That isnt really the problem with the theory. It is the decades before that appear both unchanged and suspiciously not looked at.
I significantly disagree with your evaluation of (2). High profile targets always get filtered through leadership. Combs is black. He is popular in blue areas. We are not talking about Tim McGraw (spelling?). Statistically speaking he probably is into white girls. Black guy traffics a bunch of white girls in freaky drug filled dens of malevolence is a bad story for Dems 10/10 times. And the FBI and DOJ are captured. This only came out because something happened that made it unable to be buried. Maybe another situation like Rudy getting the laptop in 2020, but on steroids.
Just pointing out Rick Wilson is an anti-Trump Republican though, he is certainly not a Democrat
This sort of framing, while beneficial to the Rick Wilsons of the world, is likely untrue.
No one else has pagers and walkie talkies anymore methinks.
Leadership wants to endorse Harris. It is almost certainly that simple.
Whatever happened, this is a shocking result. Who could have imagined 20 years ago that the Teamsters would be a Republican stronghold and that Dick Cheney would somehow still be alive and also a Democrat? Wild times.
This is less surprising than you think. 20 years ago is 2004. Dick Cheney's daughter was already a lesbian (and gay politics was clearly rising) and Democrats were solidifying as the anti-Iraq party (notably Afghanistan was not demonized, not the insertion of ourselves into the Houthi conflict), had repudiated the Clinton welfare reforms, and had Obama as the star speaker at their convention. We were on a trajectory to one party clearly being against your average white guy, and the other winning most white guys. If anything, unions have been slow to embrace the fact that Democrats largely have assembled a coalition that rejects being a normal working person.
And then, of course, there is the gay stuff.
Iraq and Afghanistan had terrible effects on the home front in America primarily because American troops themselves were fighting those wars, at great expense to the United States.
This is even an exaggeration. Those wars had negative effects at home partially because American troops were fighting those wars but primarily because of policy decisions that really werent related to war per se. Instead it was the choices about occupation and the goals of that being discordant with the prosecution of the war.
If we wanted to occupy Iran and Afghanistan and reform the countries, we needed to engage in total war that put the fear of god into the natives, then appointed a local governor of our own to govern with an iron first for some decades.
If we wanted a surgical strike to remove a few bad guys, we could conduct the war as we did, then put in a couple of military bases to conduct strategic raids when we wanted to and mostly never have our boys leave those until we get tired of the minor expense and go home.
Israel should negotiate a settlement, but also their conduct in waging war should be held to US standards to receive US support.
How? With who? Why would they think the other side would abide by said agreement? Why would YOU?
How did 20 years of bombing Afghanistan go?
The bombing went fine. It was the pretending that building schools for girls in a muslim nation was a good idea that went poorly.
I have no qualms with Palestinians trying to reconquer everything from the river to the sea. I have a problem with them expecting any sympathy from me when they do it. No other historical border in world history is talked about in the way the "1967" borders are. That sort of thing is tiresome. If they want that land they can get good and win. Or else they can accept a peaceful 3 state solution with something similar to current borders.
This using your own women and children as human shields because you know antisemites and progressives will cry foul is totally lame.
Because they are either a terrorist group that strikes outside their nation's borders, a sovereign protecting a terrorist group, a citizen who supports that sovereign, or one of the few unfortunate citizens that do not. In the last case, what they should be doing is forming a terrorist group to strike at their evil sovereign. Very few such people it seems.
meat wave assaults
Where did this bizarre term come from and why are people using it?
In my current role I dont know which way causality works. I am less productive on remote days, but we also get less work incoming on remote days. This also means my long term projects and backlogs get done more often on remote days, but I dont have an exceeding amount of those, and often they are in backlog because I sent something out for review, or requested something that hasn't been sent to me.
seeing voting as a general public duty of all citizens also helps sidestep some of the cynical and destructive framing that the ideal voting system is one that permits votes from those sympathetic to you and prevents votes from those who are not
I find this framing neither cynical nor destructive. I think it is a useful meditation on the question of the purpose of governance.
besides simple access, voting day holidays also help enshrine the importance of the vote and strengthen the sense of community beyond politics. Also on a more pragmatic level it solves the polling location issue because you can use public schools
The first half of this gives me the yuckies. The 2nd half doesnt make sense because I've never encountered a polling location issue, whatever this supposedly is. And I've voted in a public school on more than one occasion.
But Everyone doesn't get holidays off. Bank tellers and government employees get holidays off. Heck even our most important government employees: soldiers, police, firefighters, air traffic controllers, dont get them off. Nurses and doctors dont get holidays off, train conductors and truck drivers dont, service workers generally do not. People in high end professions might, but its generally irrelevant as they could just take a day anytime so long as they plan.
But Election Day totally should be a federal holiday.
So bank tellers and government employees are more likely to vote?
Your interest rate will not be particularly favorable unless the bank is confident that even if the stock significantly devalues you will still pay them back.
There is a reason that this "strategy" is mostly just a speculative law review article and like 1 example. No one complaining about bie borrow die has ever demonstrated that its actually being used to any large extent.
Because actual answers would inform the public that she is to the left of their loony neighbor that everyone laughs about when he starts waxing poetic about Chavez at the block party after his 2nd Mike's hard.
The Obamacare question was fairly out of left field. The rest were mostly obvious. But order and framing are important.
While yes she gave weird scripted answers, that is better than her 2019 performance of being totally unprepared and rambling. Im sure she practiced (what else would she have been doing? not talking to press that is for sure), but its a plausible accusation. It happened before with Hillary. The moderators were clearly on Kamala's side. And its something fairly easily to do.
This guy is a huge Dem. He is all in on Ukraine and has lots of posts saying that Kamala should go visit the people who got shot at the Trump rally to one-up him.
I highly doubt Israel is part of the recruiting crisis. It is highly popular among the type of people who have stopped enrolling as much as they used to: White Evangelicals.
Not so popular is queering the military and forever wars trying to build schools for girls in hijabs.
If you are rich enough to use that strategy, you still are paying the full 40% on most of your estate. That more than makes up for not paying the lower capital gains tax.
No its probably huge because it would also affect payroll tax, which the company pays right upfront. Companies not figuring it out would be giving up a 6-12% margin on costs. Thats bankruptcy level uncompetitiveness in almost every industry.
What's wrong with any of these incentives either politically or in the absolute? It rewards Trump's friends and punishes his ennemies by transferring ressources away from state administration managers and into individual lower class people's hands.
Yes, in the sense that it is a creative tax cut, for eventually, just about everyone. Unfortunately we don't really need tax cuts until we get spending cuts or inflation will continue.
Of course.
The cats thing is just a good way to highlight the real issues of incompatibility. We also have the murder and the rape, and notably the high rates of DUI among the Biden wave of migrants.
Almost no one wants to talk about cats, but apparently large media aside from Twitter doesn't want to talk about rape and murder, so we get stuck talking about cats.
More options
Context Copy link