I do. It’s all about psychology. Celebrities influence a lot of things in fashion and even in our everyday vocabulary among other things. Americans are very ignorant, they will pay extra for a shirt because of a name I am sure they will cast a vote because of a name because that’s the only thing they know about politics… is that Taylor said something cool about the dude.
If true, then we're in for a whole lot of trouble. Wait a minute! 😲😲
So it is faux outrage and whining for no good reason at all. See, we agree!
Distraction from Biden’s failures or Trump’s gathering legal woes including an $83 million rape and defamation settlement? Biden accomplished more in his partial term than Trump did in his full term and it isn’t even close. You say the left is projecting the right wing grifters on the whole right, but here you are defending a rapist who committed insurrection against the country. Maybe it’s just you and the rest of the dipshit brigade who are trying to distract?
If you mean fake outrage from both sides, then yes, we agree.
If instability in the Middle East, millions of global citizens pouring across our border, an economy pricing people out of their lifestyle, energy policy by TikTok influencers, and a record low approval rating- he is accomplishing a lot.
Shits hit fan… they love it.
They don’t realize that one of their heroes, Bill Clinton; was Trump before Trump minus the uncouthness. Trump ain’t got nothing on Slick when it comes to sexual assault & rape allegations…except he has a D after his name. Only reason Trump has an R after his name is b/c it provided the easier path to the WH.
He does have a conviction and $83 million settlement to pay. That ain’t nothing!
He doesn’t have lib DAs targeting him and running campaigns on prosecuting him. Fortunately for Trump, the Fanni’s and DAs are generally incompetent. Sadly for Trump, so are his lawyers.
I cannot stand Bill Clinton or his wife, almost as much as I hate Trump. Bill Clinton had a wildly partisan, unrestrained, ideologue special prosecutor conduct a very public 4-year congressional investigation about a land deal in Arkansas that culminated in what amounted to a smear campaign. This included the saga of the cum-stained dress and a cigar being shoved up a twat during a morally corrupt, adulterous, yet consensual, sexual relationship. Even fort guys like me who cannot stand Slick Willy, I had got admit he committed no crimes … just poor judgment, suspect morality and poor self-control. If he would have committed a crime, there is no doubt that he would have been prosecuted vigorously, given the depths that Kenn Starr was allowed to descend and the eager political bloodlust directed his way by the right at every accusation.
So, it’s “weird”. That really doesn’t hold up in court — which is the essence of rule of law. Should we leave it to the intuition of whichever lunatic is in charge or should we require something a little more weighty than a conspiracy theory to convict? I think most sane people who think it through wound conclude that their long term best interest is served by the rule of law, and not the decree of the least empathic, self-serving, and morally bankrupt among us. This is why it is important to recognize the strategic GOP focus for the whole of my life to stack the courts with conservative judges is dangerous. If they decide Trump is immune from prosecution for his obvious crimes, I think the experiment is over and this country is going to spiral down the drain.
It's okay to stack the court with liberal justices but not conservative? If the SC does decide to hear it, I will be shocked if they rule a president is immune. They've already shown they don't rule along party lines.
When was the court packed with liberal judges? Between 1969 and 1993, every newly nominated S.C. justice (14) was from the conservative right. Thirteen of them were confirmed. The one exception was Robert Bork who was uniquely unqualified due to his role in Nixon ousting his investigators in the Watergate investigation. In the years since, six Dems have been nominated … five confirmed and one famously ignored by the GOP controlled Senate in the chance the president a year later would select a conservative. In the past three decades the justices from the right number 7 and from the left 5. Indeed there has not been a democratic majority on the Supreme Court since the early 1950s. So no. It’s not ok for the liberals to stack the court. The decimation of Roe v Wade betrays your theory that they don’t rule on party lines.
So one decision confirms it? lol Not long after she joined, Barret voted with the liberal justices on a couple decisions. I don't remember if it ended up being a majority, but she did go against the grain which is my point.
Way more 9-0 opinions than 6-3. Even left leaning folks acknowledged the support for Roe wasn’t there legally.
Didn’t conservative Coney-Barrett just rule against the conservative justices in the recent border ruling? Are there not plenty of examples where at least one conservative justice has sided w/ the more Liberal justices in the past? What about a Liberal justice crossing over and surprising us w/ a vote w/ the conservative justices?
I’d say that’s peanuts considering how much money is funneled through the Clinton Foundation. I also remember all too well, Clinton’s supporters maligning EVERY single woman (and there was a long list) who reported unwanted sexual advances, sexual harassment & rape. They were all liars & destroyed in the realm of public opinion. Then when similar claims are made against Republicans or conservative justice nominees, all we hear is “Believe All Women!” and the “Me Too” movement is born.
Yes. That decision. Each nominated justice was explicitly asked during confirmation hearings whether they would set aside decades of legal precedent and overturn RvW. All said they would lean on precedent when making decisions and all conservative judges lied. Ideologues gonna pick their spots, but they are still ideologues.
Thank goodness the Clinton Foundation's financials are public information to which you can raise your findings with the appropriate government body. If you don't want to do that, there are a number of charity watch dog organizations, Left and Right, that you can volunteer with. If even then you don't believe your voice is being heard you can advocate for policies that restrict charities and their use of funds for non-charitable activities as well as stronger regulations for corporate and non-corporate disclosures. If you've exhausted all avenues you may find yourself thinking "what's the point" and possibly realize that you're caring about them is only from a reflexive position to defend your side in this instance. Personally, most philanthropic charities are a scam and just tax planning for the rich so let them burn. But, a private enterprise run by a career shady real estate family is not even playing the same game as the government grifters.
And what legal judgements did the Clinton Foundation have to pay by court mandate? Accusations are not the same as facts, no matter how “sure” you are that the Clinton’s are what you think they are. They are public enemy No. 1 to the right. If there is proof they did anything illegal, surely you understand the right would hold them to account. But they don’t. And neither do you. You just state vague accusations as if they are facts. Trump raped, then defamed a woman and got taken to the woodshed. I suspect he’ll fare just as well in his other pending four indictments on 91 counts. Should we arrest and incarcerate Bill and Hill to even the score, or do they actually have to be convicted of aa crime first?
