Seems like a problem springing from the press’s bias towards neutrality, or how sometimes a politician is objectively wrong but the press treats them with kid gloves for fear of being accused of unfairness.
They can’t print Trump’s entire 3 minute rant, and they’re scared to characterize it as meandering or incoherent, even if that’s the best description. So, they print a single line from his rant and provide their own context.
No matter what he says, I’m still voting for her.
Don’t stop, the withdrawal can kill you.
Not where Palestine is concerned.
“We will adhere to US law.”
That’s all she needed to say.
I was gonna say Alito, but even for him I had to pause because Thomas is just so bad.
Why does anyone from the 2016 campaign still have a job?
Edit: Also, OP should not have cut out the next lines in the article, saying Harris’ advisors declined to take his advice, and Harris reaffirmed that when she was briefed on the call.
The context for this comment is that he was recognizing a zionist billionaire donor that he gave a Presidential Medal of Freedom to. When he moved the embassy to Jerusalem and recognized it as Israel’s capital, it was explicitly at her request. He said the Presidential Medal of Freedom was better than a Medal of Honor, because people who get the Medal of Honor are often injured or dead.
More evidence that self-sacrifice just does not make sense to him, a borderline psychopathic narcissist.
Nobody’s ever going to recognize Maduro as the winner of the election, just that he might become president anyway.
I vote we stick with “weird”
Well there’s nothing in the constitution or law that says “if the electoral college is too gunked up to work, we go to a single vote per state.” The Electoral Count Act of 1887 lays out rules for how it’s supposed to be done. The plan in 2020 was for Mike Pence to claim the ECA was unconstitutional and throw it to a 1 vote per state assembly, since the extra (fake) electors from some states were muddying the waters. He didn’t do it because his lawyers and advisors convinced him that he didn’t have that power under the law.
I’m no expert, but it seems like best they can do by refusing to certify at the state level is probably just to slow things down. There’s really no viable way that gumming up the works will end with Trump in the White House without having actually won.
The thing is, that was the plan in 2020, and the reason it didn’t happen was because Pence was supposed to refuse to count the electoral college due to the “confusion” caused by the fake electors. He’d then call for the “1 vote per state” sham. Now, Kamala Harris is in charge of that process.
Nothing in that article suggests that the violence was what kicked it to the Supreme Court, and I don’t think that’s a sound assumption to make. If their plan is to replicate 2000, they’re putting in a lot of work that will hinge on a very unlikely situation.
With Democrats in control of the Senate and White House during the transition, and such a narrow margin of Republican control in the House, I can’t really see how denying the election results without court-admissible evidence ends with Trump in power. That said, it could still result in violence.
Not really. It’s not like they ran out of cash. They probably assessed they were less likely to get results for their spending here. The silver lining is also that her opponent’s strategy was to focus on her support for Palestine and turn this into a referendum on Israel and Gaza, and this was the result. For Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman, the attack strategy focused on pretty much everything but Israel. So, this shows that Israel really is losing popularity among Democrat voters.
The good news is she widened her margin over 2022. The bad news is it looks like AIPAC wasn’t spending all that much in this one.
Today I learned at least one roman god isn’t dense enough to sink in water.
Jokes on them, I’ll catch em in the act when I jump out a window.
You’re confusing neutrality with objectivity.
Edit: Neutral (adjective): not helping or supporting either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.
Are you a big enough baby to downvote because you don’t like what words mean? Neutrality and correctness are two different things. Objectivity does factor in what the facts are, neutrality doesn’t.