Which will be appealed to the SC because the SC didn’t set any test for what is and is not covered. So the SC will decide.

The case is hardly the most important issue. A president who can order seal team 6 to kill their political opponent is. The SC is leading the insurection.

I think you are right on that. That was at least part of it. Biden’s mistake was expecting it to be a debate and not whatever that event was.

Biden had a bad debate night. But putting it in context, he’s had plenty of good or excellent speeches, its just that no one notices and media doesn’t care when things go well. Got to get those clicks.

It wasn’t a debate in that format, it was a performance and both did poorly. Media will “rate” it like a reality TV show and reasonable people should just pass on that.

Oh, right, missed the context.

I don’t know if China can afford to cut off Russia but it looks like they control enough of that income pie that it’s a very effective threat. Maybe not full control “vassal state” but it’s a pretty strong position for negotiations and how’s that going to get weaker over time? Then again I’ve heard China’s economy isn’t that great right now.

I assume the bigger problem is the switch to a wartime economy that has no good outcome. All that production is not going toward future productivity, in fact, quite the opposite. I am no expert in this but that’s my view.

What’s the media going to report on? Outrage click bait or someone average saying average things? Not to say extremist are not real but extremists are disproportionately reported compared to majority views which skews our perceptions. How much is done on purpose or as a result of the news business, I can’t judge but biased sources pick up on the parts they like and amplify them or even manipulate them to tell the story that want to tell.

I do truly believe that for the vast majority of people, we are closer in that the things we collectively believe than we do not. But it doesn’t take many devoted people to whip up a mindless mob.

"But the court’s decision to keep the pretrial proceedings frozen is a blow to special counsel Jack Smith’s effort to bring Trump to trial this year. "

I hate it when the media does this. It makes it read as if Jack Smith is the one with the issue. Jack Smith represents “the people” i.e. US citizens. I suggest:

“But the court’s decision to keep the pretrial proceedings frozen is a blow to US voters who may use the trial results to determine how they will vote. Trump is accused of attempting to disenfranchise voters by inspiring a mob of his supporters to invade the capitol on January 6, 2021, attempting to hang Vice President Pence on the gallows they constructed and delay the vote count. While this type of trial will always take time to run its course, the court has now introduced additional delay in order to determine if the US has a president or a king but will likely result in no trial before the election.”

“The decisions by Alabama Fertility Services and Mobile Infirmary come a day after the University of Alabama at Birmingham health system said in a statement that it was pausing IVF treatments so it could evaluate whether its patients or doctors could face criminal charges or punitive damages.”

So it is stopping IVF in this state and will have untold repercussions based on the ruling “Unborn children are ‘children’” which has potentially complicated and unpredictable outcomes. You are entitled to your opinion of course but I think you are quite wrong about this being overblown. It is huge for many.

"More than 9 million babies have been born using assisted reproductive technologies like in vitro fertilization. "

“A cycle of in vitro fertilization can cost anywhere from $10,000 to $25,000”

For people currently using IVF, this is probably a very stressful time.

My mistake.

deleted by creator

You can’t take the current situation out of the historical context. Not saying I agree with the idea that Israel is the same as Nazi but saying “Hamas did shoot first” is missing some crucial steps.

On the states issue, while I understand the argument and it was the only thing that made me reconsider my position, that seems to me more in the arena of how they would like it to be rather than how it is. States have the right to run their elections. The consequences of that might be problematic or inconvenient but that is how our system is designed. I mean I am no constitutional scholar, but I have been reading and listening on this and that’s how I see it. As far as it being abused, every state will have some kind of due process to evaluate how legitimate the claim is and ultimately it can be brought to the SC.

Killing Roe and turning abortion into states rights certainly was a level of chaos the court was a-ok with. So they are fine with chaos. As far as it not being a federal issue, I guess, but not everyone has the resources to up and go to another state to get medical care.

I would think harissa would be good here. Then again it is good in almost anything.

I get the idea of voting not-R vs excited to vote for the Dem. But Hillary Clinton would like a word.

I’m old. In almost every election it has been the same for me. Vote for the lesser of the evils. I would vote for a very progressive candidate if I thought they would have a chance. When I was young I did vote 3rd part a few times.

Voting for the lesser of the evils isn’t exciting but you know what, it has been a vastly better plan seeing a Dem, any dem in power, than the R alternatives in my life. Compare to, Reagan, Bush, Shrub, and Mr Indictment.

For this current election, it is crazily out of balance. Contrary to popular opinion (real or manufactured) I believe Biden has been a good president. The Israel situation is deeply depressing and I am not happy with how that has been handled but I guarantee the world will be a much, much worse place with vastly more severe consequences if Biden loses.

impeached

I am well aware of the impeachment inquiry. And my point, they are not following precedent. Just another example of many. They don’t need someone to give them permission.

If you disagree with me, just imagine how this precedent could be used by the right against a left-leaning candidate. If democracy is limited without a conviction of insurrection, you’ll see this applied to candidates on very shaky grounds.

Well if they can get a judge to go along with it, they can do that and they don’t need any precedent to do so. The former prez had how many lawsuits attempting to overturn the election and what evidence… oh that’s right, none, nothing but lies.

In this case, an initial suit was brought. The judge wrote an extensive judgement saying that it is clear he was involved in insurrection and the only thing they were not sure of it is the president is an officer of the US. (really?). And then a lawyer repressing the former prez got up and said interesting things like “we’re just making this up as we go” and “It would be fine if Obama ran for a 3rd term.”

We have a 14th amendment and for just the purpose it is being used now. But we’re not going to even try to use it because we are scared the GOP wont play fair next time? They never play fair, they can’t even distinguish truth from their deranged fantasies or they willfully ignore it. Anyway, just the way I see it. I am sure Comer and Jordan will bring up that smoking gun evidence against Biden any day now just like the former prez did in all of those lawsuits he brought.

If you disagree with me, just imagine how this precedent could be used by the right against a left-leaning candidate. If democracy is limited without a conviction of insurrection, you’ll see this applied to candidates on very shaky grounds.

I disagree with the notion that, if we do it, it gives them permission to do it too. The GOP clown car will do anything, they do not need permission or any excuses or anything. For example, the Biden impeachment… zero evidence, no specific crime identified. Or say when you are being nominated to the SC you are asked if you will respect precedent i.e. Roe… and guess what, nope. Or creating a rule that no one can nominate a SC Justice too soon before an election. And they followed their own rule, um, nope. Or the respect they pay to the principle of a peaceful transfer of power.

Creating desperate people is not good for anyone.

I am not sure about Smith’s motivation being about how they will rule but rather because that is where it will end up one way or the other. This just gets it there faster, and time is of the essence.