Honestly I'm fully in favor of this. Biden's gaffes are much more understandable when they happen in context, as opposed to clipped sound-bites or reported by your favorite source of bias.
He should get in front of the camera more, not less. And he should do his practice debates, not with a debate-coach, but with a talk show host. Like, Jimmy Kimmel, Bill Maher or John Oliver or someone.
Just remember the importance of fighting to keep that law in place. They can change laws, and even constitutions, if we let them.
Perhaps we simply had 40 presidents that did manage to do something positive for the country, and only a handful that actively harmed it? I'm no presidential scholar, at any rate.
Purges don't need to be associated with violence, per se. That's just how Stalin and Hitler liked them. You can also simply throw them out of their positions though, so they can no longer stand against you.
Still a purge. Corporations sometimes do purges.
“no rush” to address the issue
Brave Ukrainians, that didn't have to, are dying.
Funny the kind of folks that get suspended on Elon's twitter.
lol No, it's not. However, the law is not subject to any kind of broader ethics. It's subject to laws written by people, whoever those people are and whatever they want, and the interpretations, which are again, done by people.
The law is not inherently "good", so the ethical interpretation of it is just one consideration. The law is blind.
If everyone voted for nazis, and those nazis made laws banning being jewish on pain of death, then that is what the law would do. This is why we need to rely on ourselves, as citizens, to fight this battle and not merely hope in the law.
I like that line of reasoning. Would probably be tough to get the SC to rule that way though, in the current judicial climate.
Not in the long run. In politics, battles, where you win some and lose some, take years. Wars take decades to generations. Can't look at just one human lifetime and say "that's just how things are" when "how things are" is always up to people, who are inevitably subject to change in both themselves and their environments.
No matter how much that basic principle may fundamentally bother conservatives.
I didn't intend any offense, but validating individual personal experiences is not what policy is for. It's a statistical thing. Those fields of study are vastly more valuable than any anecdotes, which can be subject to a lot of different potential problems.
Particularly on the internet, which is absolutely full of people saying shit that is not actually true, and pretending to be things they are not.
It's not personal, it's very coldly impersonal. On purpose. I would discount an individual experience regardless of who the person was, or what they said.
He did fine last time. I think Trump has deteriorated more than he has.