Ah, but you see, they apologized! That just goes to show they only need a firm talking-to, and they can learn the error of their ways. Now we can finally work together in a respectful and bipartisan way. (Massive /s)
What intricate debate are you referring to? Most of what I've seen are "he knows his actions hurt people" or "his health is failing he could die soon".
Me desperately trying to find an analogy that will convince my parents that "some of them might be rapists and murderers" doesn't make it ok to go after undocumented residents.
If there's millions of people across the country getting paid to protest, then it should be trivially easy to expose. Just send in an intern and get evidence of them being paid.
Am I remembering wrong, or is this a completely new lie about the stolen documents? I don't remember them ever denying that they had those documents (except to the government when they asked for the documents back) - they argued that Trump was allowed to have those documents.
The whole point is gambling. Trying to extract meaningful predictions from polymarket odds is, to the extent that it's even doable, a secondary emergent property.
Couldn't they reference the President's own words telling military leadership that we have an internal invasion, and that the military should use cities like Chicago as training grounds?
My understanding is SCOTUS decision is on whether a state can ban conversion therapy. Wouldn't any other state legislation targeted against conversion therapy fall under the same ruling?
