Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
"Bret, I'm sorry, and with all due respect, that clip was not what he has been saying about the 'enemy within' that he has repeated when he's speaking about the American people. That's not what you just showed."
Bless her backbone, it's seemed rather rare among Democrats as of late.
A lot of people seem to ignore that presidents who were particularly effective were lawyers.
Clinton (economic boom of the 90s), Obama (cleaning up Bush Jr's mess), FDR (New Deal, WW2), Wilson (Antitrust laws, regulatory acts), Taft (16th amendment), Harrison (regulatory and national Forest laws), Arthur, Lincoln, Jefferson, Adams.
Having a former state prosecuting attorney running in an election is bringing the big guns to anyone who tries to be argumentative. Battles she chooses to take, she wins. Battles she won't have a choice in? She's going to get the best possible outcome.
If the ultra right cared about arguments, the GOP wouldn't stand a chance. They might as well be talking to the barrel of a tank.
Thinking about it, there's a lot in common between the skillsets needed to be competent presidents and lawyers. Both need to be convincing, make a case to an audience, and understand the law.
About the only things I can think of that presidents need to do that has nothing to do with being a lawyer are being the head of the military and making decisions around military operations.
Eh, there's a point of diminishing returns. Lawyers who are really into the law are not that great at getting out and connecting with people they don't know to get things done. They're really great at The Law, but . . . that's about it.
I'd say if it's a skill set you have but don't practice, that's probably perfect.
About the only things I can think of that presidents need to do that has nothing to do with being a lawyer are being the head of the military and making decisions around military operations.
I still think it helps to be a lawyer in that respect, because you need to be able to understand and properly interpret information provided to you. The president may be "the head of the military" but they operate entirely off of the advice and information provided by their administration/military staff and then make decisions based on that information.
In a civilized country, Trump would be in jail.
Yes, years before he became president.
In a civilized county Trump would have never been elected in the first place regardless of whether he was in prison or not.
We're so gross...
:(
Make your plans to vote today. Vote.gov if you can still register, find your polling locations and bring a friend with you.
Not only as an encouragement to make someone vote, but also for safety reasons. I have a bad feeling about the US elections next month. The cult has shown that they will do anything to keep people from voting against their messiah.
Thankfully here in California, we have mail in voting. Those of us that opt in never have to go near a polling place, and I was able to drop my ballot off last week.
Nothing's gonna happen in California. It's too blue to matter and it's on the West coast. If there's going to be an attack, it'll be on the east coast so people across the country will wake up to hear the news.
A couple of lone-wolf attacks in a blue section of Pennsylvania, for example, could throw the entire state into chaos. I will bet all of the money and the left body part of your choice that Trump would immediately contest the election and the Supreme Court would immediately say the legalese equivalent of "Hey, sorry about the whole terror attack thing, but you could have mailed in your vote early. You had the opportunity to vote and chose not to. All Hail King Trump!"
This is what I'm worried about. Attacks and threats of violence at polling places in blue areas of battleground states. Heck, a gang of them just driving around in full Y'All Qaeda gear and carrying shotguns might be enough.
Or just one actual attack at like 7 AM. Doesn't matter where. Just to send a message. I guarantee you. One actual attack in one polling place and watch participation drop by half in every battleground state.
Blue California is only in the largest cities, the rest is quite red and very Trumpy. Some areas are known hotbeds for righty radicals. Something could happen in California easily and there may even be more propensity because of the size of the population.
California is on the west coast. By the time the polls open and a MAGA moron does something stupid, voting in most of the country will already have been going on for hours, blunting its effectiveness. The most you'd do is disrupt a polling place that would hardly matter when compared to the rest of California, and would have no impact on the election since there's zero chance CA is going red. And by the time it spreads around the country, most of the country will have already voted.
Pennsylvania is a battleground state and on the east coast. Not only would it be possible to actually alter the outcome of the election, but it would have the bonus of what would be blaring on every TV, news, podcast, twitter feed, and facebook post in the rest of the country when they wake up, causing a nationwide chilling effect before they even wake up. Maximum impact, maximum effectiveness.
How many electoral college votes does California have versus Pennsylvania? If it went red, it could change a few things.
Thanks for posting the video, but can we all stop posting links to Twitter? There are other platforms available.
what would you rather them do? Seeing it posted directly from the source is good, are you asking to include an archived version?
Just saying that I doubt Twitter is the only source for that video. As much as everyone says that they’re abandoning the platform, I still see too many links pointing to it.
Removing Context: a class by Fox News
She's run a fairly flawless campaign, IMO. It could be summed with the phrase "Let Trump be Trump"
"accusing" gtfo
misspelled: telling the truth