mtutiger

That sarcasm wasn't so much directed at you, fwiw. We are pretty aligned on this topic.

He was great, as was Louis Jourdan... the backgammon scene is low-key one of my favorite scenes of the Moore era. If the cinematography were better and if they had cut some of the campier stuff, it'd probably have cracked the Top 10 in Bonds for me. I just saw it recently and, despite the Cold War motif being an outdated, I was struck by how transferrable more hardliner views on NATO of the time are easily transferrable to today and to Putin specifically... it didn't feel as outdated as it should have because of the Ukraine situation.

That's different because clearly that's just different.

The US has a demographically stagnant population.... all with boomers on the precipice of retirement. Maybe, just maybe, we should make it easier to legally immigrate. Or we should do things to help the economic situation in the places from which these migrants come. Doing what the Tennessee lawmaker doesn't do much except, to paraphrase Moynihan, throw some boob bait to the Bubbas.

This is a weird pop-culture reference, but it's almost like Putin, ala the Russian baddy in the Bond film Octopussy, just assumed that he could roll NATO with his scheme, when the reality is that NATO has projected more strength in the past week or so than the alliance has in a while. All on account of his aggression. The danger is that he's in a corner now.... just domestically, he has to come away with a W.

The focus on identity on this subject is weird considering how politicized this process is, and how political views are an "identity" in and of themselves.

I think this is fair... I just have a problem with the clear double standard being applied here. Whoever Biden picks will be very qualified... and in the grand scheme of things, most Americans are not going to notice or care about the selection process. Just a big deal over nothing.

Really happy for Matt Stafford... he deserves this!

Their loss I guess...

Reagan and Trump said the quiet part out loud as well. Just really tired of the pearl clutching on this. You don't have to like the precedent, but it existed long before Biden.

But why is Biden the one taking hell for it when we have had past Presidents (ie. Reagan, Trump) who have basically done the exact same thing with little to no controversy for using that rationale?

Knowing that McCain wanted a game changer and wanted to capitalize on Hills not getting the nomination and the fact that Thomas succeeded the first black justice, it's pretty reasonable to assume sex/gender were involved in those selections. Even if not explicitly stated. Either way, we have actual examples of declarations ahead of the nomination that keep getting brought up (O'Connor, ACB) that seem to just get ignored in this discussion. And again, only now is this an issue. I'm sorry, it just reeks of partisanship. It just does.

Did Ronald Reagan identify Sandra Day O'Connor by race or gender when selecting them? (Rhetorical q) I'll take you at your word that you dont like it, but let's not act like this is unprecedented. I just find it incredible that only now are we hearing objections. Not when O'Connor was nominated, not when ACB was nominated.... only now do we hear about it.

The COVID numbers got conflated with overall JA, which isn't as bad for sure. For reference, I remember seeing Northam was something like +30 after inauguration, so these aren't exactly great numbers. Although PPP isn't exactly the greatest pollster either, so idk.

See Buddha's post. This isn't anything new. The only reason you complain now is because you don't like Biden.

My thing is that, even setting aside the ridiculousness of the first sentence, the bulk of the post just isn't persuasive. It just reads like an opinion that starts from a conclusion (ie. everything Biden does is bad / Biden derangement syndrome) and just works backward from there. And the reality is that, for all the complaining about posting link after link of proof that would get ignored, the reality is that any opinion that doesn't fit Archie's will summarily get ignored and discarded no matter how backed up with links or reason or what have ya. It just is what it is.

Everything Biden does is bad. Biden is senile. Because everything Biden does is bad and Biden is senile. Rinse, Repeat, etc.

Not to mention that it takes a while to build actually do the construction. Just dumb, I swear they'll put anyone on air these days.

Does this airhead know the first thing about infrastructure and how long it takes to actually demo and replace a bridge? It's incredible... how someone can be paid so much and know so little.

It starts to make more sense when you take into account the embrace of illiberal governments who happen to align on policy by certain parts of conservative movement. Think Orban in Hungary or the PiS in Poland. Or frankly Putin in some respects. To be clear, I don't think it's a majority of the conservative movement... and Ukraine has a lot of support among elected Republicans. But it's become a lot more vocal and it's presence is outsized in conservative movement and in conservative media (ie. Tucker Carlson). I don't know that "dems" have moved much on this in general.... Biden up to the point has approached this situation about how I would have expected based on how his former boss approached Ukraine back in the mid-2010s. And the Dems, like on every other domestic issue, are a bigger tent on foreign policy as well.... the party has a mix of internationalist types, pragmatists and anti-war types.

Let me guess, is the new conspiracy theory gonna be that Biden collapsed the bridge on purpose?

CNN is fake news!* *(Except when it reports things which fit my cognitive bias)

Incredible