I'm convinced that a lot of issues began with Reagan, right wing media bubbles, Gingrich, and a strange desire to own the libs. But then there was evidence the GOP was going right wing as far back as the 60s. And of course, Reagan announcing his candidacy in Philadelphia Mississippi, saying he was all for states rights. Oh, and let's not forget that phone call he made to Nixon, too.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics...cused-drug-fetish-homeless-addiction-men.html Prominent Democratic Party donor in a bit of a jam Prominent Democratic donor Ed Buck was arrested and charged on Tuesday with operating a drug house, administering methamphetamine, and battery after a man suffered an overdose at Buck’s Los Angeles home last week. The 37-year-old man survived the overdose after Buck injected him with large amount of methamphetamine. This was the third methamphetamine overdose at the 65-year-old’s home since 2017. Two of the overdose victims—both black men—died, the most recent in January. Prosecutors said there wasn’t enough evidence in either of the two deaths to file charges, though Buck, an LGBTQ political activist, is the subject of a wrongful-death suit in the January death at his West Hollywood apartment. In authorizing the charges, prosecutors accused Buck, the Los Angeles Times notes, of being a “violent sexual predator who preys on men struggling with addiction and homelessness.” “From his home, in a position of power, Buck manipulates his victims into participating in his sexual fetishes,” prosecutors wrote in court filings. “These fetishes include supplying and personally administering dangerously large doses of narcotics to his victims.”
I don't feel bad being judgmental on this one, since it seriously violates the "consenting adult" standard.
This is the very reason there should still be a negative rep button. In fact, this post is the ONLY reason there should still be a negative rep button.
Just the right level of snark for these spineless Dems After seeing the events of the last few days, in the light of the events of the days before those, in relation to the events that took place in the weeks, months, and years before that, I am strongly considering writing something that would address the question of whether Nancy Pelosi is bad at her job. If I did, I would argue that the House of Representatives, under Pelosi’s leadership, has come to function as a necessary complement to the corruption and incompetence of President Donald Trump—that a lawless presidency can only achieve its fullest, ripest degree of lawlessness with the aid of a feckless opposition party, which the Democrats are eager to provide. https://slate.com/news-and-politics...jerry-nadler-democrats-impeachment-trump.html
All those years that Republicans based their campaigns against the She Demon Nancy, and it turns out that she is a sweet old lady who let's the GOP eats sweets whenever it wishes. Who knew?
Pelosi is Speaker of the House, not Potentate of the Democratic Majority. She can't FORCE Democratic congresspersons to support impeachment.
He had a fraction of the support of the two front-runners. Each of the front-runners were the de facto leaders of powerful political parties. There would be substantial policy implications depending on which of the two won. Just because you or I don't like the choices other people make doesn't mean their choices aren't serious.
It's a good thing I didn't say they weren't! Or are you actually equating "serious" with "obvious", especially taking into account one's varying perspectives, which would be weird?
You* had a chance to save the planet by impregnating Hillary. Distasteful to you, but necessary. Instead you wanked your seed away. And here we are. *You here is plural, not singular.