2
apawst8 2 points ago +2 / -0

Nah. The vast, vast majority of films aren't made with the Oscars Best Pictures category in mind.

1
apawst8 1 point ago +1 / -0

No, it's racially discriminatory and sexist.

3
apawst8 3 points ago +3 / -0

No. It's a reference to the main theme of X-Men, that humans are suppressing the mutants.

1
apawst8 1 point ago +1 / -0

If John Wayne portrays Genghis Khan, how is that counted?

3
apawst8 3 points ago +3 / -0

Curious, did they ever consider Melinda Gates the world's richest woman? After all, she lives in a community property state.

1
apawst8 1 point ago +1 / -0

This makes it worse, not better. Now the news bite will be that Minneapolis trained their officers to kill people.

6
apawst8 6 points ago +6 / -0

Republicans don't support rioting because it destroys people's livelihoods, destroys property, and kills people.

Democrats don't support rioting when it polls badly.

30
apawst8 30 points ago +31 / -1

The White House siege is going to bigly backfire. They can hide riots in Seattle or Portland or Kenosha. They can't hide protests where every major news organization has an extremely large force.

If they thought riots polled badly when it's hidden, wait until the riots are hitting the evening news every single day.

2
apawst8 2 points ago +2 / -0

The big problem liberals have with the police is that they allegedly use preconceived notions of certain people to guide their actions before getting all the facts.

Yet they will crucify Kyle in a second before all the facts come to light

0
apawst8 0 points ago +2 / -2

Just want to point out that it's not as simple as "he was attacked, therefore it was self-defense." If you initiate a fight, then defending yourself is not "self-defense." In other words, if you bring a gun to a fist fight, then start losing the fist fight, you might not be entitled to self-defense.

That's not the case here because he didn't initiate the fight. But something to keep in mind if you're in a similar situation.

9
apawst8 9 points ago +9 / -0

In an actual "peaceful protest" the peaceful protesters put out the fires and stop the people from starting fires. If 99 people are celebrating in front of a fire that only one person started, it's not peaceful because the 99% are encouraging the violent 1%.

13
apawst8 13 points ago +13 / -0

Even if the vic was a racist, since when did racism become a capital offense, enforced by random people on the street?

1
apawst8 1 point ago +1 / -0

The entire US has been boycotting the WNBA since it's founding.

-2
apawst8 -2 points ago +2 / -4

I don't get the big deal. She's biracial. My daughter is biracial. If you ask her "are you [race]" She'll say yes to both races. She's not lying in either case.

-1
apawst8 -1 points ago +1 / -2

This is patently false. The Bubba incident left the news cycle within a week, after investigations showed it was false.

-1
apawst8 -1 points ago +1 / -2

People here may hate "anchor babies," but the simple fact of the matter is that the only thing you need to do prove citizenship is show your birth certificate with a place of birth in the US. E.g., the I-9 form to show eligibility to work. You prove citizenship by showing a birth certificate.

Or the DS-11 passport form. Again, you prove your citizenship by showing a birth certificate.

Retroactively changing that law would result in a gigantic bureaucratic headache.

1
apawst8 1 point ago +1 / -0

Your hypos may have validity, but are irrelevant here. Both of Kamala's parents were randoms, not related to high-powered enemies of the US.

The simple fact is, people born in the US are treated as being citizens and have been for a long time. The only thing I have to do to prove that I'm a citizenship is show my birth certificate. I don't have to prove anything about my parent's status at the time of my birth. That makes it a much easier law to enforce. That's the benefit of bright-line laws,

2
apawst8 2 points ago +2 / -0

Elections are local. The President has zero capability of changing it. This proves he's being reasonable--he's not against mail in balloting in general (which is done successfully in several states), he's against doing it without standards.

0
apawst8 0 points ago +1 / -1

People on both sides are misreading his comments about mail in votes. This tweet shows that he's not objecting the mail in ballots in general. He's objecting to the states that are just mailing ballots without structure.

Many states have used mail in ballots for years, including several states that only do mail in balloting. It's not rocket science

3
apawst8 3 points ago +3 / -0

True, but its well known that Covid exposure is related to time. People in grocery stores are there 30 minutes max, and only interact with employees for a brief time period. Teachers are in a room with the same students for an hour at a time (6-8 hours for younger students).

2
apawst8 2 points ago +2 / -0

Conservatives seem to act like only liberal states do vote by mail. I know AZ has been doing vote by mail since at least 1998 (source: I voted by mail in 1998 and, in fact, have never voted in person on election day in AZ). AZ is not a liberal state. In the 8 US senate election since then, 7 have been won by a Republican. 3 of the 4 most recent governors have been Republicans. They voted Republican in every Presidential election since 1972 except one (1996).

According to this article: https://www.hcn.org/articles/covid19-western-states-lead-the-way-in-vote-by-mail-elections, most western states have allowed vote by mail even before Covid, including 75% of Arizonans.

Utah is even more vote by mail friendly, with 90% of Utahns voting by mail. And they are definitely not a liberal state.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›