2
monkeyseemonkey 2 points ago +2 / -0

Justice would have been a bullet to the head and not wasting hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on them.

2
monkeyseemonkey 2 points ago +2 / -0

Sure. https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/200700#eid18519864

I think it was in the 1700s that grammarians started clamping down on its singular use, and similarly the 1600s when singular "you" was criticized by some as well (since it started replacing thou and thee)

4
monkeyseemonkey 4 points ago +4 / -0

Singular they has been around since the 1300s though

22
monkeyseemonkey 22 points ago +22 / -0

Their point was they diversified vikings to include blacks but not Wakanda to include whites. They respected source material for Wakanda but not for the viking culture. Because whitey bad.

-11
monkeyseemonkey -11 points ago +2 / -13

That doesn't violate it. They're talking actual cognitive bias leaders fall into, using Operation Market Garden as an example.

1
monkeyseemonkey 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah, it's always a shame when people you think are your friends suddenly drop you. You're better off without them though; they're the definition of misery loves company.

15
monkeyseemonkey 15 points ago +15 / -0

Indeed. Have a Ro friend whose parents fled with her when she was little. She repaid them by becoming a Bernie/UBI pusher (thanks academia!). She's making progress--got her to always check source now and follow the "wait 24 hours rule" so she's starting to question everything more and rethink her stances--but it's a slow process

11
monkeyseemonkey 11 points ago +12 / -1

Would be good way to both throw the media offguard and show who are leakers

3
monkeyseemonkey 3 points ago +3 / -0

Beyond that, I find it weird that he said "appointed" rather than "nominated", assuming he's talking about academy nominations. Maybe that's just me though

3
monkeyseemonkey 3 points ago +3 / -0

The definition is from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition, which DDG picks up from Wordnik.

5
monkeyseemonkey 5 points ago +5 / -0

If there were truth to it, you'd hear it from farmers via local sources, not liberal Twitter users.

5
monkeyseemonkey 5 points ago +5 / -0

It's tricky and depends on a lot of factors, but typically most federal laws apply while state laws only apply if they've entered into jurisdiction agreement with the state. I hate linking to Wikipedia but it does have an up to date article on all the intricacies and historic case law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_country_jurisdiction

5
monkeyseemonkey 5 points ago +7 / -2

It's a state issue. It's up to the GOP in each state to file lawsuits and work within each state's legal framework. We can't swing the other way with judicial activism. That said, because it's a state issue we CAN entice states to comply by withholding certain federal funding, like was done with drinking age and seat belts.

3
monkeyseemonkey 3 points ago +3 / -0

Exclusions to the rule are traditionally "the prosecution of election-related crimes, such as those involving federal and state campaign finance laws, federal patronage laws, and corruption of the election process" (taken from a Holder memo in case any Dems whine) so the 60-day rule doesn't necessarily apply if the crimes fall under those categories

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›