In the last presidential election, a large chunk of the non-voters were doing it in protest because of the Israeli genocide.

They are the idiots this post is about. Not voting against the objectively worse option just means you’re fine with all the harm they’ll do if they win.

We had one candidate who wants to nuke Gaza and build a resort, plus start a second genocide at home, and we had one candidate who likely only shifted stances to get the funds needed to campaign against someone backed by billionaires.

These people failed at basic math.

What a monumentally stupid comparison.

The Hyundai Venue is $20k and can get 50mpg highway.

People have a choice of what vehicle they buy.

Considering how hard the Ukraine has been hitting Russia’s oil infrastructure, who wants to bet it’s oil from Iran?

“I’m sorry, I don’t think I get the joke. Can you explain it to me?” Shuts down a lot of racist/sexist jokes in my experience.

Bonus points if you can act like you genuinely don’t understand (instead of intentionally challenging them).

That’s literally the opposite of what I’m saying.

Do they honestly think they can enforce such a curfew?

Paxton being a piece of shit is a non-partisan thing. There’s even a commercial with a former Republican state representative advocating for Talarico

No. The supreme court ruled that a president can’t be charged for official acts of the office, and defending the constitution is a core duty

Kinda, it has to be an official duty of the executive branch, but guess who gets to determine what an official duty is? The SC.

It’s fake because he didn’t tell her to lose weight.

They were ordered not to disclose findings.

If enough Democrats win, they can push legislation through without him being able to block it.

They keep forgetting to put “neo” in front.

He could have legally shot trump in the face, because protection of the constitution from threats foreign and domestic is an official duty of the president.

But why would you be looking for them in the middle of the ocean?

Why would there be survivors decades after the ship sank?

It’s a shit headline regardless. No one should be losing their license prior to being convicted of a crime.

Maybe because being charged with a crime doesn’t mean your guilty?

Plus, California only requires licence removal after a felony vehicular manslaughter conviction.

The part they’re talking about was when she was with a salvage expedition decades after the ship sink.