So you're telling me it snuck onboard, managed to get itself elected president of the most powerful country in the world, AND it has Russia in it's palms too? Fuck-fuck-fuck.
trump would reject any bailout package that included aid to keep the postal service afloat. he's really doubling down on that "no mail in ballots ever under any circumstances"
I'm sure a lot of businesses that depend on the mail, you know, the ones that send people bills through it, would just be thrilled that mail stopped operating.
Oh. It's one of those stories. Trump reportedly said he would reject a bailout package if it included aid to keep the US Postal Service functioning Sources all remained anonymous because...reasons. Fucking Trump. #Impeach
What's more likely? Trump doesn't want to bail out the postal service or a reporter inventing whole cloth conversations and sources? Because last press conference I watched Trump ranted about the post office at length and this administration frequently demands to remain anonymous with reporters. They will put out information and say that it has to be on background and attributable to "senior administration official" or whatever. Media derangement syndrome is/was a huge contributing factor to putting a guy who thinks windmills cause cancer in charge of a pandemic.
If you liked that you'll really like him asking why we can't just let COVID "wash over" the country I get that cabin fever is real and everyone is allowed to say some crazy shit once in a while, but that might be the dumbest thing I've heard.
The man couldn’t give a shit if we all live or die. It’s how he feels the virus affects his ratings. We have over 20k confirmed dead based on the number of confirmed tests. He’s still tweeting about his ratings.
Trump Reportedly Weighed Letting COVID-19 ‘Wash Over’ U.S., But Was Warned Of Grim Toll Jesus fucking Christ. Once again, no sources sighted, but lets lose our shit over it because #FuckTrump. I don't care for Trump either, but posting links as gospel truth with absolutely no basis in reality is not helping matters.
I’m just not keen to give someone the benefit of the doubt when they fire whistleblowers and have gone on record about voter suppression, rather making them ill by going out to physically vote when you could just have easily done it via mail. It’s a reputable news source that would have vetted that stuff well before publishing. I know I wouldn’t want to have my name on it if doing so risked myself job. Other world leaders have the same attitude so it’s not exclusive to him. Look at Brazil right now if you really wanna feel sorry for a country. It’s not exclusive to just us.
HuffPo is saying reportedly because it's not their original reporting. The original reporting was from The Washington Post. What The Washington Post reported is the following: The Post says they have it from two sources, and honest question, how often are they wrong on things like this? Just because the sources are anonymous to us doesn't mean they're anonymous to The Post. They say they have it from two people positioned close to the President, and it's quite rare when something like that doesn't bear out. Just a simple example was when they reported on a call with the PM of Australia based on anonymous sources, Trump called it "fake news," and then The Post's account was confirmed through a released transcript six months later. Or a more serious example was when The Post reported, based on anonymous sources, that a whistleblower in the intelligence community had filed a complaint alleging the President had made a troubling call to the President of Ukraine. Trump was ultimately impeached for that call, the whistleblower complaint about which was 100% real.
So the New York Times published the result of their investigation into the Biden assault allegation. Reading between the lines they really don't find the accusation credible. This was even how they tweeted about it: Spoiler
Have they retracted their statements about Ford being "highly credible" and that nutcase who claimed Kavanaugh was on a gangrape rampage in his early 20s? Maybe they should do that. Regardless, I think that most people assume Trump is guilty of his sexual assault allegations means this isn't going to hurt Biden much in his campaign. The republicans would be pretty stupid to bring this up as an attack angle.
Quite often. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2...t_keeps_getting_its_stories_wrong_410438.html https://www.foxnews.com/media/washi...ver-gaffe-filled-story-needing-15-corrections At least in that line by line clusterfuck they issued corrections, but they often don't even do that. Usually they won't retract if their errors are political. Eg: their 'fact checks' on Sanders, Russia/Trump reporting, etc. They still do investigative journalism and break a lot of stories, but they screw up often enough I don't automatically trust their 'anonymous source' breaking news. If it's true you usually know within a couple weeks, and it starts getting confirmed by multiple outlets. I totally agree that that's a real thing, but I imagine we have completely different definitions.
I'm sure we do. Your definition is what put the guy who went on Alex Jones and now promotes OANN in office. How's that working out? Seem like a good move?
If you add a period between the .com and the rest of the URL, I believe that gets you past the NYT paywall.
Either that or using AMP seems to work. But yeah, the whole things just looks and feels so fucking weird. Like I've heard Biden being extra huggy and kissy, but nothing that strikes me as predatorial, just a guy who personal space issues. Not great, but a far cry from what she described went down.
I go back and forth (between voting Trump or not voting). Overall, I'm glad we didn't funnel an exorbitant amount of weapons to the kurds, and we have a much more sensible approach to China. For all the talk over the last four years there's really only a limited amount of long term policy to discuss. His supreme court picks don't bother me, the tax bill is pretty bad and will hopefully be repealed and/or replaced after he's gone. His accomplishments are much less profound than the impact the Trump era has had on the American psyche, but who knows how that will shake out?
If you are debating not voting, please consider a 3rd party candidate or write-in. At least then your vote will be counted toward another person/party and it will be a drop in the bucket to make the 2 party system go away. It's not much, but every bit counts and if everyone shared the attitude then nothing would get done (not that it does anyway, but still...)
I'm probably voting Biden. To be realistic this country hasn't had a 3rd party candidate worth voting for since Ross Perot. As much as I would like to see it, the whole throw your vote away thing isn't worth it until there's a 3rd party to endorse. The libertarians are going no where unless they undergo major reform in the core doctrine. The rest are usually even crazier than that. I remember when people had hopes of Jesse Ventura putting one together, but then he went off to investigate 9/11, and still is last I heard.