ewsieg

This is why I feel that you shouldn't write someone completely off just because they are awful corrupt people. Sometimes they are awful corrupt people that shed light on even worse awful corrupt people. https://www.cbsnews.com/detroit/news/oversight-committee-probe-howard-lutnick-ambassador-bridge/

I am choosing to believe that he could have blocked it and chose not too. I'm not sure if he has that much power. That said, Prince Andrew already got more punishment from his own family then anyone else associated with Epstein has gotten so far. Not saying King Charles/Queen Elizabeth had any part in Epstein files not being released before, but to me, this clarifies the reason they weren't released before, many allied countries, not just high profile folks in the US, were going to be humiliated with the release of these files.

I know it's important to you to get the point that is a mental illness problem and keep the issue focused away from guns. I like guns too, so I get it. But when an issue results in loss of life and ills against society due to the terror aspect of a mass shooting, if you're side is so confident on the issue, why isn't your side able to put up some solution that could expand programs for mental illness? Pretty sure i've never heard a dem say they won't spend on social programs to help with mental illness, can't imagine they are the problem in finding a solution. Granted I can see dems saying programs on mental illness alone isn't enough, but I still don't see them refusing to fund something like that. So if you believe this in your heart, start holding your party accountable to do something about it.

Depends on how you want to view it. The real point she was trying to make was spot on, but she did ruin it with the equator comment. I'm fine with people that flub up occasionally especially when the flub isn't on the important substance of the comments. If she was in charge of a cartography division of Google Maps, I would tell her she needs to quit and based on her entire response, maybe she could go into politics instead. (Note: If I continued to sit with her and discuss economics, i'd probably end up saying maybe politics isn't the right choice either....but that's just me)

Only argument I have here is your wording of 'it appears'. That statement was probably correct around 8 months ago. Today they are very worried and many of them are already preparing for such a world. I am still confident we'll get past Trump, but even with a coordinated effort by all sides to repair the foreign policy damage he's done, I'm not sure what'll happen on that front.

I've been told in the past that such a mistake shows such a person should never hold a position that requires foreign affairs.

I guess my argument is there is no protest vote. As those that tend to lose 'close elections' will be forced to review and take on ideas that can make them better. With that, maybe they don't lose anymore. The Socialist party was a throw away vote, but we have child labor laws because of them. Populist party - 8 hour work days and graduated income tax. What's the big republican talking point you hear when minority rights are brought up. That they were the party against slavery. But were they? Yes, after they realized the Free Soil party had a good argument for it. Call it a throw away vote all you want, but history shows it can make major impacts to society.

Winning parties and significant third party vote are the two significant portions of your question which makes me feel the answer is close to no or no itself. Winning parties don't change until they start losing. In 2012 and every year before since I had turned 18 I voted republican because on a large majority of issues the country faced, I felt their policies were better. In 2016, I refused to vote for the GOP candidate. But I still agreed with him on the majority of the issues, so I didn't vote Dem either. IMO Johnson was the best option for the country and I took it. My vote, my choice. Fast forward to 2024 and I was severely underwhelmed that Harris was the best candidate. If you look at the last published party policies for both, I probably am still a republican as I would agree mostly with them most in regards to party platform. But I feel I can make an argument that Trump doesn't follow many of those policies, but even more importantly to me, I don't think he follows our laws. Which party (in terms of POTUS) is losing right now? Which party all of a sudden likes a lot of Libertarian policies which promote individual freedoms? If you answered Dems to both, you'd be correct. And because of that they currently have my vote because my freedoms "Trump" any other issue our nation is facing today, in my opinion. All that said, those are my own priorities and they affect my vote. Who says my priorities are better than yours? Or who you are to say your priorities are better than mine? In short, the 2 party system has plenty of issues, but 1 thing its really good at, is when the country sees solutions or other good ideas that can help our country but aren't being addressed, the losers have time to understand those issues and communicate them out. And good ideas tend to win elections. Even if you agree with me, I guess the next question is does this still ring true today or has society outpassed those norms.

This is why you're ultimately right. This also explains my Johnson vote. He was the only one that I actually thought would be different AND while I knew he had no chance to win, my hope was enough people voted for him that it would force one or both parties to absorb some of those 'don't kill my wife' policies. 3rd parties never win, not because no one likes them, but because when they put out a message that resonates with people, 1 or both of the major parties take the idea as their own and undercut them. Part of the issue we have currently is too many people vote for the best of the 'viable' candidates. Maybe candidates wouldn't only speak to and support their own base if they had to actually compete for votes.

100% correct. No one should argue with this. Spot On ...... but, go with me on this. Let's just imagine a time where you weren't happy with the top two candidates so you said 'screw it' and voted for Gary Johnson. Let's just say I understand what MB is saying.

I mean, I'm not going to complain about Verlander finishing up here. He showed he can still compete last year. But does this hint that Olsen is hurt more than thought AND the Tigers are done with Jobe? Also, not trying to be greedy, but a right handed veteran bat still would be nice.

The production was great and it had to take up more of the field than any other halftime show I've ever seen. Granted a lot of it were just sugar cane plants, but still, impressive on that front. Speaking of Brandi Carlisle, she was, per usual, fantastic. Ultimately it probably got exponentially more eyes on the Superbowl in Latin/South America then they could have gotten with a rock/country/hip hop act and i'm sure the NFL is loving that. Just seems like people loved or hated it based on political leanings. Maybe I'm wrong, but if it was that good, I feel like it would have transcended that.

Guessing this is going to cement all of your thoughts that I'm a right wing racist, but.... I just read up on some of the symbolism of the Bad Bunny show and it seems cool. But, I don't get it. The music wasn't horrible, nor was the show, but all my liberal friends/family spent all night on facebook saying how amazing it was. Rolling Stone already came out and send it was the 2nd best ever, just behind Prince. Seriously? I'm not going to pretend that I wouldn't have wanted a singer I could understand out there, but I took my daughter to see The Stray Kids last year and understood none of the lyrics yet absolutely loved the show. I watched the TPUSA show last night too. Kid Rock may be all the things you folks say, but I still like most of his music. It was alright. Modern country isn't my thing and most of the show were country acts. On Bawitdaba there was a backing track that was out of sync which was funny. So in short, was it just the fact that it was political that made everyone love it or am I missing something with the music? Also to note, the best halftime show this year was Jack White / Eminem. You can disagree, but you'd be wrong.

I used to listen to their 'Post Reports' daily just to get a high level of the days events. Honestly I felt like it had a slight left lean to it still, but about 6 months ago I just couldn't do it anymore. Bezos made a mockery the Post and I can't support it. I have no problem listening to media that is clearly left or right slanted, but its clear he purchased it just to please 'dear leader'.

You act like facts are important with this president. Not having control of the Post is a bigger liability than watching it crumble and lose a little bit of money. Even if he sold it to someone that Trump would approve of, what if the new owner 'allowed' an article critical of Trump to be published. Let's say that happens the day that Trump is making a decision regarding Blue Origin. Now Blue Origin gets screwed because 'weak Bezos couldn't keep the Post afloat and now the Post is posting fake news about me, I can't in good conscious approve Blue Origin.'