jakee

Remember when th right used to bitch about nothing so much as 'activist judges'? Now you can hear the conservative justices in real time trying to talk each other into inventing Presidential immunity out of thin air simply because they (claim to) think it would be a good idea.

Newsflash - people lose their jobs without needing to be convicted first. Every. Damn. Day.

IIRC Eastman has argued that because he committed the same crime in a bunch of different states, only one of the cases should be allowed to go forward or it would be Double Jeopardy. The judge simply told him no, you don’t get rewarded for being a more ambitious criminal.

So, being honest, what kind of serious conversation did you want as a result? Not sure what the sayings are in your neck of the woods but kids around here get taught "ask a silly question, get a silly answer" at quite a young age.

Errm, yeah - but if you were engaging in good faith right now the next words in your post would have been "so I could say 'look how stupid this lefty story is".

Everything outside the suburbs is a farm. You elitist city folk wouldn’t understand.

Look, Elon has decided that thousands of people are going to lose their jobs and that's one of the only things that makes Brent happy these days. Just let him have his moment to bask in other people's misery.

Remember when the right was adamant that Obama was dividing the nation? Man who set himself on fire outside Trump's Manhattan hush money trial dies

Is she just an idiot or on the payroll?

Does that mean he can’t be a state rep anymore either?

Which ones would be left?

Brilliant story from the UK this morning of an MP embezzling campaign funds to pay off ‘some bad people’. Story goes: MP meets man on dating app, goes to man’s flat for a party. MP meets second man at party, moves on to his flat. MP is seen coming a mile off by man’s flat mates, who accuse him of throwing up all over the place and hold him captive until he pays them £6.5k for the ‘damage’. MP doesn’t have the money, and decides that getting his campaign manager to steal it from the office would be a much better solution than calling the police. Genius. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/17/tory-mp-loses-whip-after-claims-he-used-party-funds-to-pay-bad-people

That is categorically a lie. You said it, and have been defending it ever since. Also he is an editor at NPR and all 88 editors at NPR are Democrats Dude - I just told you that was the point you could have been making this whole time instead of refusing to back down from the thing you obviously got wrong. You were so hell bent on defending your corner that you failed to wrap your brain around the implication of your numbers. Problem is, it just goes straight back to the point I made earlier - your own source says that it was Donald Trump who changed everything. Since 2016, how many conservatives would want to work for an organisation that would ask them to cover Trump in an unbiased manner? Unfortunately there appear to be very few around, they'd all rather win the White House than save their party.

You have said you understand that people exist who are neither registered republicans nor registered democrats... yet you still insist that the sum of all people must equal republicans plus democrats only.

If english is your first language then what's your excuse? You keep posting the same statement over and over again as if it will suddenly become convincing through sheer weight of numbers. It says there are 87 democrats. It says there are 0 republicans. It doesn't say there are 0 independents. It doesn't say there are 87 editorial staff and they are all democrats. The funny thing is I don't know what it gains you to die on this hill. You could easily say you simply misread it but still, 87 to zero is pretty damn bad anyway. But you can't do that, you can't give an inch no matter what. Although I suppose it is still a good distraction so you won't have to talk about NPRs lack of coverage of Trump White House corruption and influence peddling.

No, that's what I said last time you simply made something up that wasn't in your source. Remember you were saying Uri's letter stated that NPR called the Hunter laptop a Russian hoax? That was a lie. Yes, there are 87 registered Democrats. Where does it say there are a total of 87 editors?

I think there both a mischaracterisation and overstatement going on there. British intelligence also got predictions of Russian invasion spot on and were publicising them beforehand, and I'd be surprised if many other Russia experts in other western agencies didn't have the same conclusions. The problem is, what did it matter? The British government appeared to simply refuse to believe it was true, and the US government seemed to think that "we know what you're doing" and a few token extra arms deliveries would be enough to deter Putin from following through. If the purpose of an intelligence agency is simply to know what's happening, then ok, great. But without being able to convince the decision makers of anything, what's the point? The other thing that US and other intel agency's did get wrong was drastic underestimation of Zelensky and Ukraine's will and ability to resist, which really, really slowed down the level of support in the early days. I'm pretty sure there was a general feeling that any really expensive high tech weaponry given to Ukraine was simply going to get captured by the Russians when Kyiv was overrun. The ramifications of those delays are huge.

No you haven't, you're just lying again. It's pretty obvious, if you think about it for a moment. Given that independents exist, why do you think the total number of people involved must be the number of Democrats plus the number of Republicans?

There are some fairly major events in the last twenty some years that have made the US less eager to spark new middle eastern conflicts.

Then answer. Where did you read that every member of editorial staff was a registered Democrat? Is everyone in DC either a registered Democrat or a registered Republican?

Why did you make the claim when you don't want to answer?

The claim from your source is that there are 87 registered democrats on the editorial staff. Your claim is that this is all of the editorial staff. How do you know?

Do you have anything to support your claim that there are 87? Is everyone lives in DC either a registered Democrat or a registered Republican?

How many editorial staff are there?

How could I miss it when that's the first time you've posted it? That's fine, it's all you had to show. Instead you made claims about every single NPR editor being a Democrat that you refused to back up. Anyway, back to the bias of NPR and how much they covered the actual corruption, nepotism and influence peddling that went on in the White House... under Trump.