We will have to agree to disagree on this topic then.
But this exact same thing can be applied to Trump.
Presumably either a) the capping achievement to his career (ego/legacy), or b) he feels like he has good things to accomplish. It doesn’t take too much of a stretch of the imagination to figure why a politician might want the office instead of retiring.
This.
…and this.
Trump only had four years to leave his mark and I think he exceeded expectations, policy wise and outcome wise so far. He didn’t have time to shift positions in too many ways. Biden’s got decades of crap in his policy cellar…
And hey, I’ve still got four years to be proved wrong about my take on the President! At least I will admit it if that’s the case.
Unrelated, but I just read that Joe Biden is planning to visit the border. Can anyone do Spanish subtitles for this video and share with your friends and family in border areas?
Better to know a little Jiu Jitsu and not need it than need it and not know it.
The comeback here, if I’m not mistaken, is, “Yeah, but I don’t have any expectations of Biden; with Trump, I expected him not to falter on anything.” Amazingly, many of the same people constantly chirp about their desires for a third party.
The first 3 make fraud much easier and more likely.
I think felons should get their voting rights back once they’ve completed their sentence. So make it a stand alone, 1 page bill and there’s some common ground.
HR1 nationalizes election rules, which i believe would lose in court pretty quick. Elections are run by the states.
Statehood for DC? Why’s that in there? Another unconstitutional move. Dc would have to be given back to Maryland to gain representation.
Dems are attempting to alter voting to ensure their continued grasp on power at the federal level. They’re afraid they’ll lose big in 2022 and they want to tip the scales in their favor.
It’s really a wish list of things dems have wanted to do for years. Public funding of elections, keeping dead people on voter roles, statehood for Puerto Rico, registering minors etc.
Actually, the truth is somewhat different. Thatcher was loved by Gorbachev and fascinated ordinary Russians who came out in droves to see her in person during the 1987 visit when the (in)famous TV interview took place.
Looking in hindsight, it was remarkable naivete from Gorbachev who allowed the PM to visit Soviet housing projects and talk to regular people as shown in unedited footage, but he was completely in awe of Mrs. Thatcher and let her do anything she pleased.
It was barely a year into glasnost and the Soviet journalists, who only recently discovered the concept of asking unscripted questions, were completely unprepared for a person of her intellect and such vast experience with combative interviews. The interview was a massive success inside the USSR as the people were shocked that a political leader could speak so openly, without couching his or her remarks in byzantine references and allusions.
Putin propagandists, including Vlad himself, fluent in both wokeish and the language of “shared Judeo-Christian values” would inevitably win any verbal confrontation with any US official, regardless of party affiliation.
And the Trumpublicans are doing the exact same thing… but by different mechanisms.
The DEMS via expanding voting and voting access…and the GTP by restricting it.
I was going to say this before you added it via edit.
Something I want to add when I say what each party is doing:
I am stating facts, not making a value judgement.
Making broad generalizations that misrepresent a position or the principle behind it is not stating facts. Especially when the purposefully vague language used suggests disenfranchisement is taking place.
It is more of the same narrative repetition with obvious value judgment baked in. Can you name the people or groups of people who the GOP are restricting voting access to? Is there any evidence that any change being proposed will actually disenfranchiseme a single person?
So far the best example provided is page 14 of a Georgia bill that limits everyone’s early and absentee voting on Sundays for reasons not explained in any linked article, all of which simply assume racist intent but don’t back that notion up with any facts.
Maybe it is a staffing or volunteer issues or a low turnout issue. I wouldn’t know from any of the articles because they don’t bother explaining any possible reason.
Can you do any better than that example?
No. When I try, you take it as a personal attack, @twojarslave.
I’ll let someone much more “diplomatic” and not prone to “broad generalizations and vague language” like I obviously do.
@H_factor or @Aragorn …or @Californiagrown …others? Any thoughts?
Which if this is the case we should be equally outraged.
This is a giant oversimplification. Half of HR1 is likely to be struck down in court as unconstitutional. “Expanding voting access” us a cheery way of putting it.
I’m prone to “broad generalizations and vague language”.
If that post where you unambiguously suggested I support Jim Crow era laws was you “trying” to support your point, well, I’d hate to see what one your squat sets look like.
I do consider such suggestions to be a personal attack. Why wouldn’t I take offense to it? Especially when you won’t back it up with a single fact.
No need to rehash any of that. It is all there to be read.
I once found myself repeating nonsense narratives that couldn’t stand up to basic scrutiny. My first realization is when I came to understand that the gun control I was so passionate about was completely unsupported by basic facts. It was embarrassing to realize I had fallen for propaganda but I’d like to think it helped me grow into a wiser adult.
Let me say it again:
I’ll let someone much more “diplomatic” and not prone to broad generalizations, vague language…and personal attacks (like I obviously do) respond.
Fair enough. I don’t think you’re prone to personal attacks, even though you suggested I support Jim Crow and suggested I would view the Covington Catholic kids in a negative light if they were black kids with my favorite 80s rap group on their hats. There were some vague implications in the hoax thread as well, but I didn’t take those personally.
So that’s three times at most you’ve played the only play in the woke playbook, which I don’t believe makes you prone to personal attacks.
You are definitely prone to vague generalizations and broad, unsupported narratives.
Never mind.
It’s not worth bringing that up again…
I have no idea what you actually mean by that last post. It is kind of…
Vague
Yep. When it comes to those poor Covington Catholic Kids; it’s best that I keep it “vague”…