wagesj45

He didn’t call him “mentally challenged idiot” he fully called him “retarded”.

As someone with a medical device, I do not like this. :D

I tend to agree, but we should at least try. Pull every lever of governance we have for as long as we have it.

Does that mean his communications will be subject to FOIA?

I didn’t think that holds muster either. It could mean many different things, even in context. The bar for true threats in the US is very high, as it should be. They clearly wanted to make an example of her to nip this class consciousness in the bud, and our legal system is certainly prone to bad decisions and practices, but in theory I can’t see this passing that high bar.

Yes, actually, I am. This is nowhere near an actionable threat and arresting her over it is insanity and should be criminal itself.

“experts” lol

RFK Jr. is nominated for head of Health and Human Services, which is above the CDC.

Lucky

“Could”

Goddamn it I’m sick and tired of these articles pussyfooting around the issue.

Better stock up now.

You mean there’s no chance that Wal-Mart might choose to absorb the increased prices out of the goodness of their hearts? :o

I’m not saying you’re wrong, per se. In theory it is good to keep that distance between the executive and the prosecutorial decisions. But I hold that view in the same way that I hold the view that war is bad. Sometimes it is necessary when you’re given no other choice. Not to belabor the point, but this man is a danger not only to marginalized groups, but to American society and the world at large. The constitution imbues the presidency with the authority and power to take action and if this wasn’t the time to use the power afforded to it, then I don’t know man…

When the chief executive steps in to direct prosecution, it has a strong tendency to become political and lead away from democracy.

Seems like the same happens when we cling to that norm too closely, as well.

The chief executive of the US has been a Democrat for 4 years, and it was absolutely their responsibility to prosecute (or ensure prosecution happens to) anyone that broke the law, or to at least protect the country. The norm has been for Presidents to maintain a firewall between themselves and prosecutorial decisions, but that’s not constitutionally mandated as far as I can tell.

You’re supposed to in the US, yes.

He owes a billion dollars. Infowars isn’t worth near that much. Even after the sell, he’ll continue oweing hundreds of millions of dollars until the day he dies.

I figured it had to do with the sale of the @realAlexJones twitter handle that was being disputed. I cant remember if that had been settled or not, but I know he was trying to keep it, and the opposing side said it was a business account and should be turned over.

I’d imagine a certain percentage just want to do it as punishment. If they have to suffer and feel hopeless, everyone else can too. My guess is the biggest percentage, though, just have no idea what is going on and what any of this means.

I’m sorry, but your premise is flawed. The actual fact is that they are not fun at parties.