with that information? Really? And if Manafort had taken and shared Trump's sensitive campaign intel to serve his own interests, shouldn't Trump have been angry at that betrayal? So angry he pardoned him. Lol If you truly believe any of that, you're a bigger cuck than the sad sack in the motel hypothetical. Sessions didn't catch heat for the meetings, he caught heat for lying about having been at the meetings.

WTF? You're like a pre-AI bot. Paul Manafort has never been a senator and Kilimnik is not a diplomat.

No, you calling radical progressives "conservative" is an oxymoron delivered by a regularmoron.

Ah, one of your signature "witty" retorts. Jeebus, you're as dumb as they come. Open a book sometime. Also, read it. The Progressive Era

This entire premise is unbelievably dumb, but beyond that, it's cruel. "The left" is not happy for dead Gazan children, you farking gargoyle. That's the grotesque, cynical filter through which you view the world, but don't project it onto others. Fark right off. There is, no doubt, some intelligent way to ask that more attention be paid to politics in Iran, but it's clearly far beyond you.

^^This is asinine. You have no knowledge of history. Conservatives did NOT free the slaves. Abolitionists were radically progressive. The entire notion of racial equality--or that Black people were human beings was radical at the time. Conservatives did NOT give women the right to vote. That too was radically progressive. People out on the street protesting for suffrage, were derided by conservatives. The same way you turds deride civil rights protestors today. Jeannette Rankin, a vocal suffragist was in no way a conservative. She was a street-protesting radical and pro-labor advocate. You did get one right though! I think what you really meant to say is "Republican." - Republican's didn't used to be conservative. They were the progressive party. They were literally the party driving reform in the Progressive Era. The parties effectively flipped orientation between the Great Depression and the Civil Rights movement.