A excellent point! but this presupposes that there will be any correspondence between reality and the âfindingsâ of trumpâs edict-ed out-of-schedule census.
Thank you for this clarity. We just have to hold the line. There arenât actually enough of them.
This grifterâs paradise just keeps getting better, manâŠ
People who know nothing about the planning and preparation required to have crops halfway through the growing season by now.
Most of the expenditure has already happened; now the payoff will not happen, nor will the land be prepared for winter or next season.
Way to screw âreal Americansâ.
Silver lining: most of the loss will be incurred by wealthy owners of agribusiness, not family farms. And those are the ones who buy influence. Not such a great investment this time, huh?
Itâs blatantly unconstitutional, soâŠ
⊠that probably means this Supreme Court will find a reason to let him do it.
That ship may have sailed at this point.
This affects all the areas of government that heâs eviscerating anyway. What it doesnât do is affect how many voters there are to vote for him, as undocumented residents donât vote anyway.
Yet another subject he doesnât understand in the slightest.
Not to forget the skyrocketing grocery bills which will affect all âreal Americansâ, but disproportionately the lower income groups.
âAt last Mouth said, âPart of how they make you obey is by making obedience seem peaceful, while resistance is violent. But really, either choice is about violence, one way or another.ââ
â The City in the Middle of the Night, Charlie Jane Anders.
I know the ideal is to remain nonviolent, but I donât see any way thatâs going to happen at this point.
so âconflict of interestâ is the latest racist dog-whistle? as such if only someone in the âpressâ would point out to the orange-cesspool that the CEOs of AMD and Nvidia and Microsoft are also other than an old white guys. @#$!!
I get that feeling. But Iâm still holding on to hope for the time being. We (as a society) havenât even come close to trying everything else yet.
Also, turning Trump into a martyr is the last thing I want to happen.
https://www.rawstory.com/raw-investigates/trump-epstein-2673863463/
Itâs a good tying-together of recent moments in the Epstein story.
Tl;dr: itâs the cover-up that gets you, not the crime.
Though not if the Justice Rand Congress are in your pocket.
My limited understanding of this is that he was not called a (convicted) sex offender, merely that he had sex with his mother in an outhouse. Isnât there a difference? Is âsex offenderâ not a term specifically used to describe someone whose status as one has been adjudged by a court of law?
I accept that merely saying that someone indulged in base sex acts is not necessarily defamation (e.g. may be parody); however, I was saying that labelling someone a (convicted) sex offender must surely be clear defamation (assuming they have not been convicted) and if not the law is an ass. (âOffenderâ having the meaning âhas been found guilty as such by a courtâ.)
Hey-ho - perhaps an âangels on the head of a pinâ discussion with too fine a distinction.