Ech

Oh fuck off. The hateful bigot senses an opportunity to split off for her own benefit, nothing more.

deleted by creator

“But people need to fly for the holidays! Don’t you understand?! There’s billions of dolla-I mean, family gatherings to think of. Think of the gatherings!”

I don’t think her recent forays into sanity

Her insanity and bigotry syncing up with some key issues isn’t “sanity”. It’s random chance.

Eh, it doesn’t have to be the most stupendous, amazing victory for women to be important and good. Two female candidates would still be a huge deal, assuming proper primaries were conducted. That said, I would be astounded if the Republican nominee is a woman any time soon.

It’s never explicitly acknowledged like that, but basically, yeah.

Not as a slight against Jimmy but…of course he is. A roasted dog turd would beat that fuck in a poll.

So what your saying is that the government shutdown is do to the Republicans inaction.

It is. Just clarifying why they didn’t just “do it again”.

Now they can. They couldn’t before the financial year rolled over as of today.

They already did that in July.

I figured the same, but now I’m of the mind we’ve once again given the fools too much credit. Maybe that was the impetus for the event, but this embarrassment is far from the test of loyalty many were expecting. As always, incompetence is their strongest characteristic.

Along with what others have said, a user in another thread pointed out that with a new financial year, they can repeat their performance with their July bill, basically doing whatever they want, so they probably consider it a win all around.

And yet it was still enough.

Wasn’t that what they passed in July?

If you’re looking to the powerful as your moral guidepost, you just want an excuse to be shitty.

Swing and a miss.

That’s a lot of words for “I still don’t/won’t realize what your point is”. If you want to imagine enemies where there are none and waste energy argue against points no one you’re talking to is making, that’s your prerogative, but you’re not going to achieve much. Good luck with that.

Nope. Quotes don’t work like that either. You don’t get to just piecemeal the words in whatever order you want and claim “They literally said that!”.

Actual journalism deals with and communicates facts without distortion. Sometimes that’s a “parrot job”, and many times that includes personal insight, but it can never compromise on accuracy in reporting what actually happened. That’s lazy, unprofessional, and a threat to the medium as a whole. Similarly, you insisting falsehood is “fact” doesn’t make it so. It just erodes any credibility or merit your words carry, weakening your future statements that much more. You discredit yourself and everyone else that shares your stance.

And, again, nothing I’ve said has anything to do with what she meant. I’m not saying your claims of her intent are wrong. This has nothing to do with “deniability” or “legalese”, and trying to frame my point with some sort of counter-agenda is entirely unfitting.

For what an actually credible title could look like -

Harris Likens Trump to “communist dictators”

Accurate, and even shorter. Took me all of 2 seconds. Whoever wrote the title of the article is a hack that’s not worth the effort being put in to defend here.

For someone so against meaningless arguments, you are quite insistent on continuing the argument about things I’m not talking about. For the fourth time now - it doesn’t matter what she meant. Quotes in journalism (especially in headlines) are for verbatim statements, not paraphrased inferences.

Your inference on what she meant doesn’t change what she literally said.