

Because the article says “voted for Trump in 2016” instead of any later year, I suspect that she is no longer a Trump supporter.
[He/Him, Nosist, Touch typist, Enthusiast, Superuser impostorist, keen-eyed humorist, endeavourOS shillist, kotlin useist, wonderful bastard, professinal pedant miser]
Stuped person says stuped things, people boom
I have trouble with using tone in my words but not interpreting tone from others’ words. Weird, isn’t it?
Formerly on kbin.social and dbzer0


Because the article says “voted for Trump in 2016” instead of any later year, I suspect that she is no longer a Trump supporter.


In 2016, Trump was a wildcard while Hillary Clinton was… Hillary Clinton. With the suspicious omission of the years after 2016 I’m guessing she didn’t vote Trump after that.


to save lives as a paramedic trainer and firefighter?


It’s a gift article link, it should not ask for a log-in.


The book was so much better. They cut an entire friendship for the movie yet kept the death scene for said friend.
During reconstruction and until Jim Crow, the Republicans had a base in the South. And limited government and regulation isn’t a geographical belief but flipped between the two parties anyways, even before the Southern strategy, as we can see in the 20s. Northern Democratic Party was always a thing, and in fact its splitting of the vote against Southern Democrats was one of the reasons Lincoln won his first election.


He told her the prosecutors who had worked on the case against Mr. Adams were being placed on administrative leave because they, too, were unwilling to obey his order.
“He” being Justice Department deputy attorney general Emil Bove III, who wrote an 8-page letter to accept her resignation.


Not exactly, they published a very long editorial saying Trump was straight-up unfit in the summer


Could you elaborate on Pelosi’s funding? From what she does it would make sense, but my searches haven’t been fruitful.


According to the modlog someone else (admittedly a slightly trollous user) posted this with the title “Jill Stein ally says the Greens’ strategy is about making Harris lose the presidency” and got banned for it based on rule 1. I thought removal was reasonable but apparently the rule says “If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive.” Could someone clarify how the alterations to the title didn’t make it more descriptive?
I only know this because I was searching for certain keywords and stumbled upon comments in the deleted thread.


ootl, what does it mean
They only held a supermajority in the Senate for 72 days. The Minnesota seat was disputed and another democrat died of a tumor. Plus, enshrinement was not important back then as RvW wasn’t considered to be in danger.


Apologies, I meant to reply to @morgunkorn@discuss.tchncs.de. Regardless of the unsure/unfamiliar, you have 77% who are sure of how they feel, far from 1/3. Of those, 23/77=30% hate it and 7/77%=9% like it.
The poll looking at number familiar with project 2025 was months ago from a different poll
Could the percentage of familiar people have decreased?


According to the new poll, less than a quarter of those surveyed—23 percent—had never heard of it or were unsure of how they felt. Polling released in July by progressive firm Navigator Research showed that more than half of Americans reported being familiar with Project 2025—double the amount who reported familiarity with it just a month earlier.
You guys… we live in a post-reading society /hj


You see, four score and negative seventy years ago, Kenya West said


Republicans are promoting baseless conspiracy theories, yes. However, that doesn’t mean we should do the same and promote the “both sides are the same uniparty” idea. (Which is why I have offered my own kounterconspiraschietheory below.)


From what we know about him, the gunman’s a complete megalomaniac, so I’d like to offer my kounterconspiracietheory: Gunman sees the Roberts leak and did this to get Trump elected Charles Guiteau–style, wailing his arms about at the secret service so he wouldn’t have to wear an overstanched earpatch for yet another morbid month.


And your “solution” for that is to act like a Republican?


I don’t see any evidence for this beyond them being Republicans.
Trump’s appeal was that he was unqualified, that he instead campaigned by bringing reality show tactics into politics full-scale, winning endless free airtime (“all exposure is good exposure”) for exactly the reasons you mentioned. Back then this idea had a sheen, like how “We’re going to build a wall” resonated with those close to Mexico. I agree that in hindsight everything seems obvious.
I don’t think we did. That seems to be first reported in 2018 and 2021.