ALQ

And fuck them, too. They’re just as responsible.

Hey, hey, since we have sharknados, it’s important to specify what kind of hurricane we have. Could’ve been a furricane - much more damaging to Trump and his ilk.

Not sure if you’re joking, so wanted to clarify, just in case - It’s not that I “saw the light”; I was never in the dark and am not a conspiracy theorist. My initial comment was meant to not be taken seriously.

Cannon has shown herself to be inept enough in her position before; I could see her ‘accidentally’ messing up and needing a mistrial.

Or could take it even crazier and have him go to prison and quietly squirrel him away somewhere under a new name. (Even better if he were to “die” in some method where his remains wouldn’t be pristine so as to make it easier to falsify its identity.)

Ugh. Typing that made me feel like I’m making arguments to treat this seriously; feels gross. I don’t understand how people can genuinely believe conspiracy theories; if you pull at any one of the loose threads, the whole theory falls apart. My 5% has decreased. 😂

(Don’t take this seriously. Or do; I’m not sure it would make a difference in all the insanity in the world.)

The conspiracy theorist in me says he’ll disappear into the woodwork and, effectively, go free because it was a false flag.

My ‘reasoning’:

• Trump wasn’t in the guy’s line of sight.

• The guy didn’t shoot.

• When it happened, wasn’t Trump having some struggles with his publicity? I forget the details, but I wanna say he wasn’t getting as much attention at the time.

• Trump didn’t get much lasting attention from the first attempt, and it certainly didn’t cause the country to rally against around him. Why not stage a second one to gain sympathy?

Again, I’m only maybe 5% serious here but, if the other side gets to have their insane conspiracies, I think it’s okay for me to have this one.

Edit to correct me using the opposite word I meant.

You are missing literally all of the context. WaPo has endorsed in every presidential election since 1988. Suddenly, weeks before an incredibly contentious election, and right around the time Bezos-owned businesses met with Trump, this Bezos-owned publication decides to “return” to its “roots” (after three and a half decades). Even if it’s not actually sinister (debatable, but we may never know), the appearance of impropriety is a serious issue and damages WaPo’s credibility.

What’s terrible is that it’s the right hand that keeps covering us with shit while those of us on the left hand try desperately to get the soap. Not enough soap for all the shit. :(

There’s no “trading” of insults and the article didn’t even provide any examples of insults Harris may have made. Sure had plenty from Trump, though.

This type of reporting drives me insane and it’s always these news sites that don’t allow comments to point out their obvious bias.

I’ve seen a mirror; I think it was xcancel.com. (I just checked that and it does seem like a mirror.)

So…did you draw her like one of your French pups?also, she’s adorable!

How often have you heard — “would you tell an Indigenous person to go vegan?”

Until now, literally never. Is this an argument people make?

This isn’t an article so much as an essay. It’s also from 2023.

Ah, yes, the famous Trump comeback,

I don’t have any good puns; I just want some lox’n’bagels and this seems the place to get them.

You know, now that you mention it…maybe that’s not such a bad idea, eh, Donny-boy? You keep yours, we’ll keep ours, and we’ll see who has the better economy after.

My hope is that this demoralizes his supporters so they just don’t vote.

Absolutely! As long as you wear our patented Swiss-made* MAGA-colored glasses, of course. Starting price $999.99.

*Product not made anywhere. If you visit our LLC’s location, please do not be alarmed that it’s just a Starbucks. Enjoy a coffee, on you.

I read the order in full and am so satisfied. It’s quite short and worth the read. While it isn’t much in the grand scheme of things, reading Judge Chutkan’s metaphorical eyeroll was delicious. I particularly enjoyed:

Setting aside the oxymoronic proposition that the public’s understanding of this case will be enhanced by withholding information about it, any public debate about the issues in this case has no bearing on the court’s resolution of those issues. “Legal trials are not like elections, to be won through the use of the meeting-hall, the radio, and the newspaper.” Bridges v. State of Cal., 314 U.S. 252, 271 (1941).

Well, yeah. How else are they supposed to have phone sex?

Alas, nevermind. :(

I wanted to read it, so here’s the archived version. Thanks for sharing!

Which is why we can’t give in to defeatism and it’s dangerous to frame discussion with the notion that Harris is “on track to […] lose.” It’s not over until the election is over.

Nothing is guaranteed in this election. Talk of Harris as though she’s definitely going to win or definitely going to lose only serves to depress voter turnout because people think their votes aren’t necessary.

Vote like your rights depend on it; encourage everyone you know to do the same.