JCPhoenix

I like Bottas plenty. But if he got the boot for a new driver, I wouldn't be mad. He's "made it" in F1. At this point, he's just cruising. And that's great, and understand why he's doing it.

But, again, if it means new faces, I pick new faces.

Well, at least they're consistent. In terms of not respecting legitimate, legal votes.

That's only because he rubb--Oh god, I don't even want to think about that. Nope, nevermind.

Came across this one today. Sprinkling sugar on a prolapsed anus can make it go back in.

Not quite. The US isn't Israel. Israelis aren't Americans. I don't think I need remind you that the situation in 2001 was that the US was attacked. The US have not been attacked this time. This is another country.

As much as Americans and/or American officials are willing to go to bat for Israel on the international stage, Americans largely are not prepared to potentially put boots on the ground for not-America, even if it's an ally like Israel. Especially an ally as "divisive" as Israel and one who's in the ME. As such, American public support for Israeli retaliation is going to be somewhat muted to prevent the possibility of US troops getting dragged in.

Now if the US was attacked directly by Hamas, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now because Gaza would be...I don't even want to think about that. I'll just leave it there.

Eh, different time, different context, different people. The Gulf War went well enough. Highway of Death and all that. So why wouldn't Afghanistan and even Iraq 2 electric boogaloo ten years later not go well, either? Nevermind that we'd need to nation-build in both those countries, something that wasn't done or needed in Iraq in the early 90s.

But after 20+ yrs of Iraq+Afghanistan adventures, Americans today are hesitant to get involved in anything outside of the US, especially in the ME. That's why questions arise around support for Ukraine and Taiwan, particularly the latter.

Ah true. It'd be campaign slogan. Maybe even a party plank or tenet. Sigh.

On another discussion I was following, a commenter mentioned that John Stewart would be a good president because he's able to speak truth to power and all that.

But why would John Stewart want that? Not that he wants to be that; I'm pretty sure he's given no indication of wanting to be president. Probably even the opposite, that he NEVER wants to be president. Because if he were president, there's no way he'd be able to say and do the things he does today. The power of the presidency may be mighty, but the office is also rather restricting. And like you said, filled with boring, boring shit. The holder of the office doesn't have the freedom to say and do whatever they want. Even Trump had to back-off or vacillate at times on things he initially said he'd do. Every president has. And it's not just because they're lying to get elected. Well, not always.

All they to say...I don't know much about Cornel West, but given the little I know, I agree with you. Not being the president surely isn't as powerful. But you get way more latitude and freedom to say and do what you want. And for someone as outspoken as West, it probably makes more sense this way.

Remember when "If it’s legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down," literally ended a then-winning senatorial campaign in Missouri? That was only 11yrs ago!

For those who don't know, that was Todd Akin (R) who said that. And before he said that, he was the favorite to win against the incumbent, Senator Claire McCaskill (D), when MO was turning from purple to red. It was a landslide loss for him. Just 11 years ago, a comment like that would've ended a campaign and career completely.

Nowadays, that'd barely register.

My friends mentioned getting it like 4-5hrs ago, while I was on YouTube myself. It wasn't appearing for me.

Then a couple hours ago, it finally popped-up for me. Right now, you can click through it or just reload the page and it goes away.

I think all of us are using uBlock Origin. And we're using various browsers.

OK, what does that mean "Democrat Party?" I know it's supposed to be jibe against Democrats, but I never understood it.

Are there enough GOP House members from competitive or bluer districts that could swing this? I know the GOP has a razor thin majority, so it shouldn't be that many who would need to vote with Democrats.

At the same time, that kind of thing, some kind of coalition, just isn't feasible in the US. Any Republican, no matter if the district is safe or not, who votes for Jeffries would be primaried. And the primaries show us that the extremes tend to win them. It'd be political suicide.

We literally saw this in action on Saturday. McCarthy chose to put up a clean CR that Democrats were willing to and did support. And in return he just became the first Speaker to be removed through a Motion to Vacate.