|
OddObserver posted:A comic that's largely about an ignoramus "leading" in an incompetent way by completely disregarding expertise. I actually had someone I know complain about how Scott Adams totally isn't supporting Trump, and how he wrote a column about how he supports Clinton. Said column can be summarized by "I think if I back Trump that I will be threatened and/or assaulted by Clinton supporters, so I 'support' Clinton". Guy even linked me the column as if I'd read it and go "Oh, I'm incorrect, sorry."
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 17:20 |
|
|
FuzzySlippers posted:Some of those Stern Trump quotes are pretty bad. All the creeping around peeking in dressing rooms and making sure his events are full of hot instead of smart women is especially bad after the tape. I know that's Stern's shtick but still ugh. The problem I have with CNN running those quotes is that they're not just focusing on the ones where he's discussing his own disgusting behavior, and are also including stuff that's just salacious. It runs too much towards the angle that the controversy is over the lewdness and vulgarity, and not the fact that Trump's talking about abusive behavior towards women. Thaddius the Large posted:Part of a whole series on how Trump can keep making things worse for the GOP, Not only that, but this would be an exceptionally bad line of attack given his comments about the Central Park 5. That didn't get a lot of airtime, and him pushing on this should be easily counterpunched with that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Regulations for what that doesn't make sense to me. Imagine you break down the state line stuff, and right now all 50 states require that insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions. Montana decides they'd like more insurance companies in the state, so they undo that provision. Any insurer operating out of Montana can now write insurance policies that don't cover pre-existing conditions. Because consumers are allowed to buy insurance across state lines, someone in Texas who buys insurance from a Montana-based insurer now has lost their pre-existing coverage. Not only that, but from what we've seen from previous race to the bottom scenarios, what you would likely have happen is that the health insurance companies would all migrate to Montana. In this way, you've got 49 states that still require pre-existing condition coverage, but it doesn't matter because all nationwide health insurance plans are based in the one state where they don't have to offer that, and thus no one will have pre-existing condition coverage.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Don't Ask Don't Tell was a wedge solution that made formal integration of gays into the military inevitable but somehow satisfied an absurdly homophobic country. Also, it's worth keeping in mind that Don't Ask Don't Tell was a compromise solution that involved Bill Clinton moving the policy leftward about as much as he could against significant pushback from Congress, including members of his own party. Clinton went into that situation intending to remove the ban entirely, and Congress moved to strip him of the authority to do so. DADT was the compromise that mollified people who insisted the ban must remain but made sure the ban became untenable in the long run. gfsincere posted:Also it prevented the reporting of male on male rape because most likely the rape victim would get kicked out for homosexual conduct, because admitting you got raped by a man is in the military's eyes at the time that's still engaging in homosexual conduct, even if its unwanted. That wasn't new under DADT, that was something that already existed pre-DADT. At most, the only thing about that you can use to blame DADT is that it didn't solve this already existing problem.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Right, let's rerail to the Trump Trainwreck: how is Trump's case against the NYT going? Did he pussy out? No lawsuit has been filed. I'd be shocked if one ever was.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
Pigbuster posted:What's the difference between Trump's "special guests" and the stunt he tried to pull at the last debate? Was that denied specifically because he was trying to get them in as family members? The thing at the last debate is because he was trying to get them in the box for family members. They were allowed to go sit in the crowd, but Trump wanted to put them sitting basically next to Bill Clinton.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Crazy Ted posted:They are, but yet the Uncle Sam tank top is what really does it for me here There's something about that thing that read to me as a bib until you mentioned it was a tank top.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 17:20 |
|
|
remusclaw posted:I saw a documentary once, I can't remember which, that interviewed people who lived very close to the border. It turns out that a national border is not a particularly straight or flat kind of thing, so the wall ended up intersecting peoples land and in some cases, stranding Americans and their homes on the Mexican side of the wall. A clusterfuck to say the least. Also, since the border along Texas is along the Rio Grande, the fence cuts off river access to both farmers and wildlife in places.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 06:55
|
|