Hard to tell whose smug expression is the least likeable.
I’m not sure if Mitch is looking smug here, honestly just looks blank
He looks like he just spotted a particularly plump lettuce leaf.
Oh my god
He’s just glitching out again, probably saw the reaper tapping his watch impatiently again
It’s Weekend at Bernie’s 3: Capitol Hill
fuck all Republicans, they’re all in the pockets of the Russians and Saudis
Does Mike Johnson use blush to make his cheeks rosier? Why does he always look like an old ventriloquist’s dummy or a little dough boy or something? I can’t quite put my finger on it.
Dude probably whips himself every night to atone for sins, so I wouldn’t be surprised by anything weird he does.
He’s just really, really horny because he has to work in a situation that has hum surrounded by old white men. And that’s perfectly fine, he should embrace it, no matter what his imaginary friend says.
I wanted to comment on the title of the article and the fact that it is gramatically incorrect. Why didn’t they use the word “invites”? The article uses the word in the first sentence. It’s hard for me to enjoy journalism when it’s filled with distracting mistakes like this. When your profession is writing why are these kind of mistakes allowed. If I made mistakes analogous to this in my career I would not be keeping my job very long.
It’s less common, but valid. “Ask to lunch”, “Ask to prom”.
I’ll give you the second exception but I’ve never seen the first one used. However, you are missing the fact that in both of your examples you can use the subject as an action. To lunch is to eat lunch and to prom is the shorted version of promenade. White House is a proper noun and cannot be used the same way as your two examples.
I’m left of center and understand most of these immigration issues are a Fox News fever dream. Having said that, we have to do something about the border. Having 1k contacts (aka asylum applicants) daily isn’t feasible. Is the long term solution to help Latin and Central American country’s economies flourish to eliminate the desire to come to America? EFFING YES. However, until we can get there something has to be done. Democrats would be smart to let House Repubs force them to accept certain items if it gets Ukraine, Taiwan, Israel, etc., funding. It gets the issue off the news and forces Fox “News” to go back to social wedge issues that don’t resonate with swing voters as much as border security.
Thank you for coming to my ted talk.
The prime problem is that the immigration system is untouched by Congress for 33 years and largely operating on a framework dating to 1965. Democrats have offered compromise but Republicans say it doesn’t go far enough. Actually, they dont want to solve the problem as they wish to use it for the election year…
^ Correct. The Republican party revolves around the shell game of screaming as loudly as possible about issues they claim are going to imminently destroy society in order to whip their voters into a frenzy until they are damn near frothing at the mouth, all while they run out the back door with all the money that they are shoveling into the military industrial complex and the billionaire class.
And the crowning proof of the shell game is when Trump was president and they had controll of the House and Senate and couldn’t pass a border wall bill.
How about we give them all green cards, help them find housing, and assist them in finding jobs. This is a nation of immigrants. Our population is sustained by immigration. Our economy depends on immigration.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/09/immigrants-expand-the-us-economy/
I have absolutely no problems with fixing the immigration process. It’s way too difficult to get a green card or visa for the US. Having said that…. There has to be some form of immigration process. Again, the current process is awful. But that isn’t an excuse to not have a process moving forward. Again, the underlying cause of immigration is looking for better opportunities. If we help improve the economies of the source countries then immigration to the US goes down.
If we help improve the economies of the source countries then immigration to the US goes down.
I think this would be a good thing to do. However, immigration is a net benefit. All we need to get that benefit is streamline a needlessly and intentionally difficult immigration system.
I was very young, but I remember the exams my father had to take, as well as going to the court to finally get his citizenship. His work permit and green card were much the same, and I cannot imagine much post-9/11 has changed to be more lenient? I am curious however
I’m sorry, you’re “curious however” what?
If you know more about what the immigration process and I am curious if my knowledge is incorrect, sorry if that was not clear
Even if the border were addressed (whatever that means), reality is not what dictates Fox News’ coverage. To cite just one example: they spent several years airing completely bullshit stories about how the Muslim Brotherhood was setting up shop in Mexico, planning an attack. This was during the Obama Administration. It was complete horseshit, but they used it as an opportunity to paint Obama as 1.) weak on immigration and 2.) sympathetic to Muslims (because…y’know…wink). The sources were consistently extreme fringe sources (e.g. WorldNetDaily), but the Fox News producers ate it up regardless.
