She was polling worse than him until the debate so that kind of makes sense.

Really? Must be service specific. Didn’t work on lemm.ee on the Connect app, not sure which is the reason.

Do>!n!<'t for>!get you’re!< her>!e forever!<

(alright that didn’t work)

They remanded to the lower courts to determine that. But like it does have some implication. They definitely did not say everything the president does is an official action.

Didn’t they just legalize “any” official action?

People aren’t reading the article. They did not rule that he is immune because his acts were official.

They ruled that official acts, and not unofficial acts, convey immunity, and remanded to lower courts to determine whether his acts should be considered official or unofficial.

But Slightly More Rotting Corpse has the better environmental policy which we’ll need before the last remnant of Florida is fully swallowed by the sea in the next 4 years.

He has a large majority of delegates. There is no way to force him out of the candidacy, he already won it.

So he would have been wrong if the Comey announcement didn’t come out and turn people off from voting for Hillary. Bad process, right result.

I actually think you had a flawed process if you were projecting a Trump win in 2016, getting that “right” doesn’t impress me. Comey re-announcing new emails was 11 days before the election, there wasn’t time to see what people thought of it.

Edit: The downvoters don’t remember the election. Clinton was winning basically every poll, her numbers peaked after the Access Hollywood tape and dropped from that peak, she was still winning polls by 4 points on election day. There are vagueries of voting behavior based on weather in different locations and the vote was super close in the swing states. Even with perfect state by state information adjusted by poll error, it was less than 50/50 Trump would win. It was a bad prediction.

It happened to happen, because things with 40% odds happen 40% of the time, but predicting the 40% outcome is bad process.

Fascism is not defined by selling arms to a country that committed a genocide. Trump did that too, but that’s not the definition.

I don’t think anyone would notice on the cloverloop.

1. It’s a very progressive district, that’s how she got elected in the first place. This is not a surprise.

2. I bet my politics fit closer to the other guy, but I’d still vote for AOC between the two because she has a national influence and disproportionate power in the Caucus. If you’re actually voting to influence Congress towards helping your district in particular, AOC might get that done even if it’s secondary to her national political project. Some moderate guy in a safe D seat would absolutely never get anything for your district.

I feel like weight class doesn’t do it. Women have higher body fat %. Is a welterweight woman athletically equivalent to a welterweight man? I don’t think so.

It’s not “above the law” when the penalty is still within the range of punishments listed in the law broken. The former president and/or nominee would still be punished according to the law, just at the lower bound allowed by judicial discretion.

I know what I’m about to say is not going to get a ton of love here buuuut…

I’d argue that if you’re a former president, you SHOULD get deferential sentencing. Too much potential for abuse otherwise. Imagine if Trump won in 2024 and suddenly Biden’s document retention case got re-opened and he got the harshest possible sentence.

Similarly but separately, major party nominees should get deferential sentencing. It’s an influence on the political process, and you should err on the side of having less influence. If you lock up a nominee so they can’t campaign, it’s not really a fair election. ESPECIALLY when it’s a crime from 8 years ago.

Like, still get sentenced within the guidelines of the crime, but just towards the more lenient edge. If someone is guilty of murder you can’t NOT put them in prison. But if the penalty for the crime doesn’t require prison, it’s quite a leap to get to prison on a former president, current nominee.

Weird to “call for” a riot. Not generally the type of thing you schedule ahead of time.

It was very frustrating that just like what happened with “fake news” which was originally used to describe false news articles generated usually to help Trump, the same thing happened with the concept of a two-tier justice system. Originally describing how wealthy people like Trump don’t get the same justice that poor people do, now Republicans are trying to use it to describe Republicans getting charged for things Democrats wouldn’t be.

He was specifically illegally conspiring to keep it a secret from voters, that’s why it was a felony instead of a misdemeanor falsification of business records.

But they’re black so HOAs hate them.