In Trump’s case it’s because the comic book that explained what Executive Orders are hadn’t been put together until the second week. After that it was smooth sailing.Cunt wrote:
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
In Trump’s case it’s because the comic book that explained what Executive Orders are hadn’t been put together until the second week. After that it was smooth sailing.Cunt wrote:
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.
It's a meme that harmonises with our member from Yellowknife's bias, so it must be right. Right?L'Emmerdeur wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:49 amI guess it doesn't matter that the supposed Ocasio-Cortez quote is false. After all, it's more important to disparage the nasty leftist than it is to be factually correct, amiright?
LinkCooper: One of the criticisms of you is that your math is fuzzy. The Washington Post recently awarded you four Pinocchios...
Ocasio-Cortez: Oh my goodness.
Cooper: ...for misstating some statistics about Pentagon spending.
Ocasio-Cortez: If people want to really blow up one figure here or one word there, I would argue that they're missing the forest for the trees. I think that there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.
Cooper: But being factually correct is important—
Ocasio-Cortez: It's absolutely important. And whenever I make a mistake. I say, "Okay, this was clumsy." and then I restate what my point was. But it's— it's not the same thing as— as the president lying about immigrants. It's not the same thing, at all.
He's a pretty well regarded free-market economist.
That's what I get for being cagey. I had the shoe ready to drop in response to the expected guff, but you slapped it down for me. Mine was the CBS transcript which includes the relevant section of the interview, in acknowledgement of the tenuous reach of the YouTube in the subarctic.
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.
Well, given the clothes and weapons in the illustration, both are likely long dead. However, they made up after their duel.
Never dispute a lady's age.The “Petticoat Duel,” as it has been called, was between Lady Almeria Braddock and Mrs. Elphinstone in London in 1792. According to reports, the debate was sparked when Mrs. Elphinstone insulted Lady Braddock with a comment about her age, calling her older than she claimed to be. To settle the score, Lady Braddock challenged Mrs. Elphinstone to a duel in Hyde Park.They started with pistols as heir weapons. Neither woman was injured by a bullet, but Lady Braddock’s hat was not so lucky. Since neither combatant was hurt in the gunfight, they opted for swords. Mrs. Elphinstone was the victim this time, taking a cut to the arm. After that, she apologized for her comment, and the two were friends once again.
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.
Republicans are better at gerrymandering and making it difficult for poor people to vote.Tero wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:57 pmForget independents. Political issues don't matter once candidates are chosen, only turnout:
"We estimate 51 percent of the voting population are Democrats, but Republicans are more likely to vote," the report states. "Democrats have to run a superior ground game to overcome this."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1258438
Now, if this investigation hurt Trump, you KNOW they would release every crumb. If, alternately, some other entity could be damaged by the report, well, then it would be different.Grassley asked Garland if he was saying that Durham would only be removed "for cause." Garland didn't commit to that either.
"I would have to have an opportunity to talk with him," Garland said. "I have not had that opportunity. As I said, I don't have any reason, from what I know now, which is really very little, to make any determination on that ground. But I don't have any reason to think that he should not remain in place."
Garland also would not commit to releasing Durham's full report.
"I am a great believer in transparency," Garland said. "I would, though, have to talk with Mr. Durham and understand the nature of what he's been doing and the nature of the report. But I am very much committed to transparency and to explaining Justice Department decision-making."
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.
And asked whether he would commit to providing Special Counsel John Durham the resources to complete his investigation into the origins of the FBI's Trump-Russia probe, Garland said he needed to learn more but saw no justification at the moment for removing Durham, who has been at work since 2019 but was given the full autonomy of a special counsel last October.
“I understand that he has been permitted to remain in his position, and sitting here today I have no reason to think that that was not the correct decision,” Garland told Grassley. “From what I know now, which is really very little to make any determination ... I don’t have any reason to think that he should not remain in place.”
However, Garland also appeared to suggest some of the issues Durham was assigned to explore already have been adequately investigated by the Justice Department’s inspector general as part of a report that found widespread errors and omissions in the FBI’s handling of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act applications.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests