Mine are basically any who firmly call out the BS spewed by the Republican panelists.
Some notable people are Ashley Allison, Antjuan Seawright, Xochitl Hinojosa (her sister is running for Governor of Texas), Meghan Hays, Adrienne Elrod, and Lulu Garcia-Navarro.
I also appreciate Sabrina Singh and Beth Sanner always letting us know how incompetent the current defense and intelligence departments are.
The powers that be and the media have rebranded using steroids as being "enhanced." Gone are the days of "juicing," "pinning," "doping," "cheating," and straight-up "on steroids." It's a blatant, but unfortunately effective, way of normalizing steroid use, including testosterone.
Maybe this sub could even be renamed "Natty or Enhanced."
The thought of putting time and energy into a romantic relationship with a human is off-putting enough, no way I'd then do that with 1s and 0s.
This relates to the Graham Platner situation, but this isn't about him. I’m wondering: can "imperfect" people be supported to run for office? How many years removed from bad conduct is enough to look past it, assuming they’ve shown credible evidence of reform by their actions since? Can someone with a criminal record be elected to statewide office, and does that change if they have been incarcerated in the past?
While the Platner situation prompted these questions, I would think he is excluded given the relative recency of his accusations, comments, and reported online activity. But that brings me back to my question: how many years removed from an incident is enough to prove someone has reformed? There is always going to be an excuse, but where is the line?
What would they have to do to earn back public trust, and how much time must pass for a candidacy to be justified?
This relates to the Graham Platner situation, but this isn't about him. I’m wondering: can "imperfect" people be supported to run for office? How many years removed from bad conduct is enough to look past it, assuming they’ve shown credible evidence of reform by their actions since? Can someone with a criminal record be elected to statewide office, and does that change if they have been incarcerated in the past?
While the Platner situation prompted these questions, I would think he is excluded given the relative recency of his accusations, comments, and reported online activity. But that brings me back to my question: how many years removed from an incident is enough to prove someone has reformed? There is always going to be an excuse, but where is the line?
It’s frustrating that Donald Trump remains above the law and its consequences, because by any reasonable standard, he should never have been elected. My hope is that by holding people like Platner, Swalwell, and others accountable, Trump will be the last person accused—and hopefully the last convicted—of sexual assault to hold public office. Still, we can’t trust Republicans to hold their own to these standards; their response, they've already started using, will ways be, "Yeah but why did Democrats ignore all the warning signs?" when one of their own is accused. But is this something that should disqualify someone for life? What would they have to do to earn back public trust, and how much time must pass for a candidacy to be justified?
This also reminds me of a gripe I have with reality TV fandoms that dig up a contestant's past tweets or mistakes just to vilify them. For reality TV, I understand the outrage if the actions are recent or ongoing, but if it’s clearly in the past, shouldn't we give the person a chance?
This relates to the Graham Platner situation, but this isn't about him. I’m wondering: can "imperfect" people be supported to run for office? How many years removed from bad conduct is enough to look past it, assuming they’ve shown credible evidence of reform by their actions since? Can someone with a criminal record be elected to statewide office, and does that change if they have been incarcerated in the past?
While the Platner situation prompted these questions, I would think he is excluded given the relative recency of his accusations, comments, and reported online activity. But that brings me back to my question: how many years removed from an incident is enough to prove someone has reformed? There is always going to be an excuse, but where is the line?
It’s frustrating that Donald Trump remains above the law and its consequences, because by any reasonable standard, he should never have been elected. My hope is that by holding people like Platner, Swalwell, and others accountable, Trump will be the last person accused—and hopefully the last convicted—of sexual assault to hold public office. Still, we can’t trust Republicans to hold their own to these standards; their response, they've already started using, will ways be, "Yeah but why did Democrats ignore all the warning signs?" when one of their own is accused. But is this something that should disqualify someone for life? What would they have to do to earn back public trust, and how much time must pass for a candidacy to be justified?
This also reminds me of a gripe I have with reality TV fandoms that dig up a contestant's past tweets or mistakes just to vilify them. For reality TV, I understand the outrage if the actions are recent or ongoing, but if it’s clearly in the past, shouldn't we give the person a chance?
This relates to the Graham Platner situation, but this isn't about him. I’m wondering: can "imperfect" people be supported to run for office? How many years removed from bad conduct is enough to look past it, assuming they’ve shown credible evidence of reform by their actions since? Can someone with a criminal record be elected to statewide office, and does that change if they have been incarcerated in the past?
While the Platner situation prompted these questions, I would think he is excluded given the relative recency of his accusations, comments, and reported online activity. But that brings me back to my question: how many years removed from an incident is enough to prove someone has reformed? There is always going to be an excuse, but where is the line?
It’s frustrating that Donald Trump remains above the law and its consequences, because by any reasonable standard, he should never have been elected. My hope is that by holding people like Platner, Swalwell, and others accountable, Trump will be the last person accused—and hopefully the last convicted—of sexual assault to hold public office. Still, we can’t trust Republicans to hold their own to these standards; their response, they've already started using, will ways be, "Yeah but why did Democrats ignore all the warning signs?" when one of their own is accused. But is this something that should disqualify someone for life? What would they have to do to earn back public trust, and how much time must pass for a candidacy to be justified?
This also reminds me of a gripe I have with reality TV fandoms that dig up a contestant's past tweets or mistakes just to vilify them. For reality TV, I understand the outrage if the actions are recent or ongoing, but if it’s clearly in the past, shouldn't we give the person a chance?
For the love of God Democrats embrace the U.S. flag and patriotism. You've let Trump co-opt these federal symbols and need to take it back. Flying the American flag is not a bad thing. Saying you're a patriot is not a bad thing. We need elected Democrat officials to reclaim patriotism. The battle is against fascism and Christian nationalism, not against the Red, White and Blue.
So yesterday I listened to a bit of the Clay & Travis Show. A guy calls in and talks about how the younger guys he works with in his blue-collar job are stressed about the future economy. They're tired of paying rent, Medicare, and Social Security, and they can’t afford housing. He points out that Democrats are letting in immigrants and giving them government money (ok...), while Republicans do nothing because it's cheap labor for their businesses.
Clay completely dismisses him and pivots to some stats he saw in the Wall Street Journal: apparently, 440,000 Americans became millionaires last year. "That’s 12,000 a day," he kept repeating, noting there are now 26 million millionaires in the U.S. Then he goes into that "pie" analogy conservative pundits have been pushing lately, mixed with the usual fear-mongering that socialism is just communism in disguise.
A few issues with that: What do those new millionaires have to do with everyone else struggling? He’s citing less than 10% of the population to dismiss the reality for the other 90%. Also, a million dollars today isn't the same as a million dollars was when he was growing up—he says he's on the cusp of Gen X and Millennial, and I can tell the difference. It’s the typical, out-of-touch conservative take.
As for this whole "pie" analogy, the idea that the best way to improve everyone's lives is just to keep growing the economic out, they claim that Democrats, especially the Democratic Socialists, believe the pie size is fixed and just want to redistribute pieces from the rich. I don't disagree that the pie should keep growing, but the problem is that as it grows, the rich keep taking larger pieces, leaving everyone else to fight for scraps. They're being so disingenuous with that analogy, and unfortunately for them, their base keeps eating it up, or licking the plate since there’s barely anything left.
Kristian Gkolomeev
The Telemundo version of "Celebrity" Big Brother just finished yesterday and Josh was on it.
True to his volatile self, he was involved in a lot of drama and fights, resulting in what could be future partners for him in Rivals, Exes, or Ride or Die seasons.
Ride or Die
Rivals
Exes
Of course the Rivals list is longest lol I very loosely watched this and my understanding of Spanish is minimal so there's probably some context I missed.