chasfh

Well, to be fair, to 1776’s point, so far, there is nothing more than a video account with no corroborating evidence. In any event, there has already been a court judgment against him in a sexual assault case, so even as an accusation, it’s not a good look for him, because it’s so god damned likely.

Man, we sure could have used this Flaherty in the playoffs. EDIT: lol, and not 30 seconds later …

I went back and re-read it, and while it could technically go either way, it reads as more likely you were referring to the act, not his making the statement, even if you didn’t mean it that way in your head. You can see how looks that way, right?

Good. I hope they hate-vote for Kamala just to spite him.

My favorite Kamala rally moment was when the crowd were waiting for her to arrive and the MC did that call-and-response with them: “Show me what democracy looks like!” “This is what democracy looks like!” I get chills simply remembering it.

Hitler used to do that **** all the time. Builds a tension that gets released in a wave of euphoria. Or at least it did for Hitler.

What is this, 1955? Yes, of course grabbing a person’s genitalia in a nonconsensual manner is a crime, ranging anywhere from battery to criminal sexual assault, depending on the state.

Fantastic. I’m becoming a big fan of Jake Tapper.

Mayne I'm a little ****ed up, but, what's the practical problem at hand here? I know it's outside the norm, but what's the thing we are fearing? That the Trump army will overrun the White House before January 6 and have Biden and Harris arrested?

Who here remembers Katherine Graham? Ah, good times ...

Since when did Epstein deal in women?

Well, whaddya know ... democracy really does die in darkness.

Billionaires of a feather ...

Totally constitutional, too, I betcha

Not equivalent.

Looks like whoever designed that logo was a little too confident. 😏

what town is that?

Shamelessness is apparently a prerequisite to being a Republican anymore.

If we do this—and I am definitely not opposed to it—I think we would just have to be comfortable with the idea that some or all of these three will kill it and maybe even become All Stars for someone else. Not everyone can be a good fit for even the best of systems, and some players would benefit most from a hands-off-just-play situation. I definitely believe that's Tork, for sure, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's the two pitchers as well.

I'm sure many people have real concerns about voter fraud—even though the fear is based mainly in fiction and, in reality, there is practically zero voter fraud—but I think for many other people, the real reason they support voter ID is they hope it will cause Democrats to lose elections by keeping likely D voters from voting in the first place.

I'm sure SSN would be part of the equation, although I don't think federal courts would uphold a federal voter ID law. But if you want to make people chase the state around for ID, and also, leave confirmation up to poll worker discretion to accept or reject people on the spot instead of an airtight depersonalized confirmation system, then we part company on those.

So by highlighting this and only this part, can we assume you want to require the voter undertake efforts to obtain the ID and not the state proactively seeking to provide them ID? And that you want to retain poll worker personal discretion to accept or reject the voter in front of them as they see fit, based on "that's OK, you can go in, I know who you are", or "not so fast, that's not enough, I need more?"

Would it only take someone you personally know being victimized by the law to get you to agree that the voter ID law be changed? Is that the only requirement you'll accept?

Wanna have some fun with it? What do we think such a story could be? I'll start: Trump is caught on video saying "I can't believe I'm losing to that [f-word]ing [n-word] [c-word]!"