Taro T

She was the Solicitor General for less than 18 months when she joined the SC and had barely been the SG for a full year when she was nominated to the court. And regardless of how much you say her being a judge prior to joining the SC didn't matter; she had never heard a single case before joining the highest court in the land.

Were you as upset about 44 nominating as a justice on the Supreme Court a person who had never served as a judge ever before being nominated to the Supreme Court?

Regardless of who he chooses, the left will hate on them. Might as well go with the people he expects will do what he hopes they'll do rather than someone that will necessarily work against him.

Durn shame that 46 signed into law the Electoral Count Reform Act which defines his VP's duties when certifying the election merely "ministerial" in nature. And you were SOOOOO close to foiling that wascally Nazi. Would've gotten away with it too if it weren't for those durn Congress Critters.

Or, playing devil's advocate, imagine how much bigger 45 would've won the PR vote without the joke. 😉

Not to mention, she wildly missed on the 2018 governor's race calling it for the D+3 but it went R+2. Would want to see her raw data and how it compares to '16 and '20 before getting too excited one way or the other about this single poll.

She's typically accurate. But the one time she flailed wildly was in the D's favor.

RIP John.

The issue that people are taking exception to is that according to the article it doesn't matter whether the ballots that arrive late bear a postmark or not. With no postmark, there is no proof that the ballot was deposited before the election closed. How exactly are you "verifying" the mail in ballots without any postmark? Well, the guy that brought them to us pinky swore and crossed his heart that he knows they were all really put in the mail on time. He has an honest face; surely people with honest faces never lie.

Does JD Vance and his Asian Indian wife know about this? THIS could be a true GAME CHANGER.

It is real. But, though the Appelate Court reversed the lower court's ruling in part, and vacated it in part, it also remanded the case back to the lower court. And it specifically stated in the decision that "(t)oday’s decision says nothing about remedies." So, it isn't necessarily the victory it seems from reading that tweet about it.

She was given the responsibility to direct the executive branch's efforts to secure the US's southern border. There is no denying that. People taking issue with the colloquialism going around when that responsibility was given to her by 46 was that she was the "border Czar" seem to be trying to revise history. It is disingenuous at best to try to claim that she wasn't given that responsibility because she did not officially take on the title of "border Czar" though most all media were using that title to describe her role.

Having a hard time understanding how it "probably has been going on longer" isn't troublesome. Also, am having a hard time understanding how us, the plebes, not knowing about it until just now isn't more than troubling. The government works for us, or it's supposed to. Again, not trying to play "gotcha." Am really trying to understand the viewpoint.

Thank you very much for the answers. A follow up, you seem to have misunderstood Q3, apologies for not being more clear. The question wasn't about whether there's been pressure on 46 to step down prior to the debate. Whether there was a little push for him to leave or not, the vast majority of D's and their usual supporters did not publicly push for him to leave prior to the debate. That is not in question. The question was whether you believe he's not been sharp enough since before the debate or if something snapped in him at the debate but he was quite acute prior to the debate? This was either a rapid mental descent we've witnessed over the past 3 weeks (which IMHO doesn't seem likely); or it's been going on much longer and the media, who are often our agents to interact with those in the government, have not been acting as agents for us as they have been hiding this from us.

A few questions, if you would be so kind as to answer. (And these go out to all the people that were supporting 46 3 weeks ago.) 1. WHY is he dropping out? Would sincerely like to know your opinion on why as you do seem to be solidly a Democrat. 2. How is this putting the country first? The Democratic Party's voters overwhelmingly choose him to be their nominee for President this year. And, if the replies to the above questions are that you don't believe he's currently capable of running for President or you don't believe he's capable of serving as President for another 4 years, a couple of follow up Q's. 3. Do you believe that something snapped in him that Thursday evening or recently prior to it; or is this something that has been building for a long time? 4. If it wasn't a rapidly declining problem, do you have any concerns about the general mass media and those in his inner circle claiming that he was fine or even better than fine until (and for some even beyond) that Thursday evening? There was a lot of media talk that 46 would whip 45 handily in the debate as 46 was/is very sharp. It doesn't seem that 46 won that debate against 45. 5. If he isn't capable of running for President, should he also step down as the President? 6. Why should he / shouldn't he step down? Thank you for considering the questions. Expect they might come across as "gotchas" but they really aren't intended that way. Am very interested in understanding this view. 🍺