Sadly, no, we haven't hit rock bottom but a great way to frame the news for today. I think we need an autocracy clock. How close are we to midnight? (Like the concerned scientists have for nuclear armegeedon).
Whew, depressing collection today. The moose-musher story was a nice antidote though. 😆
The courts are not, and never were, going to keep Trump from winning the election. On the positive side, these court decisions will force people's attention and energy to the election and what we need to do to re-elect Biden.
I am resolved to not pay as much attention to the trials, trial dates, potential witnesses, legal experts, etc. as I had been. I'm focusing 100% on the Election and helping Biden.
Republicans are still, after all this time, trying to crush everything Obama. Just as a warning if you actually buy an insurance policy that does not provide disease screening free, they likely will not cover the disease if you get it.
Continuing from yesterday, found an answer maybe to my query. Apparently Willis’ DQ is based on the assumption that Willis was using public monies to Wade as part of a kickback scheme. Note that “apparently “ is doing some heavy lifting. For one thing, there’s no proof that I’ve seen that Wade is not earning the money. And assuming that the relationship started before Wade was hired by Willis, maybe the money actually involved was necessitated by the adultery with nothing to do with any taxpayer monies.
So while the misuse of taxpayer money is hypothetically possible, it seems that the proof of that is lacking. At least I’ve seen none.
As for Anderson, that it’s probably not for a state to say that a candidate for POTUS is unqualified. The hint that there’s some merit to the reversal is that it was a 9-0 vote.
Sadly, no, we haven't hit rock bottom but a great way to frame the news for today. I think we need an autocracy clock. How close are we to midnight? (Like the concerned scientists have for nuclear armegeedon).
Whew, depressing collection today. The moose-musher story was a nice antidote though. 😆
The courts are not, and never were, going to keep Trump from winning the election. On the positive side, these court decisions will force people's attention and energy to the election and what we need to do to re-elect Biden.
I am resolved to not pay as much attention to the trials, trial dates, potential witnesses, legal experts, etc. as I had been. I'm focusing 100% on the Election and helping Biden.
Republicans are still, after all this time, trying to crush everything Obama. Just as a warning if you actually buy an insurance policy that does not provide disease screening free, they likely will not cover the disease if you get it.
To quote the late, great actor William Bendix as Chester A. Riley: "What a revoltin' development this is!"
2 million bucks Weissleberg got to seal his lips. He's getting another 5 mos at Rikers. Hope its been worth it.
As for SCOTUS, did anyone really expect them to rule
differently, aside from their
little tid bits on the 14th amendment. At least they
left the flashing INSURRECTIONIST TRUMP
sign still plugged in.
When Dems take back the
house and keep the senate
and presidency, we'll need to
tweak the 14th, expand
the court and make sure
some changes are made
to their "ethics' and term
limit them. 😉
Primary Tuesday in my red
state. I VOTED BLUE up and
down ballot and chose Joesph Biden for President
in November
Karma for Pompous Pompeo for what he did to Marie Yavonovitch 💥
Continuing from yesterday, found an answer maybe to my query. Apparently Willis’ DQ is based on the assumption that Willis was using public monies to Wade as part of a kickback scheme. Note that “apparently “ is doing some heavy lifting. For one thing, there’s no proof that I’ve seen that Wade is not earning the money. And assuming that the relationship started before Wade was hired by Willis, maybe the money actually involved was necessitated by the adultery with nothing to do with any taxpayer monies.
So while the misuse of taxpayer money is hypothetically possible, it seems that the proof of that is lacking. At least I’ve seen none.
As for Anderson, that it’s probably not for a state to say that a candidate for POTUS is unqualified. The hint that there’s some merit to the reversal is that it was a 9-0 vote.
Meanwhile, hate to link to myself but this:
https://bsky.app/profile/manqueman.bsky.social/post/3kmwzinpsoo2t