The GOP have been huffing “traditional family values” for so long they thought everyone did too. They make a jab at Harris for not fitting the traditional family values, which they thought would land with the public, but it fell flat because “traditional family values” includes the subjugation of women, abuse of children, and a big helping of toxic masculinity. Naturally those ideas are rejected by the majority of Americans today.
The GOP got high on their on supply.
The first “sorry” is sorry as in “I’m sorry you found that offensive” which isn’t a genuine expression of sorrow, nor is it an apology.
The statement said withhold Medicaid for states banning IVF. Aka if you ban IVF, the bill would punish the state by withholding Medicaid. Seems to be the opposite of what Republicans want with IVF.
I see your confusion: (many) Republicans want to ban IVF.
Look at the title of this post we’re in. “Republicans block Senate Democrats’ IVF bill”. That bill protects IVF, and the republicans shot it down.
You lost the ability to vote against him.
He freezes in shock when someone discovers and destroys one of his Horcruxes.
But that’s not what that statement says.
I read the OP again. I read your statement again. I’m not seeing a different meaning than the one I came away with and commented on originally.
What are you saying the statement says that my comments contradict?
that would withhold Medicaid funding from states that ban IVF, but it was blocked by Democrats.
Withholding Medicaid funding doesn’t seem like a great idea. But on the whole being against banning IVF seems like a good idea. Am I missing something?
Republicans don’t want to secure IVF and don’t want to pay for Medicaid. GOP state’s would happily block IVF to get Medicaid defunded.
Embarrassment suggests he has a sense of shame. He has already conducted a number of shameful acts already (taking gifts) without any sense he’s embarrassed.
Putin is having some money troubles of his own right now. Banks in China are refusing to complete bank transactions with russia.
It’s ugly af. Was that a project requirement or something? It looks like it has a fucking underbite lol.
It is, but its pure function over form. If you want the whole story on this here’s a well done 13 minute youtube video: USPS Oshkosh NGDV Postal Van - Ugly by Design
Short version for the ugly:
Its ugly, but is a very VERY functional design. I’d rather mail carriers are comfortable in their ride than feeling stylish.
“Please eat a ‘Trump brand verification steak’ to sign into your account”
Yep, for decades. They used to be much larger consuming the space of a large table. Now they are small units like this:
Just search for “surface mount rework” or the nickname “hot air pencil”.
I take it you’ve never seen what kind of damage and desecration a cat can do to a couch?
Don’t ask him about the fate of his first love. Its still a tenders spot. No amount of upholstery will remove that damage.
In today’s news of “Every accusation the GOP makes is an admission of guilt”:
GOP accuses immigrants of eating pets, while today the GOP began eating its own pet, Laura Loomer.
I always thought the “fix” to a traditional soldiering iron was a hot air pencil.
Vyacheslav Volodin, the chairman of the State Duma, the lower house of parliament, and a close ally of President Vladimir Putin, said Moscow would be forced to use “more powerful and destructive weapons” against Ukraine if Kyiv started firing long-range Western missiles at Russia.
Hey Vyacheslav, what weapons besides nuclear (and maybe biological) weapons does russia have that it hasn’t used against Ukraine already? Do you think if you use a nuclear weapon against Ukraine that that ends the war? Do you think the rest of the world will just say “welp, I guess russia used a nuke, better let them have Ukraine now”. Not even close.
The offered contract also notably includes “a commitment to build Boeing’s next new airplane in the Puget Sound region,” Boeing said
A social media post 40 years from now:
“TIL Back in 2032 Boeing temporarily went into business building tiny single engine 4 person private jet, but only sold one before shutting down the production line to check a box on an agreed union labor contract.”
OP article is just pointless anecdotes telling us what we already know: that people will vote Trump, and do so thinking his policy will actually fix the fentanyl issue. That isn’t news. It’s influence fodder. Trump having a policy, and that policy being demonstrably ineffectual is news and shouldn’t have been buried under 8 paragraphs of rhetoric.
I think you may missed the point of the article. Its not really an article about the Fentanyl crisis. It’s an article about political rhetoric.
Remove the word Fentanyl and replace it with a number of other issues and the result is similar. Trump brags about doing things and talks tough but most of the time he does nothing. Democrats don’t really brag about it, but many times put plans and policy into action to address the symptoms or the underlying cause.
The point of the article is that Democrats aren’t doing so well communicating to voters that Democrats are actually governing with action and solutions and not just talking. However without bragging about it, Democrats get no credit with voters. The article postulates that because of that communication failure, they are losing some votes to Trump. As in, this isn’t a policy failure on the part of Democrats, its a correctable communication failure.
When someone in good faith says “This prosecution against me is politically motivated.” They are communicating the idea that the charges were manufactured without any underlying crime or possibly the underlying crime is minuscule, but the charges are overblown. Neither of those is the case with Trump.
If you’re just using the dictionary definitions of the words, “politically”, “motivated”, and “prosecuted” then yes it meets that, but then so does a whole bunch of other absurd stuff you don’t mean when using the same logic. By that logic a home burglar is the victim of “politically motivate prosecution” because our legal policy is that burglary is a crime and that the burglar is being prosecuted because of it.
If this statement is true to their plan there’s a bigger implication that should worry more than 50% of Americans.
Men wouldn’t be in the same risk pool as women. Guess which group has higher overall health insurance because one group has a much more complicated and functional reproductive system?
For those that don’t remember life before the reforms put in place, men were charged a small fraction of health insurance premiums compared to women. I remember as a young man when I learned this by comparing my pay stub with a woman coworker that was the same age as me at the time. We were both in our early 20s. To reiterate; we were the same age, same employer, same insurance company, same plan, the only difference was gender.
I was paying $23 every two weeks. She was paying $110.
I was shocked and embarrassed. I fully supported the reforms that lead men and women to paying equal rates even though that meant I had to pay much more than I had in the past.