This is one of the few valid criticisms I can think of. Like, I can get why she’d consider the legislation, considering the myriad of deepfakes made about her (which has got to feel…particularly violating on top of the non-sexual harassment and attention people have put on her since she, basically, first got elected) but there are really valid concerns about the legislation, particularly in the context of this administration.

And I don’t remember her, at least, even addressing those concerns and potential abuses of the law.

I watched a recap of that on YouTube, one time; sleezebag is right.

I’ve been subscribed to this asshole for nearly a decade (keeping tabs on what that side is thinking and talking about) and this kind of hypocritical positioning is par for the course.

His recent take on Kilmar Abrego Garcia was repeatedly reiterating that he had credible ties to MS-13 and that the president totally has every right to just boot this man to another country but he was worried that Trump’s defiance of the courts might endanger qualified immunity for federal officials.

Maybe we should question how good of an aid that is on its own when the eugenicists would happily love to offer such a service to help them in thinning the herd.

Yeah; when those lines are horizontal – though –, you may want to worry. But vertically, usually not.

Mostly out of curiosity but what’d HW do? I think we can squarely put more of the war on drugs on his shoulders than Reagan’s but, outside of that, I can think of so many more concrete things Reagan did to worsen and destabilize America (even if the effects were much later) than I can for the 1-term HW (but that may just be unfamiliarity, on my part).

“Thogh thaughts are tuff,” in a more blessèd timeline.

For a second, I read your fruit predilection literally and was like, “Is…watermelon controversial, now? Are they [the people who banned you] cartoonishly racist?”

I follow you, now; sucks but expected…