Looks like she did pretty well last night, Tubby was reduced to complaining that it was boring, probably because she didn't go off on any long digressions about sharks.
Trump's attempt to exploit his appearance at Arlington by turning it onto an infomercial reminds me of his clearing the park in DC during his failed tenure in office, waving a Bible as if he knew what it was and what he was doing -- another illustration of his moral failure and lack of common sense.
I've been watching this jackass for eight years and I was still shocked at how quickly his campaign moved to a vile smear on AN EMPLOYEE OF ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY. Finding out here that the employee was a woman helps to explain this, somewhat. But there's never a moment when they think, "Dunno, maybe doing this will make us look bad?" Never.
So, he broke the law (again) assaulted a female employee doing her job and then defamed her and threatened her if she pressed charges. Yeah sounds very familiar.
I want to think the reason they're doing a joint interview is so Harris won't strangle Dana Bash with her bare hands for asking stupid questions, but that's just one of many reasons I'm not the Democratic nominee for president.
As for Trump, the entire "debate" about Arlington, as far as I've been able to follow it, is premised on the notion that if Donald Trump didn't know and/or doesn't understand why a rule or a law applies to him, he doesn't have to follow it. The whole thing is being contested on his turf. Of course.
DOJ should be responsible for pressing charges, not the employee, and today, not in three years. Every day goes by, it hardly seems possible, Garland gets worse.
I mean, the employee would only have standing to bring assault charges; the illegal politicking would probably be on either the Army of the National Parks Service.
I think the problem is that for many policies that Trump violates, the law doesn't provide any clear penalty for violating them. I suppose the assumption is that if you lay out the rule clearly people will follow it, when writing these rules they don't take into account someone like Trump.
I am not sure that the problem with trump is that he "breaks" the law. A lot of folks do on occasion when a greater good is immediately needed. Strictly speaking, Biden's attempt at student loan forgiveness seem to be (at this point) "breaking" some laws. Could you get a ticket for jay-walking if you ran out mid block to collect a child toddling into traffic? Or "parking" on the side of a freeway to help someone in distress? The problem is really more DISREGARD of laws, in general, not to mention norms. THAT is the consistent pattern with trump, showing a contempt for the whole idea of the very concept on which our society is founded.
I saw when you quote-tweeted Knoller, but I apparently missed his suggestion for what the first question should be. I'm having trouble wrapping my head around what reasoning could lead someone to thinking that should be the first question. Is a campaign's (as you note, totally conventional) interview set-up really the most pressing issue right now?
Most pressing issue if you care about nothing else because you're so comfortable financially and so indifferent to the suffering of others. I don't know any personally, but I've heard this kind of mindset is not uncommon among the rich.
At this point it feels almost futile to cover whatever Trump is up to; his base won't be swayed(In fact, some of them may still hold on to the belief that Arlington was unfairly seized from Robert E. Lee), Harris voters won't be swayed and the cryptid that is "the undecided voter" is either not paying attention or is just desperately seeking attention.
From the outside looking in, there is nothing but irrational hysterics here. Trump, a past and future President... commander in chief of the military is a disgrace at Arlington, and Harris is not even as she requires and emotional support animal and a taped and edited scripted interview. Got it.
Welp, those were certainly words. Too bad they didn't seem to mean a whole of a lot, despite you ending it in a manner lifted from that smug bastard with a gambling problem.
I don’t care what interviews Harris does. She owes the press nothing.
Looks like she did pretty well last night, Tubby was reduced to complaining that it was boring, probably because she didn't go off on any long digressions about sharks.
Trump's attempt to exploit his appearance at Arlington by turning it onto an infomercial reminds me of his clearing the park in DC during his failed tenure in office, waving a Bible as if he knew what it was and what he was doing -- another illustration of his moral failure and lack of common sense.
I've been watching this jackass for eight years and I was still shocked at how quickly his campaign moved to a vile smear on AN EMPLOYEE OF ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY. Finding out here that the employee was a woman helps to explain this, somewhat. But there's never a moment when they think, "Dunno, maybe doing this will make us look bad?" Never.
So, he broke the law (again) assaulted a female employee doing her job and then defamed her and threatened her if she pressed charges. Yeah sounds very familiar.
I hope E Jean Carroll's lawyer is in touch with her.
I want to think the reason they're doing a joint interview is so Harris won't strangle Dana Bash with her bare hands for asking stupid questions, but that's just one of many reasons I'm not the Democratic nominee for president.
As for Trump, the entire "debate" about Arlington, as far as I've been able to follow it, is premised on the notion that if Donald Trump didn't know and/or doesn't understand why a rule or a law applies to him, he doesn't have to follow it. The whole thing is being contested on his turf. Of course.
DOJ should be responsible for pressing charges, not the employee, and today, not in three years. Every day goes by, it hardly seems possible, Garland gets worse.
I mean, the employee would only have standing to bring assault charges; the illegal politicking would probably be on either the Army of the National Parks Service.
I think the problem is that for many policies that Trump violates, the law doesn't provide any clear penalty for violating them. I suppose the assumption is that if you lay out the rule clearly people will follow it, when writing these rules they don't take into account someone like Trump.
I am not sure that the problem with trump is that he "breaks" the law. A lot of folks do on occasion when a greater good is immediately needed. Strictly speaking, Biden's attempt at student loan forgiveness seem to be (at this point) "breaking" some laws. Could you get a ticket for jay-walking if you ran out mid block to collect a child toddling into traffic? Or "parking" on the side of a freeway to help someone in distress? The problem is really more DISREGARD of laws, in general, not to mention norms. THAT is the consistent pattern with trump, showing a contempt for the whole idea of the very concept on which our society is founded.
I saw when you quote-tweeted Knoller, but I apparently missed his suggestion for what the first question should be. I'm having trouble wrapping my head around what reasoning could lead someone to thinking that should be the first question. Is a campaign's (as you note, totally conventional) interview set-up really the most pressing issue right now?
Most pressing issue if you care about nothing else because you're so comfortable financially and so indifferent to the suffering of others. I don't know any personally, but I've heard this kind of mindset is not uncommon among the rich.
“Against Federal Law” - Mr Slob does not give a dump (5 flushes and it’s STILL there) about anything, as long as he’s in the spotlight .
Very much in the same vein as that day.
Guess the answer to the question "Is nothing sacred?" is a big "Nope." What an absolute heel.
At this point it feels almost futile to cover whatever Trump is up to; his base won't be swayed(In fact, some of them may still hold on to the belief that Arlington was unfairly seized from Robert E. Lee), Harris voters won't be swayed and the cryptid that is "the undecided voter" is either not paying attention or is just desperately seeking attention.
From the outside looking in, there is nothing but irrational hysterics here. Trump, a past and future President... commander in chief of the military is a disgrace at Arlington, and Harris is not even as she requires and emotional support animal and a taped and edited scripted interview. Got it.
From outside reality, looking in, is what you were implying I assume
Like JD Vance: "Humans, how do they work? What do they think?"
"scripted interview"
Another lie. Can't do anything else, probably doesn't even notice he's lying any more, it's become such a habit.
Welp, those were certainly words. Too bad they didn't seem to mean a whole of a lot, despite you ending it in a manner lifted from that smug bastard with a gambling problem.
?
Sorry, these new AI-powered trolls are still in the Beta phase of development, some bugs are still being worked out.