This is the real answer.
CBS not fact checking gives the liar a strong advantage.
The moderators not fact checking is fine for things like debate competitions because the judges are experts.
But in a public debate, an opponent even responding to a lie legitimizes the lie. “Of course he’d say that.”
When a candidate lies and the facts are readily available to the moderators, it is imperative for the public good that they fact check.
It’s actually a lot more difficult and expensive to send something to the sun than to send it to Mars.
He should use the money he has now to build a rocket and send himself to Mars. That way he won’t have to worry about US government programs anymore.
It’s just such an obvious and outrageous lie. If you believe that, you’ll believe anything.
Also, if it was happening, wouldn’t the parents be the ones complaining? I mean, wouldn’t the parents be famous right now? They’d be on all the talk shows making the news circuit.
If this actually happened, the parents’ names would be famous. Trump would be parading these people around.
“tiweird”?
It is Germany, yes, but it’s not “not Tesla.”
Many companies manage to make money without destroying significant numbers of trees.
Just because something unethical is legal doesn’t mean that the person doing that thing escapes all criticism.
I generally disagree with the entire plan, but if you’re going to do anything like this, there is a large difference between getting caught with a weapon and not. Maybe even a squirt gun. You do not need to have a weapon to get convicted of robbing a bank.
This article is about an out of control DeSantis removing several elected Democrats from their positions because he disagreed with them (because they were Democrats), and replacing them with Republicans.
Apparently, that’s what passes for a democracy in Florida.
It doesn’t have to be an assassination attempt. Just the fact that there was life-threatening violence in a place that is so close to her that her bodyguard had to be involved brings this issue to mind. Even if a liberal justice dies of natural causes right now, with the Senate’s razor-thin margin, it’s possible for another RBG moment were Trump to win, making SCOTUS an even worse 7-2 supermajority for conservatives. If Supreme Court justices were elected to proportionally represent Americans, there would be at least a 5-4 majority for liberals.
A carjacker pulled a gun on a person sitting in a car in front of Justice Sotomayor’s home, a place where it’s very possible that she might have been. It doesn’t matter whether she was targeted or not. If she dies for whatever reason, it’s a concern. Whoever Biden appoints would have to pass the Senate with the current razor thin majority.
Had she been in the car for some reason, then we might have another Ruth Bader Ginsberg moment, and in the worst case scenario, Trump could get reelected and appoint somebody for a 7-2 conservative majority in the Supreme Court.
Don’t get stuck in the idea that lifetime appointments are only a problem for assassinations. Ginsberg died of natural causes, and see what that got us.
You can’t fathom how a lifetime appointment ends when the person dies?
I think that there are many serious inherent flaws with the idea of lifetime appointments, especially for the highest court in the land, and this is one of them.
I’ve recently become a fan of the idea that for Supreme Court justices, they have a fixed-length term, and each President gets to nominate a predetermined number of them.
Reminder that Trump doesn’t endorse people because they’re good for the country or even because they’re good for the party.
Trump endorses people only when it benefits himself. For example, he might force them to pledge personal loyalty to him, like he tried to do with James Comey.
“I have not yet begun to defile myself.”
These lawyers are trying to speak to the public through the court. It’s an irresponsible use of the court.
Really, there’s nothing specifically wrong with having a low birth rate. On a large scale, we have an overpopulation problem, and there’s not really a negative for each person having fewer children. Of course, smarter people will decide to have fewer kids. But eventually, it will all balance out.
This idea is a complete non-starter from a practical standpoint. Parents would complain about it either way. Either they wouldn’t want girls in school early or they’d want boys in school early, too.
It’s just much easier to treat children all the same.
Also, I personally think this plan would backfire. Girls graduating wouldn’t want to have to be adults earlier than boys, so they’d stay in school longer. And from what I’ve heard, the most reliable way to reduce birth rates is to educate women more.
I think everyone also knows how to ethically increase the birth rate. Make having children easy and affordable. Lots of government assistance. Make sure everybody has access to cheap or free childcare.
And there’s also the generational problems. Young adults can see the problems that the previous generations caused. You can’t go back in time to fix those. It will be expensive to change this sort of thing.
But quick fixes aren’t going to change the underlying problems.
Our obsession with what celebrities think can really cause problems. There’s really no reason to care what a guy like Butker thinks about social issues, other than maybe to feel sorry for his wife.
Also, strange to bring up name order at all when it has nothing to do with the joke they presented.
It makes me wonder if they badly retold a joke they heard where the original punchline was that his name was Mario Itsumi.
In Japan, Itsumi is actually a common name, either as a family name or as a girl’s given name.
Honestly, it is such an obvious lie, too. Can companies really just lie in their filings to the FTC?