The progressive prosecutor

[_subgenius]

Lol. The question wasn't for you as I already know how you'll vote, and why. ; )

but this question was for you / lol
what "job responsibilities" are you referencing?

[_subgenius]

Knowing what you know now, would you have voted differently in 2016?

I do like that Hillary is for stem cell research and SETI. Like I said in the opening post I do regret it.

are you claiming that Trump is against stem cell research/therapy?
are you claiming that Trump is against SETI ?

And if possible, could your answers resolve the facts as they are present in the 2018 budget proposals from the Executive branch?

[_Chap]

are you claiming that Trump is against stem cell research/therapy?
are you claiming that Trump is against SETI ?

Dunno. But if Fox & Friends has had a segment on either of those subjects recently, there's your answer.

Absent that, I doubt if Trump could give any coherent account of what stem cell research or SETI are about.

Further, even after Fox has enlightened him, I doubt whether he will have retained more than that (probably) stem cell research or SETI are bad stuff. As to the latter, he will probably tell us that SETI is about letting in undocumented extraterrestrial immigrants. But fortunately his new Space Force will be able to handle that ...

[_canpakes]

Lol. The question wasn't for you as I already know how you'll vote, and why. ; )

but this question was for you / lol
what "job responsibilities" are you referencing?

I guess it figures that a Trump voter would have difficulty in comprehending the concept of the President having some responsibilities to attend to.

[_DoubtingThomas]

If Hillary Clinton had won in 2016, Ginsberg would have already retired. Clinton would have nominated two Supreme Court justices with a likely third depending on how Kennedy had reacted to a Clinton presidency.

Hillary Clinton would have been powerless with a Republican senate. Mitch McConnell would have rejected all of her good picks.

You, DT, are seriously entertaining the idea of either voting for Trump or not participating in 2020 if Harris gets the Democrat nomination

How is my life going to improve with Kamala Harris as president?

Bernie Bros not voting for Clinton just from the impact on the courts?

The Supreme Court was already conservative on economic issues. At this point it is just best to allow states to make their own laws.

[_DoubtingThomas]

And if possible, could your answers resolve the facts as they are present in the 2018 budget proposals from the Executive branch?

Trump is probably better than Obama on space exploration. Trump wanted to send humans to Mars.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... g-to-go-to

[_DoubtingThomas]

That's a bad reading of the current political environment.

But we don't know how Florida, Wisconsin, Penn, and Mi are going to vote.

[_EAllusion]

Jailing parents for their children's truancy wasn't Harris's worst police state abuse by a long-shot, but the sheer arrogance and authoritarian glee in this video of her bragging about it is as good of an illustration of who she is as I've seen:

https://Twitter.com/WalkerBragman/statu ... 1030797312

(Don't forget to scroll down to where she brags about she brought charges against a single homeless mother of 3 who was working 2 jobs because her children were truant.)

[_EAllusion]

DT - You're mistaken if you think that increased consequences from global warming is simply going to push people away from the Republican party. It's hard to predict the kind of rippling political consequences from things like that. For one, one of the risks of global warming is increased global conflicts and refugee criseses, which might make the country more likely to turn towards a party preaching fascist-like politics. It's hard to know.

But more important than that, global warming isn't some abstract problem. The longer it goes on without being adequately addressed, the more suffering it's going to cause. Bargaining significantly more suffering on the hopes that it makes for a somewhat better Democrat in the future seems myopic. Now is the time to act. Now.

[_DoubtingThomas]

But more important than that, global warming isn't some abstract problem. The longer it goes on without being adequately addressed, the more suffering it's going to cause. Bargaining significantly more suffering on the hopes that it makes for a somewhat better Democrat in the future seems myopic. Now is the time to act. Now.

Yes, but people don't care. Global Warming doesn't make it to the presidential debates and the media rarely covers it. Hopefully in the future we invent technology that can reverse it.

Jailing parents for their children's truancy wasn't Harris's worst police state abuse by a long-shot, but the sheer arrogance and authoritarian glee in this video of her bragging about it is as good of an illustration of who she is as I've seen:

Politico reports "For Democratic candidates, seeking Wall Street support in the 2020 race will be tricky. The allure of cash to report on initial fundraising filings remains strong. Booker, Harris and Gillibrand have all taken meetings or made calls to top Democrats on Wall Street gauging potential financial support."

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/ ... es-1118065

So how is my life going to be better with a wall street president?