Can we not just use the original definition, instead? It worked fine for decades, until right-wingers decided to reinvent it in order to push their propaganda.
Archangel1313
joined 1 week ago
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that they should "always" be prosecuted for their crimes...only that the Supreme Court should have closed that loophole. There are many ways they could have drawn a distinction between justified actions and those that should be prosecuted.
Instead, they ruled that all "official acts" should be exempt from repercussions. That didn't just leave the loophole open...it guaranteed it could be abused, without consequence.
Are those slightly charred beets?
Ooh, ooh...I did that.
Is this his latest effort to convince us he's not like Trump?
But we did vote our way into it, didn't we?
Good lad.
I don't think they understand how strategic voting works, then. If they have a candidate that has a reasonable chance to beat the Conservative candidate...then strategically speaking, they should be the go-to pick for anyone not voting Conservative.
They should be promoting this. It should keep all of their current incumbents in their seats, and maybe even win a few more in contested ridings.
In clear violation of the 1st amendment.
A weird phrase is plaguing scientific papers – and we traced it back to a glitch in AI training data
So, all those research papers were written by AI? Huh.
Premium lawsuit, incoming!
So, is he seriously telling other countries not to just blindly go along with whatever the US tells them to do, but instead to resist and stand up for themselves?
And Trump is ok with this messaging? Hmmm.