chasfh

You’re loss.

Unserious people in positions of power and influence suck.

I see it less as liberals’ obsession with identity politics than I do as liberals pushing back on conversatives’ traditional obsession with maintaining white male exclusivity in politics. This is not unlike saying affirmative action is bad because all it does is give jobs to unqualified coloreds because of their identity, when the point is to open up positions to highly qualified people of color who’d been completely shut out from them before based on their identity.

It’s getting to the point that if he and his acolytes get elected and they overturn our democracy, it’ll be our own damn fault, because he’ll have spent years telling us they were going to do just that, and we will have not stopped them.

I don't disagree with the first part, necessarily, but by the same token, I don't think what Biden said or is doing about it is beyond any pale. I think there was value, and not just political value, in making the promise to an historically underrepresented group of people, within which there are surely hundreds of candidates who qualify at least at the level of Clarence Thomas. You see Biden's strategy here as a net negative, and that's your prerogative.

Some things don't need to be said flat out for reasonable people to understand that it's true. We could all clearly see what Bush and McCain were doing.

Did they have to to qualify?

Lol “Americans for White Government”

Yeah, I didn’t read past this ridiculous opening sentence, since I figured its only purpose is to signal the utter ridiculousness of everything following it. And even if by chance everything following it was not ridiculous, then this ridiculous sentence did you a disservice.

I’d rather this guy be tested by Putin while in office than the former guy be used by Putin while in office. I’d also rather this guy push back on Putin than the Trumpublicans just giving Putin everything he wants.

They do have an antitrust exemption to protect.

That's what you get when you delegate things to interns.

lol "Barak". That's on purpose.

I will still watch Melber, Hayes, and Maddow on occasion, but I watch only the journalism parts in their intros. Once they throw to any two of their eight or so pundit staff regulars, I bail.

I've been buying dips, so I would sell off if I were you. Word to the wiseass. 😏

Biden will definitely be accused of exploiting the tragedy for political gain.

It would help immensely to know what exactly you're talking about so we can address your specific concern. All you're doing instead is accusing us of slappyism for, I guess, not accepting what you say at face value, when all we're trying to do is figure out exactly what it is you're talking about. The more you refuse to do it, the more it looks like you have no confidence in your own accusation, whatever it may be.

Just posting a link would at least give us some idea of what you're talking about. How can we have a discussion about what you want to if you keep your point hidden in a black box? "Biden's involvement in China" simply isn't enough. If you're not motivated enough to even tell us what you're talking about, then it can't be important.

The Clintons? So 2016. It was Hunter Biden along with the Ukraichinese. Try to keep up. Don't ask me how I know, just Google it, lazy bones.

From the Department of Follow the Money:

Uh oh … Not unlike the dreaded “vote of confidence”.

Can you tell us what Bunker is talking about?

Well, then, if Putin himself says we’re blowing it out of proportion, well, that settles that, don’t it, Bunker?

“I don’t care to back up my claims, just go to the rabbit hole and look for it yourself.”

Thank god I don’t have to turn on Faux News or Overthrow America Network or NewsHax to get this kind of analysis.