This applies to the intolerant trying to gain power to inflict their intolerance on the wider society, not performing odious acts within their own families. It doesn’t make sense here at all. We shouldn’t tolerate murders because they’re murders, not because we’re going to end up with a surprise caliphate.
It’s because describing a 56 percentage point increase as 56 percent increase implies a totally different result. A 56 percentage point increase on 10% is 66%. A 56 percent increase on 10% is 15.6%.
A) My student government certainly didn’t have a budget worthy of boycotting anything.
B) Do it anyway. Boycotts are speech, you’re in California, and students aren’t obligated to do anything because the school would prefer it. Hell, do it because they told you not to.
C) Don’t boycott a specific country. Boycott all countries found to be plausibly engaging in genocide. Or all countries currently occupying extraterritorial land. Or all countries currently engaged in large scale offensive military operations. Give an exception for the US of A because you’re so patriotic. Israel is in a small club of rogue nations and we don’t generally do business with them.
This is very clearly a first amendment violation. The state can’t dictate how you refer to yourself or how others choose to refer to you. This is another one of those cases that shows the judiciary is infested with people who do not even care to pretend to be practicing law anymore.
The leading edge of the Nazi thought machine is already saying it.
https://bsky.app/profile/elnorterecuerda.bsky.social/post/3lsyrlsj3wc2x
These aren’t contractors. They’re mercenaries.
He’s got a particular sort of experience that only recently became valuable in a president. The Supreme Court says that during official duties the president is legally immune for all crimes. Give that man immunity and let’s see where things end up.
So we should run only run black men since your shitty understanding of statistics dictates they have a 100% chance to win.
Luigi, allegedly, doesn’t let the rules get in the way of doing what’s right.
Sure, if you’re trying to win as a Republican, being female is pretty hard. Luckily Democrats don’t win elections by seeking far right votes.
Overall, 150 women are set to serve in the 119th Congress starting next year, down just slightly from the current record of 152 (which represents 28 percent of all members). As has long been the case though, there are sharp partisan imbalances here: 42 percent of incoming Democratic members and just 15 percent of incoming Republican members are women. And based on this year’s results, that imbalance doesn’t appear to be narrowing, particularly as female candidates within the Republican Party face persistent structural and cultural barriers to running and winning.
I wonder if you read this exact article and just cherry picked the number to justify your stance.
Uh, there are lots of Christian denominations who allow women to lead churches. And majority Catholic nations who have happily elected women (like the Latino countries who you people like to also say are too dedicated to machismo to vote for women).
Don’t justify your bigotry by an appeal to tradition of the people who already won’t vote for Democrats. This isn’t a well thought through argument, it’s just a reactionary justification.
Then why did you add an “a” in front of an adjective? It’s either “I’m Democratic” (adjective) or “I’m a Democrat” (noun). This isn’t dictating language, they’re two different parts of speech. The name of the party is “the Democratic Party” and its members are “Democrats”. They’re proper nouns, not linguistic styling. There is no “Democrat Party”.
The people who try to rename the party aren’t doing a whoopsie, it’s a conscious effort by conservatives to say the thing in a dumb way for extremely dumb political purposes. It takes effort to do that.
I really assumed Murkowski would be in opposition and Collins would vote a concerned yes. Murkowski just recently expressed potential openness to supporting Democratic control, FFS.
It very much does not. I think it’s designed to make the nominee look like a runaway victor rather than to fairly gauge the opinion of the primary voters. They want the primary to come to a decisive end as soon as possible and the consequence is voters not really understanding whether it’s ok to vote for your favorite or to immediately start voting strategically (the answer depends on how well you think they’ll do). If it was straight proportional we could just vote how we wanted and if they didn’t win their delegates could still influence who did.
Because our political leaders and their consultants are bad at politics.
The ticker is very relevant. ICE is now a world-ranked military force. They’re building concentration camps. Even if it were actually just for immigrants, eventually they’ll be deported and you have a bulked up secret police and empty gulags just sitting there waiting to be used.
They all just took a year off with Obama apparently. The dedicated bigots already have their party. They’re not needed for Democrats to win.
The primaries for president are run differently. They’re proportional, but not evenly. There’s minimum amounts to get any delegates and then some confusing weighting that gives more delegates than simple division to those who get more votes. And then at the convention, those delegates can then vote for anyone if their candidate isn’t going to win.
So there’s a spoiler effect, but not nearly so prominent as FPTP. And the way primaries work, poorly performing candidates will generally just drop out. Not to mention “young people” aren’t really Buttigieg’s constituency. He basically tied with Bernie in Iowa.
Do you know the difference between adjectives and nouns?
A REAL MAGA warrior would double down on triggering those lib kids. Van Orden is a RINO CUCK.