Progressives need to stop pretending that packing the court would open the door for conservatives to do the same.
At this point, conservatives will simply do the same if they lose control of it. They do not care about law and order and they do not care about mores. They only care about oppressing the weak and solidifying their power. The SCOTUS is a political institution that needs immediate reform.
We're racing to doomsday and they're leaning on the accelerator while progressives argue about whether it's safe to turn off the ignition.
Progressives know damn well that Republicans have already stacked the court. It's the establishment Democrats that are whining about an imaginary retaliation. You know, the centrists who are basically Republican lite, the assholes who whine about how extreme the Left-most parts of the party are, while ignoring how extreme the entire right-wing has always been.
We've seen this shit play out dozens of times in the past, the centrists say we progressives need to moderate ourselves to appeal more broadly, that we need to compromise or lose support. The reality plays out that any compromise we make is what loses us our support, and the centrists then side with the extremists on the right to hurt us more.
we shouldve been packing the court already. but nope democrats dont wanna rock the boat. something about when they go low we get high. no sorry, when they go low kick em in the fucking mouth.
Like how the Dems won't get rid of the filibuster, while the Reps got rid of it to push through the judicial nominees. Or how the Dems did absolutely nothing about the Rep Senate ignoring Obamas nominee and then rushing through their own at the last minute to stack SCOTUS.
Dems just can't admit that they need to play on the Reps level because the other team openly cheating while you take the high ground just tolerating the intolerant.
It didn't originally exist in the Senate either, but the worse Vice President we ever had, decided that the Senate had too many rules and got rid of most of them. One of those original rules allowed any senator to call for a vote, even when someone was on the floor speaking.
This rule, called the previous question for some reason, still exists in the House, along with the Hour Rule which limits the time a Representative can spend holding the floor.
So we already have the framework to end the filibuster, but conservatives on both sides of the aisle like it because it means that they can thwart progress.
Of course, when it gets in the way, Republicans quickly carve out an exception for themselves, like they did with Judicial appointments.
The Senate is a useless and bad institution anyway. It's the US House of Lords, where land is being given rights to vote over people.
If we're swinging magic wands anyway, just get rid of it and give its duties to the House. Or maybe return it to being a governor-appointed advisory board that only has proforma powers over legislation that the House can override.
At a minimum, make it so Senators can cast as many votes as they have constituents. Do the same thing for reps in the House.
Yeah, with what majority? There are only 47 Democrats and 2 independents who are interested in any politics left of center. Manchin, techincally a Democrat, will only vote for his personal, center-right beliefs, and Sinema, the only remaining independent has shown she's in it solely for personal financial gain. There was no time in which there were enough Democrats, excepting the two aforementioned posers, to add seats to the court or confirm any justice without some money changing hands. If it weren't about power or money we could have had 52 states (DC and PR) and at least 3 more truly democratic senators (considering the outside chance of a 50/50 split in PR). But that was impossible because it would have reduced the power of Manchin and Sinema, and that's the only reason for them to exist.
This is the correct response. Expanding the court has been impossible, and will remain impossible, until there is a large enough majority. Until that time, arguing that Dems should “pack the court” is delusional.
Which “liberals?” I thought it was funny. I guess I’m not “liberal” enough? I’m voting for Biden because I’ll do anything to stop Trump, but I’m not going to pretend he shouldn’t be mocked.
My guess is bot farms mostly. Russia, the DNC, the RNC, et al benefit in their own ways from posting their reactions all over social media. Sure some on the far left probably didn’t make it past the first commercial break, but with an election, everyone is coming out to play
Regardless, they are both way too old to be running again. I find it hard to believe these guys with one foot in the grave and an inability to speak coherently are our best bet.
I thought it was funny too, but man is it uncomfortable knowing that it could sway people away from voting for Biden and swing the scales in favor of Trump.
The problem is of the people that watch him. The majority of them would never vote for Trump in the first place. Most of them would probably vote Biden. So being hard on Trump he’s simply preaching to the choir. Being hard on Biden. He might demoralize a few from participating. It doesn’t mean he was wrong or wrong to do it. But it is a possible concern. Though the only group to actually blame for that is the Democrats.
I mean I’m still going to vote for them. Because I like the idea of still having elections even if they are highly flawed. You don’t get that sort of thing under full blown fascism.
It won’t, it was honest and painted Trump in a worse (and deservedly awful) light. The apologists that call the sky yellow when you can see it’s fucking blue cause much more damage by eroding public trust in the democrats.
I prefer flawed candidates that overcome their flaws so that, hopefully, we can find a less flawed candidate next time.
That’s an interesting point. Jon Stewart’s job isn’t to get Biden elected. Just like Fox and MSNBC shouldn’t be their job to get their respective candidates elected. He should present things as he sees it and the people should inform themselves to select the best candidate
“Never believe that [they] are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. [They] have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
I know it's not hugely relevant to this particular case, but I do think the original context of the quote should be included here, just for completeness if nothing else.
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies.
While he's discussing anti-semitism, bigots of all kinds use very similar rhetorical strategies. A lot of this stuff did originate with anti-semitism though, and I feel that shouldn't be forgotten.
Harris Polls has been described as " when Harvard Poll meets Fox News" and "cherrypicks to advance agendas". Just like when looking into bias of news sources, it's important to look into the bias of polling sources.
It seems like you're thinking of this article, which is talking about Fox News misrepresenting a Harris poll, and the Fox "journalists" cherry-picking to fit an agenda. That article isn't criticizing Harris, which mostly over exaggerated Democrat victory in the 2020 elections. Not saying they're not biased, but it seems like you may have misunderstood a source?
I replied to a different comment linking that article, so I'll copy it here:
Thank you for showing where that phrase was used in writing, but that is not the only time he has been pointed out for the irony of his juxtaposition. He is a former pollster for the Clintons that became very "trumpy" (to use Politico's word) and instead of being on all news shows the only one that would bring him on is Fox.
The thing about polling is that one can write the questions in order to get the answers they want or need and data can be extracted to portray what is needed. Without the raw data, we really don't know what was asked or how the data portrayed was pulled.
they sampled an incredibly small sample size. It's extremely easy to get fucked up results from assuming that you can make a poll representative of Americans as a whole. Like. where I live... most people in the state want him locked up (or you know. burned at the stake.) But, you go an hour out the cities and even the democrats there would be likely to express some hesitancy. Because it's trump country out there.
and that assumes the poll wasn't meant to get this result (for example polling in ways that get maybe more conservative democrats. or people simply lying and saying they're democrats.)
Actually the sample size checks out. I love it when people see "Smol number not as big as big number, therefore sample size bad" and I am going to pull a very elitist argument here and say that people at Harvard University likely know more about polling than you do, just saying.
The fact that people who still do take stats classes likely know what they're talking about is not contradictory to the point that these classes may no longer be required in most degrees. Hope this helps! Try not to blow a head gasket trying to process this info.
Small sample size is fine when it's representative of the population. Trying to extract nationwide sentiment, a very diverse thing, off a small size is unlikely to be very representative.
Except the numbers work out, and studies have made very very sweeping generalizations based on much smaller sample sizes of much larger demographics (for example the 1 in 5 myth comes from a study that had less than 100 respondents). This study is a dream compared to those.
Just because studies have made sweeping statements, doesn't mean they're right. I could say I've got the longest member I'm the world based on a study I conducted in my basement, but it doesn't change reality.
Where did I say making sweeping statements equals correctness? Man people are getting so emotional over this because it turns out the majority don't agree with them. Guess it shreds the narrative that they're the majority.
The section that says "Results were weighted for age within gender, region, race/ethnicity, marital status, household size, income,
employment, education, political party, and political ideology where necessary to align them with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents’ propensity to be online." kinda sticks out to me, too.
That's how all reputable election polling was done in 2020. For example, if you take a random sample that happens to be 52% men and 48% women, it is completely appropriate to overweight the women's responses to match their actual percentage in the US, 50.5%.
In fact, in the 2020 election there was a bunch of Trump supporters who had the same doubts as you, and they would "unskew" polls with 52% men responding to give them 52% of the final weighting. Lo and behold, their "unskewed" polls showed Trump in the lead. But the proof of the method is in the election results...
Yeah, that admission kind of makes me pause when considering the results. There should have been a page of the published poll that better described how this was taken. For instance, doing just a LAN line poll skews poll results considerably.
But it's only the beginning of the fed case against Trump, so I'm sure opinion will change.
A sample size of 2090, as in this study, is large enough to bring the margin of error down to 2%.
Furthermore, there is no need to speculate about who they polled, because this information is available. Questioning the results of the poll is as unreasonable as 2020 Trump supporters questioning every poll that showed Biden with an advantage.
Agreed. This poll is hard to believe. There was another one last week saying a majority agreed with the indictment. There’s lies, dammed lies, and polls.
Take this with a grain of salt. A pollster can come up with any results they want if they ask the question carefully.
This is almost certainly something put out by Trump’s team to manipulate public opinion. It’s bullshit and not worth anyone’s energy.
“I beseech you to control him if you can,” [Judge] Engoron said. “If you can’t, I will. I will excuse him and draw every negative inference that I can.”
Ultra-mega-fucked.
Trump attorney Alina Habba at one point stood up and argued that the judge was there to listen to what Trump had to say. “I am not here to listen to what he has to say!” Engoron reportedly shouted, telling Trump’s counsel to sit back down. “We are here to hear him answer questions,” he added.
LMAO at a bottom tier lawyer trying to tell a judge how to do their job.
She was also complaining, after court, that the judge was telling her what to do and she doesn’t stand for that in her life.
Um, you do when you’re in the court. If the judge tells you to shut up, you shut up. You can be offended that the judge told you to shut up, but you’d better not argue with the judge and tell them that you have a right to say whatever you want to say in their court. Not unless you want to spend a night in a jail cell.
Also, Judge Engoran has 20 years of experience being a judge, and he was a practicing lawyer before that. He was a judge before Habba got her license, and he’s probably more than double her overall experience.
The fact that she didn’t even know that witness testimony means answering questions really puts a big question mark over her 13 years, anyways.
The fact that she didn’t even know that witness testimony means answering questions really puts a big question mark over her 13 years, anyways.
I know that and my legal expertise is just what I’ve picked up over the course of my life. No law degree or anything. The fact that I might be more qualified to be a lawyer than Habba is bad news for Trump. (For the record, you do NOT want me representing you in court. Get a real lawyer, not some guy whose best qualification is “knows more than a Trump lawyer.”)
I have to say, none of that means shit if he lets the guy run all over him and do whatever he likes with no consequences. Most people can’t piss a judge off that much without spending time in jail.
I see you have no fucking clue what you’re talking about.
no consequence
lmao
Trump is trying to frustrate the fuck out of Engoron, that’s why he and his lackeys have been attacking the law clerks and pushing false narratives about them like the dating a senator or donated to dems bullshit.
Engoron is weathering this storm by slowly and methodically building a trail of evidence so if this is taken to appeals based on the “unfair judge” bullshit they keep spewing about, the judge has an undeniable response to that.
Summary judgment was already granted, he’s guilty, this is about determining size of disgorgement. Trump isn’t running away with a damn thing, and I think it’s hilarious that you do.
Most people can’t piss a judge off that much without spending time in jail
Wow thanks for telling us. Guess what? trump isn’t just some fucking guy, he has a large portion of republicans that will truly do anything he asks, he has a very long history of using litigation to bully his way to what he wants and like it or not he has connections and funding to keep pulling on those same threads.
This is about letting Trump sink himself, it’s not a goddamn race to the finish line (well… aside from 11/24)
It’s almost like court justice is never swift but methodical, and it’s almost like with these cases methodical is the way to go instead of snap punishments. Thank god the judge can think past any current moment and look to the bigger picture, unlike you.
I’ll save you the trouble for your inevitable reply
b-b-but nothing has happened to him so it just won’t ever!!!
Try not to forget there is NO precedent for ANY of this. WE CANNOT RUSH ANY OF THIS.
You have a bad day or something? That’s a whole torrent of nastiness, and it seems like you missed the context of my comment.
The judge is letting him behave horribly. That usually gets you at least a night in jail. That’s the lack of consequences i’m talking about.
If you don’t think that’s a big deal, consider that trump only acts the way he does because a long succession of people who could have and should have put him in his place didn’t do it.
That is the point. This is the only path to a proper outcome. Patience will be very well rewarded with a conclusion and punishment that is undeniable and sticks permanently.
The person you replied to didn’t say anything mean. They literally explained that the judge is doing exactly what those of us that want Trump to finally face permanent lasting consequences would want him to do. Whether we understand it or not.
Thank you. I understand why people are itching for Engoron to send Trump to jail for contempt. It would be very satisfying in the short term. The problem is that the judge has to think long term. If he sends Trump to jail now for a day and that tanks the whole case Inc appeal, that’s in the judge. So Engoron is putting up with Trump’s shenanigans while building an appeals proof judgment.
Is it more annoying in the short term seeing Trump “get away with” so much with, at most, little fines? Sure, but this is what’s best in the long term. Engoron has been a judge for decades. I trust he knows his job better than people whose legal experience is “I watched a few Law and Order episodes, listened to a law podcast once, and watched a few legal YouTubers.” (No offense intended to legal YouTubers. I love Legal Eagle especially. But you can’t assume you’re a legal expert just because you watched those videos. There’s a reason that it takes years to study law.)
Watch the proceedings of that “sovereign citizen” idiot Darrell Brooks who drove a car into a Christmas parade in Wisconsin. That guy never heard the phrase “just shut the fuck up”. It’s so maddening to watch that insolent manchild, I couldn’t make it past two minutes of footage.
I feel like I have to clarify that I’m not American before making comments so there’s enough wiggle room for potential ignorance.
I think it probably is a tactic he is using so that when it’s time for consequences, there’s plenty of leeway given to trump to show that he wasn’t acting biased, it’s just that trump is a fucking moron that can’t shut up, when the lunatics decide to shout about it.
It almost seems like parody to say, but the people defending Trump are not compatible with rational thoughts like “the judge gave Trump leeway because he wasn’t biased”. Even serving them those thoughts on a silver platter would just end in them rejecting it with whatever platitude they prefer to use when realizing they have nothing they can say (i.e. “bah that’s just cancel culture”)
That’s possible. People literally get years added to their sentences for back talking judges. You are simply not allowed to derail a trial even a little bit, and the consequences for attempting it are swift and harsh. For anyone else.
I’m so tired of this fuckwit’s behavior, but i’m even more angry that at every turn people have had the ability to stop that behavior and haven’t. And now we’re here. Anyone else would be immediately taken to jail for the stuff he’s doing inside the courtroom and out and he’s still not stopped.
It’s a mockery, and if the courts can’t handle this guy they have no business ruining people’s lives for things that don’t compare to anything trump has done.
if the courts can’t handle this guy they have no business ruining people’s lives for things that don’t compare to anything trump has done.
I’ve been looking for the right words to say this, so thanks.
The justice system has failed if it’s able systematically arrest people in parts of new York, Baltimore, and Chicago, but can’t do anything to this clown for a literal attempt to overthrow the government and constitution.
That appeal would be quickly denied. The Judge is absolutely right: They "are here to hear him answer questions", not "to listen to what he has to say." The Judge has a responsibility to keep testimony responsive to the questions asked and relevant to the case, not to let witnesses give monologues about whatever nonsense is running through their heads at the moment.
He’s on trial for the January 6th insurrection. Specifically: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights.
The two in the middle are going to be very hard to defend against considering he admits it was an insurrection.
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
— 18 USC § 2383
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
My grandmother with Alzheimer’s passed those clinical tests long after she had already asked us to take away her keys because she knew she wasn’t safe to drive anymore. So yeah…
Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is so powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us, this is horrible."
omg we’re so fucked. Even if he doesn’t get elected, the fact that people are encouraging this guy to be president is an expression of ourselves. We’re sick, and unless the healthy people make an indomitable stand against this cancer, we’re all fucked. I am truly scared for us all because the disease is taking control.
The march towards fascism is worldwide right now. Unfortunately, people by and large don’t want to think meaningfully about the world past their own personal existence. They want to live on autopilot - go to work, come home to entertainment, and if there’s an issue be provided with a reason for that issue to be upset with.
They want to feel but don’t want to try, they want feels provided. Positive emotions are hard to cultivate though. It takes effort, connection, thought, compassion. For most people (some people just have issues), love requires a shared experience/reality. You and I share in our experiences and learn that we enjoy each other’s company and that grows into love and/or appreciation.
Hate is easy. Fear is easy. Hate doesn’t need any of that. Hate and fear just need to be pointed in a direction. They don’t need validation. That makes it more accessible, more addictive.
Whenever we go through this, we always get the “people are scared” narrative to explain why people support people like Trump, policies like the Republicans are pushing. I think it’s more base than that - people are indifferent and apathetic, just going with whatever thing makes them “feel something, anything” more. They then mostly sway to the right because blaming X, Y, Z for your problems is easier than traveling, meeting new people, and seeing that we’re all basically the same, all running on the same treadmill.
People aren’t fucking paying attention. I don’t mean the 30% or so who are MAGA die-hards. I mean literally every other person who considers voting for Trump. So many of them don’t even pay attention to the news that they aren’t even aware that this is a horse race where, as bad as one contender can be, the other one is a fucking Nazi.
No, they’re paying attention. They’re voting for the fascists on purpose, because they will only hurt the people who they feel deserve it, and then America will be available to the right kind of people.
Yup. Lots of pro-lifers, 2A nuts, etc only vote based on the one topic that they’re firmly entrenched in. They don’t care about the fascism, as long as their one issue is protected.
The thing no one talks about is that these voters who want to hurt others feel that way because of a perceived hardship or wrong done to them. They are also told that immigrants and “others” who aren’t like the voter, that’s the real cause of the hardships and problems.
If those voters would ever learn that the people who hurt them are also the same ones who are telling them who to hurt there would be a fantastic reckoning. Everyone can be happy except for the psychopaths turning folks against each other.
Also, people who lean left need to get off their asses and vote. About half of eligible voters actually vote, and slightly more eligible voters lean more left than right. If half of those left leaning non-voters voted, imagine how many races would be won handily by Democrats.
To me these are the people who need to be paying attention and doing their civic duty.
They don’t care. They just don’t want to vote for a Dem. Since the Dems are commies, devil worshippers or whatever the latest meme that hit these voters’ Facebook timeline tells them to think.
I don’t mean the 30% or so who are MAGA die-hards. I mean literally every other person who considers voting for Trump.
I don’t think anyone is on the fence at this point. If anyone is even considering voting for Trump they agree with at least some of his agenda, which is entirely batshit insane.
If they find any of his qualities or policies even the slightest bit appealing they are part of the maga crowd. There’s absolutely nothing moderate about him, there’s no room for middle ground.
There is a contigent of people who are accelerationists, hate everything Trump stands for, but want to vote for him to burn it all down and start anew.
I am not one of those people… that seems like playing with strange alchemical fire.
Those people don’t understand that it’s really hard to start building something new from underneath all of the rubble.
It’s like starting a fire in your house and then hiding in the basement.
As much as I hate to say it, I still think there are people so clueless as to be voting for him for what they think are “good” economic policies (for their own 401K or the price of groceries/gas). They are so low-info that they think people are just upset with him for “mean tweets” or the like.
But how do those people ignore that the economy was a mess with Trump, disease rampant, open violence, etc? And the economy has been much improved under Biden and life has relatively calmed down? Is it all FOXnews and its wannabes?
The economy is still in the shitter. Avarage Americans are insanely poor. The housing market is still owned by corpos and the bubble is bigger than ever.
Biden didn’t make it much worse but he sure didn’t fix anything.
Im going to vote for Biden for obvious reasons, but I really wish he and his team would stop wholesale lying about the economy right now. The college I worked at went under about 4 months ago. Over half of the colleagues I was close with have not found another job yet.
We all have degrees, and are going to have to resort to working fast food.
The letter added that open-door proceedings “would prevent selective leaks, manipulated transcripts, doctored exhibits, or one-sided press statements.”
And that’s exactly why they aren’t going to allow him to testify publicly.
“I welcome Hunter Biden finally agreeing to testify,” Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) wrote on Tuesday. “It’s long overdue for him to come clean in front of the American people.”
Smith deleted the tweet shortly after he posted it.
Pretty much. He wants to be able to sue newspapers with impunity for writing about him and even if he doesn’t win he hopes to get the courts to agree to keep them from writing about him long enough it becomes irrelevant. It’s disgusting and disturbing coming from a judge sitting on the highest court. And any currently sitting Supreme Court Justice not speaking out against Thomas and requesting his resignation is complicit in his actions.
Rolling Stone contacted more than 50 Tonight Show employees, past and present, during the reporting for this story. After reaching out to representatives for Fallon and NBC, Rolling Stone reached out to an additional 30 current and former staffers. While many of them praised Fallon’s immense talent and comedic gifts, not a single one agreed to speak on the record or had positive things to say about working on The Tonight Show. Nor would any of the program’s nine showrunners since 2014 comment about the program’s namesake on the record – they wouldn’t even give statements of support, as is common in the entertainment industry.
Holy shit. When they contact 89 of your employees and no one will say a single positive thing about working with you.
I’ve worked in environments like this before. The reality is most (not all) very rich people I’ve worked with are terrible people within their own fiefdoms. Many are emotionally abusive to people who report to them; some are also narcissists and sociopaths.
I didn’t last long in those cases unless the money was very good, and even then sacrificing your mental health and personal life is probably not worth it. People work in places like this for a year or two for the perceived prestige or to satisfy their childhood dream, then burn out and go somewhere more sane.
Unfortunately, there’s a never ending supply of warm bodies for roles like that. Many industries are built on that assumption: film and television, media, fashion, game development, etc.
In case you want any more proof Republicans are just manufacturing outrage for the sake of outrage.
“The undersigned request that you provide U.S. Attorney Weiss the full protections and authorities of a special counsel.”
— Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), in a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland on September 16, 2022.
“There may be others who would be a worse pick than U.S. Attorney Weiss to be special counsel, but based on the prosecution of Hunter Biden to date, he has got to be close to the worst pick. This is unbelievable.”
The lesson, of course, is that nothing will satisfy Republicans short of Garland appointing Trump himself to investigate Biden. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) whined in February about the Justice Department’s failure to appoint a special counsel, before Fox News reported on Friday that he’s among those upset that it actually did, claiming Weiss isn’t the right man for the job. Sen. Graham was pushing for Weiss to become a special counsel as recently as last month.
All they have is persecution complex and grievance.
They didn’t “Swarm” anything, they threatened the lady governor en masse under the cover of darkness like the pussies they usually are, maintaining that thin veneer of legality so that the governor can’t go after them.
Now the Nazi punks are acting like they’re the KKK to a sitting governor, time to start curb stomping some Nazis kids, before they come to curbstomp the rest of us.
Technically, losing the thin veneer at previous events is why they got brought to court to being with. The group frequently instigated violence and unlawfully harassed and attacked based on protected classes and the Governor and AG are handling the 26 page complaint, which is why they decided to gather outside of her home.
My only problem with it is I imagine swarm like how hornets enter a bees nest or how conservatives try to break down barricades at the US Capitol. When we’re this close to civil war, we don’t want to use words that imply the fighting has already started.
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault. <- We are now here
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.
Nah, it’s a bit like experiencing the 6 stages of grief - when you list them like denial, anger, bargaining, et cetera… it makes it sounds like they’re going to happen in chronological order. The reality is however that they will all occur simultaneously with the extent of each varying moment to moment.
rollingstone.com
Hot