ChiGoose

The amount of logical backflips you have to do to arrive at the conclusion that the people who want Ukraine to be able to defend itself are the ones responsible for them dying is insane. I cannot imagine what kind of media diet someone with this idea has. Putin is responsible for Ukrainians dying. Putin has said that there’s no reason to stop the war when he’s winning because Ukraine is running out of ammo. The people who are responsible for Ukrainians dying are Putin and the people who prevent Ukraine from pushing his forces back by denying them support.

There is zero market for this. It’s why TV news is just all bad. If you want good journalism, you won’t find it on tv.

It’s rare for them to do something well, so that’s a nice change of pace.

I’m not making any judgment on it. I’m just saying that if you destroy a country’s embassy, you better be prepared for retaliation. Though I will note that doing the retaliation in a way that allows Israel to defend against it (like drones taking hours to get there) could help prevent further escalation

Israel had to have expected this after destroying Iran’s embassy in Syria. Hopefully they prepared.

That’s just a long load of nonsense that amounts to: who gives a damn about the constitution? Let states ignore it.

🤔

Neither Barr nor Trump had Epstein killed.

It’s almost as if the GOP doesn’t want to solve the border issue because it’s a good issue to run on…

It’s a sign of something that I routinely point out here: the average American does not follow politics closely. To many, the 90’s represent a better and simpler time. Slick Willy was president then, so they associate those feelings with him. It’s wrong, but it is what it is. Not everyone has had their brain rotted by the internet.

No, man. I get the game you’re trying to play, you’re just very bad at it. If JWHO didn’t challenge the law, then an unconstitutional law would be in effect. If you want to blame them for the outcome of challenging a blatantly unconstitutional law, then what you’re actually doing is arguing that states should be able to pass unconstitutional laws. If California passed a law that nobody under 35 had a right to own a gun, the NRA would likely challenge that as unconstitutional. If SCOTUS took the case, and instead of deciding the question asked, proclaimed that nobody who wasn’t a member of a regulated state militia had a personal right to own a gun, would you blame the NRA? Your line of questioning implies you would, and I think that’s just stupid.

Lying and mudslinging is all they've got because the truth contradicts them. What a mess!

Nah, tax breaks for the wealthy that explode the deficit so you can cut education and programs for the poor and working class so you can do more tax breaks for the wealthy which explodes the deficit so you can cut education and programs for the poor and working class so you can do more tax breaks for the wealthy which explodes the deficit...

Wonder what books they are burning here: IYKYK: history doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes

Dear lord, you’re obtuse. You do realize that the natural conclusion of your questioning is: let states pass unconstitutional laws and never challenge them because it might get worse, right? Is that what you’re looking to defend here? Just letting whatever state pass whatever unconstitutional law it wants without any recourse?

Here’s a fun fact: Bill Clinton sucks and Donald Trump is a rapist.

Wow. This thread certainly went off topic. To bring it back to the original topic, here’s a fun and legal thing you can say: Donald Trump is an adjudicated sexual abuser.

Until those kids are born. Then, let them starve and suffer. That’s the GOP way!

No they weren’t. SCOTUS was. I don’t think overturning Roe was even part of the certified question that SCOTUS was asked to address. It’s such a weird and illogical way to look at this. Just trying every trick to excuse the people actually responsible because it makes your side look bad. State passes unconstitutional law Petitioner: hey! That’s unconstitutional SCOTUS: we are changing the constitution to allow things way beyond the law we were asked to look at Internet geniuses: this is the petitioner’s fault.

Can’t blame them here. They challenged a law that directly contradicted the Constitution as held by SCOTUS. SCOTUS then decided to change the rules on them. Blaming people for challenging problematic laws instead of blaming the people who pass those laws is an interesting way to burden shift.

They are the dog that caught the car. Abortion was a good issue for the Right while Roe was in place. Now it’s a weight around their necks.

Lots of excuses for the GOP here. Would the bipartisan bill be better than the status quo? Most experts seem to think so. Is there any chance that HB2, a solely partisan job with no bipartisan input will be signed into law? Nope. Seems like the Senate bill should have been able to move forward. But that would have made the godking mad, so now the toadies need to bend over backwards to excuse a tremendous GOP self-own.

Disagree. The Dems had the GOP craft a border bill that the Dems would never support on its own in exchange for supporting democracy abroad. The GOP reneged and trashed the whole endeavor the second their godking expressed displeasure. That is not the same as one side of the House passing an extreme bill that had zero chance of success. Back to the topic at hand, the GOP could potentially save themselves from serious problems in November and put the Dems in a really tough spot by bringing a bill to the the House floor that expands access to contraception and healthcare, emphasizes prenatal care, guarantees paid parental leave, and makes healthcare affordable. Not only would such a bill greatly help reduce elective abortions, but it would provide a much-needed lifeline to GOP candidates. So why won’t they do it?

When you’re born is also when the GOP stops considering you a person.