I suspect Alford does know better, but as a lawyer he is savvy enough to feign a superficial naivete, to protect himself from a defamation lawsuit.
What is wild is that you want everyone to pay the cost for you to access pornThat's a slur that splashes both ways.
We don't believe in deflections or non sequiturs, either. It's amazing how good MAGA types are at misapplying simple, straight-forward logical arguments.
... overwhelmingly preferring lies and half-truths that comfort their biases...I can't tell if that's just a typo, or a deliberate, clever turn of phrase. But it works very well.
So far, the only "info" I've seen on this claim is the single deeply biased, consistently irrational, dependably inaccurate, and notoriously unreliable source, one "Koby"... ... Why is anyone wasting time / extending the courtesy of treating it as a factual claim?
Trump is just the figurehead. The people enabling him are somewhat more competent, and less in the spotlight while they carry out their agendas, using Trump for political cover.
What "they" either don't understand, or have an active interest in concealing, is that Trump is effectively a cat's paw for a loose coalition of interests (wealthy, christian nationalist, white supremacist) who have been pursuing their agenda(s) for decades now -- and these interests are effectively many of the same aforesaid, alleged "adults in the room" that supposedly would reign Trump in. They mostly don't like, even despise, Trump. But as long as he's useful enough, they'll continue to enable him. (They're gambling that they can ride the tiger for now, and can manage to dismount without paying too high a price for it, when the ride becomes more trouble than it's worth.)
To the contrary -- you are factually "making shit up".
They are. That's what this is MAGA crap and Project 2025 are about.
If you actually listened to NPR, you'd actually know what words like 'single', 'partisan', 'left' and 'terrible' actually mean. And you'd have a better grasp on basic reality as well.
"You will own nothing, and if you're not happy, that's just too bad -- we'll fight you for control over the stuff you've already bought and paid for."
Granted that the word regime might be a bit of a stretch, a lot of this argument rests on precisely how one defines 'regime'. And to be fair to Regime Guy, these days "Trump administration" seems just as big a stretch.
You will own nothing, and (not) be happy. (But what'cha gonna do about it? Too bad; so sad.)
Don't turn around. Der Kommissar's in town.
Sorry for the extra posts -- I tried several times but my posts kept disappearing into the void. It appears a couple eventually returned.
... Now that the Supreme Court is interpreting laws according to the Constitution - rather than ideology... Seriously. Do you even listen to yourselves?Same question, right back at you.
Logic isn't exactly your strong suit, I see.
So when the Warren Court set decades of left-wing precedent (including Chevron and Roe) leftists cheered. Now that the Supreme Court is interpreting laws according to the Constitution -- rather than ideology -- leftists get mad and propose just ditching the Constitution altogether. And you’re the same ones complaining that Trump is instigating a “Constitutional crisis…” Seriously. Do you even listen to yourselves?[Insert eye-roll emoji here] Same damn question, right back at you.
You're not very good at following a logical argument, are you? Per the fine article, a major part of her decision was simply laying out how that's not a bone fide argument here... in other words, that the precedents aren't "bad" or "wrongly decided", just -- in the present case -- politically inconvenient to the current administration.
He'd just found a Trump Institute for Democratic Reform, and milk the MAGA crowd even more than he has.