lol so true. But as someone who started going bald at a very young age, there’s only so much you can do with a bald head…shaving the whole thing is the best option for a lot of people.
Not excusing this piece of shit for being a piece of shit, but there’s plenty to say about these blowhards without focusing on their looks.
Yeah I’m sure she could have dragged it out even more if she really wanted to, but according a whole slew of current and former prosecutors, the motions she was putting off were things she should have decided on the spot. And any experienced judge not purposefully delaying things would have had no trouble ruling on those things from the bench. Instead, she sat on motions for months, chose to set ridiculous deadlines and hold separate hearing on issues that had already been decided elsewhere. She even accepted amicus briefs and had mini oral arguments for issues that she had no business ruling on (the legality of Smith’s appointment being one of them). Those types of hearings are super rare in a lower court and a case like this.
She’s wildly inexperienced and obviously corrupt, which is a pretty dangerous combination.
It sounds like she has some personality issues, but as someone who has lived in a bunch of different countries, I can attest that sometimes I forget how to pronounce certain words, and something weird can come out every once in a while. It’s rare, but some close friends and family have noticed and rightfully made fun of me for it. I really wouldn’t have noticed unless they pointed it out.
And don’t get me started on spelling…living in the UK for a while totally ruined my confidence with English spelling and turns of phrase. I also still say ‘cheers’ in lieu of ‘thanks’ more than I’d like to admit, and I’ve been back in the US for almost 8 years…
So yeah, your coworker sounds like a trip, but language is so goddamn confusing it’s totally possible that she has no idea how she sounds. Could also just be looking for attention, as others have suggested.
Oy. Get the journalist’s name out of the headline. The journalist is not the story. If the identity of the journalist is more interesting than the content of the story, then write a better story.
Edit: I’m frustrated at The Hill, not OP.
You already tortured and destroyed the orb for liking other orbs, you can put your hands down now.
Merrick Garland definitely doesn’t have the courage to do this, and it’s entirely up to him.
Of course with the power Thomas just gave him, Biden could order the Justice Department to open an investigation without a special counsel, but he clearly won’t do that. Same lack of courage.
We sure do have a courage deficiency in the Democratic Party, and it will be our downfall.
I wish they would just finalize this crap. I’m so sick of my loans going in and out of forbearance without warning while they figure this out. This shit impacts the daily lives of so many people. Know how hard it is to make a budget when one of your biggest bills is constantly changing?
That says a lot about you. If I saw you dying on a hill, I’d try my damndest to save you.
My issue with this is that it’s not helpful to anyone to threaten political violence, even if it’s with cute tongue in cheek instructions on how to build a bomb. Actually that’s wrong, it’s helpful to the extreme right because it gives them more ammunition and reason to actually carry out the political violence you joke about.
Being against political violence is a hill I will unironically die on.
Right, but in order to convince everyone he’s still viable, he would need to be out in public all day every day (when he’s not in the situation room), making off-the-cuff comments, answering unscripted questions from randos on the street, and accepting every single interview request. He’s not doing any of that, because he’s not physically or mentally capable of it. There’s no shame in it, but it’s the reality. He’s too old to do the job of campaigning for president, so he’s definitely too old to do the job of president itself.
I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment, but technically it is entirely up to Biden, and no one else. The DNC can’t just nominate whoever they want, there was a primary to determine the nominee. Most delegates that will vote for him at the convention, must vote for him. They’re required by state law to vote with the primary’s popular vote. The only way for that to change is for Biden to decide to step aside. Then the delegates would be free to vote however they wanted.
It’s a messed up and broken system that is hard to call democratic, but internal party politics rarely are. He needs to be the bigger person and step aside. It’s pure hubris at this point for him to think he’s the only human being in a country of 300 million who could beat Trump.
“All of the above” apparently means fossil fuels and renewables, if that wasn’t clear (it wasn’t to me). There are plenty of other differences between them, and Williams is clearly the better candidate if you care about the environment and democracy, but West Virginia needs to pull its shit together and get over it’s weird coal fetish.
Those were highly controlled public appearances. It’s pretty easy to get those done without fucking up. There’s no substitute for us seeing him in a completely unscripted and natural setting, and he has consistently done pretty badly in those types of situations lately. When someone his age starts to decline, it can happen really fast. He’s not to blame for that, it’s just human, we get old and lose our abilities. He is to blame for thinking he’s fit for another four years of one of the most stressful jobs in the world.
I want you to be right, I really do, but I’m not sure where you’re getting your confidence.
Yeah, all good and valid points. I’m a big fan of Whitmer, but AOC is my favorite on that list to be sure. As much as I love Bernie, he’s too old. I just don’t see it being easier for any of them than it would be for Harris, taking into account the institutional party support she would automatically have if Biden resigned.
I think you’re totally right that Harris would struggle with constant media attention though, so that’s not great. But ugh, I just want this to be done.
I mean, practically speaking, she’s the most realistic option with the way stupid internal party politics work. Again, I don’t like her, and I like the Democratic Party establishment even less, but I like democracy more than I dislike her. Since her name was on the ticket, Joe would have a much easier time transferring his delegates to her at the convention. Many of those delegates are bound by their state law to vote for Biden, btw. If he steps down, they could relatively easily go to Harris instead. Anyone else would require a bloody open convention that I’m not confident the party could survive, let alone win the race after.
I’m open to anything that lets us win, honestly. But we can’t afford to just shut down alternatives because it sounds hard or might not be exactly what we want. Have any suggestions?
Yeah, that’s unfortunately right. So much of the American system is based on norms and ideals that we trusted our leaders to respect. The Supreme Court has seized their authority, and since they refuse to recognize Congressional oversight (the Chief Justice has regularly refused to appear before Congress), there’s very little we can do.
I’m with you, I’m not a fan of Kamala. I think any of your suggestions would be a way better candidate than her if she hadn’t already won on the current administration’s ticket. The fact that Kamala’s name was on the winning ticket is huge. Incumbency is so important, arguably way more important than it should be, but even a few months of being president would give her a huge leg up over any candidates who might look better on paper. It would take a ton of humility on Joe’s part for this to be a viable plan, but I think he’s capable of it.
Nothing about this situation is ideal, so I’m prepared to settle for pretty much anyone other than Trump.
Dear Joe,
You made it. You ran for president for decades, and you finally did it. On top of that, you did the best you could dealing with some genuinely absurd and unprecedented issues, and all told did a completely acceptable if not a pretty good job.
Now, if you actually care about the country you’ve spent your entire life serving, it’s time to resign, let Kamala finish out your term, and give her the opportunity to run the race as an incumbent. There is no shame in recognizing the time has come. Literally everybody gets old, it’s kinda fundamental. To be clear, I don’t like Kamala one bit, I think she’s a problematic candidate with a problematic record, and a terrible communicator. But she’s an intelligent and vital human being with relevant experience. Stress on the vitality, meaning she’s not in her final months of life.
Sorry, but your age really does matter. Frankly, you have one of the only jobs in the world where your age matters so much. Kamala won’t embarrass us nearly as much as you did during the debate. There’s nothing you can say that will convince me that you’ll magically get younger and more vital in the next few months, so again, if you care about this country, you need to step aside immediately, and put all of the party’s establishment support behind Kamala. Anything less is selfish. If Kamala, as an incumbent president, can’t beat Trump—a man who promises to use his new immunity in the worst ways possible—I don’t think you would again either.
Sincerely, An exhausted patriot
There are some good points in this, and the ending is particularly strong, but he shuts down some critical arguments about the ability of government to function, that shouldn’t be overlooked.
Some of the commentary over the weekend talked about the case ending “Chevron deference” and other recent Court actions as reducing the power of executive branch agencies. That’s the wrong way to think about it.
Instead he says the problem is that this stops Congress from functioning. I strongly disagree. Sure, Congress funds the agencies and sets up the broad regulatory framework, but it is almost entirely the executive agencies and their experts who have been entrusted with the latitude to interpret Congress’ often vague and imprecise goals, using science and deep institutional expertise. The end of Chevron deference will go down as the structural change to government that allows it to be fully corrupted and ineffective. When it’s no longer the experts and scientists who get to decide how to deal with incredibly complicated issues, issues that are well beyond the understanding of a few zealots in robes, we no longer have a government based on anything but the whims of those zealots.
I had no idea about this, and I’ve been here for just over a year. Also, keep in mind which community this is.