If by racists you mean political pundits then yes.

I think you’re seeing a dog whistle where none exists.

deleted by creator

Or they could have just created the law that said “the child was conceived under wedlock, the husband is on the hook.”

To make someone the father they have to inform them of it. There’s nothing stopping the father from flying the coop once divorced. While the proceedings are in progress, the judge has the right to keep the father to be present. And this was more of a concern when you could disappear and start a new life by moving across town.

People cheated for sure, but if you were married you were simply on the hook for the offspring even if it wasn’t yours.

I’m not saying the law is good, I’m saying it made sense for the time it was passed in. Now that we have genetic testing to confirm paternity or should be repealed.

It’s not a racist dog whistle. It’s an accurate representation of the polls.

Dude that’s the question they try to answer in the article.

That’s my point. It doesn’t have to look nearly that good.

There was no genetic testing for paternity back then. If you weren’t married you could contest paternity.

Why do people think this is a good idea? Gaza isn’t large. It can be leveled with traditional artillery fire (and it has domestic manufacturing of artillery shells). Force Israel to abandon precision munitions and Rafa will look like Bahkmut.

Latinos aren’t a monolith. They don’t vote like a monolith. The article gets close to realizing that, but falls short. At the end of the day Latinos vote R for the same reason White people do.

Nah that bill is pretty bunk and hopefully it gets thrown out super quick. My point is more that the things advocated for in these protests are pretty vile and heartless.

Isn’t that something he normally admits to (or at least he did back when he was with 538). That the value of the “Horse race” election reporting was essentially nil as long as the percentage of undecided voters was greater than the margin (+error) between the candidates.

I don’t think that feature exists yet.

But more inquisitively why do you dislike Silver? He’s generally been the “gold standard” when it comes to data driven political analysis.

This is Nate Silver, his takes are essentially always more nuanced and data driven than that. I’d expect some random MSNBC/CNN talking head to say that; not Silver.

Also they’ll find Hamas selling aid that’s suppose to be given away for free and starving people intentionally to keep it’s coffers full…

Criticism of Israel is one thing, but calling for “Oct 7th every day”, calling for religious war, openly backing not just Palestine but Hamas, saying Hamas I love your rockets isn’t a criticism of Israel, is an endorsement of Hamas.

There is literally no constitutional basis to suggest that the framers intended for the President to be permanently immune from legal prosecution.

That’s objectively untrue. There’s clearly a basis.

Cut the shit, and just say you want the president to be above the law.

The President is above the law. That’s why the impeachment process exists. That’s why Obama and Bush (and Trump) can’t be prosecuted for spying on every single American citizen. It’s why they can’t be taken to court for manslaughter for the Innocents they kill extrajudicially.

Their decisions have consequences and unless they rise to the level of impeachment their immune from them. That’s how the law is written, that’s how it’s been consistently interpreted.

Yes & No we killed an American and his American son in Yemen. That made the news. Technically a terrorist is a political opponent; but it not necessarily a correlation here. The “more legitimate” examples are all with varying levels of conspiracy and they tend to be old because of the way information is disseminated. But things like JFK, RFK, MLK Jr., Malcom X, MOVE bombing etc… are all examples of the Hoover Era FBI exercising that power.

And we have rendition as a well known example of extrajudicial torture and murder of US citizens that we know has been used against Innocents in the past.