Matthew Prorok

Elections are literally popularity contests. Newsome won't get the votes to win, because his bad ideas make him not popular enough. Run someone else.

This is not a massive decision or any kind of change. Costco has never carried mifepristone in its pharmacies. An anti-abortion group is taking credit for something that didn't happen, possibly to generate disingenuous left-wing ire against one of the few corporations that hasn't gone MAGA.

Alternately, Trump did call it Leningrad, so maybe they're just acknowledging that he still thinks it's 1980 or so.

Alternately, they have three years to find a candidate who can get our votes.

So you're admitting that nothing in this particular game is explicit, adult content to your knowledge, it just has a topic in it that other games that DO have explicit, adult content also sometimes have.

Please tell me you see the problem here.

YouTube video by Bluey - Official Channel A Horsey Wedding | Horsey Ride | Bluey

This isn't what you're looking for, but it's what my parenting brain immediately provided.

the thing everyone is going to have to accept is that the post-trump period, whenever it comes, will not and cannot be a project of national unity, it must be a project of partisan project of renewal, in the same way that reconstruction and the new deal were partisan projects of renewal.

If it was going to happen, why hasn't it?

You think that it's realistic that business leaders who necessarily rose to that position through greed and ambition, whose fortunes (accumulation of which drives their decision making) necessarily depend on exploitation, will just willingly decide to embrace equitable distribution of resources?

Fair.

you stand strong for trans people and against every bit of terf bullshit out there so you can say

Absolutely not. We don't compromise. That's a fucking 18 year old in there and she's not going to show you her fucking tits at a Buffalo Wild Wings to use the bathroom.

The point is not that we can't make an entertainment personality into the president, because obviously we can. The point is that we shouldn't, because policy should be made by experienced policy makers.

If that sounds illegal, that's because it is.

"There is no one right body for a woman to have. There is no externally defined metric for how a woman's body is supposed to look. The right body for a woman to have is the one that she does have" actually means what it says, and they can't stand it.

The new "feminism": sacrificing countless women on the altar of gender conformity, because you think it is the regrettable but necessary price to not have to accept the logical consequences of the feminism that came before you.

I don't want to have to build a new country from scratch, but it's looking more and more like that might be what we have to do.

That's not precise. Yes, the Senate COULD theoretically do away with voting and say that only the majority leader can ask for unanimous consent, and that no one can object to it, so he can do whatever he wants. But they won't. It's functionally impossible.

There is not a way to get rid of the ability to object to unanimous consent without abolishing the Senate.

How? How precisely would a legislative body get rid of a procedure in which things that require a vote get skipped over by, instead of calling a vote, asking if there are any objections? What replaces that other than voting? You can't just assume unanimous consent and not let people object.

Opposition.

Things were always going to be bad but they are 100x worse because of how the democrats behaved in the transition period and his first 100 days.

One of the more surprising face turns in punditry. He really does have a commitment to freedom and democracy at any cost.

I genuinely think we should be asking the politicians who have suddenly found god on the question of genocide whether they will advocate for the kids who lost their goddamn diplomas and jobs for saying what they now agree with

You are lying to us for your own benefit, and you need to stop.

There was a time when people like you spent money on things that helped people who needed it the most. It was when we taxed your profits to the point that you basically didn't get any, so you invested the profits in workers and benefits so you wouldn't be taxed on them.

I love how the only solution that the rich ever say will work is the one that has never worked. Lowering taxes does not make billionaires spend their money on stuff we want. Raising taxes does, because it incentivizes them to not be billionaires.

Or at least force you to choose between them.

I mean, were that the case, we should definitely supply you with bubble gum, because that would prevent the ass kicking.

Of course, it seems like if they do fire someone for being trans, it will be perfectly legal, because it's not discrimination because they said so. bsky.app/profile/esqu...

It's not going to stop because the gender critical project is a genocidal one, and its goals are a total and complete eradication of transgender people by any means necessary, anyone pretending otherwise is lying. It's making life unliveable for trans people in the UK and it won't stop there either.