RedDenver

It would be disruptive for sure, but it'd be less than a lightning strike would do, so I suspect the grid would come back in hours or days. However, an EMP attack is an act of war, so it seems like a terrible idea since our military would do far, far worse to them in response.

Electronics can be hardened against EMP's, which most if not all of the military's equipment is and satellites are hardened even more since they are under constant bombardment of high energy particles and rays.

Isn't that what got passed in the Senate (100-0) and in the House but Trump vetoed? (I'm honestly asking.)

Here's a libertarian view on why walls won't work: https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-wall-wont-work

Is Acosta some sort of wall or immigration expert? I mean, if there's evidence of a wall being effective, I'd love to see it but since Trump and the Repubs haven't produced it since it became a major talking-point during the 2016 primary, I doubt it exists.

The immigrants turned themselves in. That would have happened with or without a wall. And I'm not saying we shouldn't have ways to prevent or minimize illegal immigration - just that a wall does almost nothing but costs a lot and is against the very fabric of what America stands for. I'm an engineer and can tell you that any wall that humans can build, humans can also get around or destroy. Edit: I got eyeTrolled, so I guess that means I've won the debate. What do I get?

<sigh> Another example of why a wall makes no sense and is ineffective: Largest single group of migrants ever tunnels under border wall in Arizona, says Border Protection Not only was the steel wall ineffective, but CBP didn't catch them - the immigrants turned themselves over to CBP. And here's an image to show it's not some flimsy fence:

He's being sarcastic.

And I think that's going to be a problem for getting the nomination. IMO Biden is still living in the 90's when Republicans and Democrats could compromise, but now figures like McConnell aren't willing to compromise and often lie and renege on their promises, and I fear Biden will succumb to them. But I think the bigger issue for Biden will be money in politics and supporting a Republican candidate during the Trump era and while Dems were striving for a blue wave midterm.

Haha, I still have a yahoo address for my junk mail. I've watched some other interviews with him and there's a lot of nuance in what he's trying to say. I'm probably going to read the book but I've got about a dozen books I'm working on first.

Well, I have a huge issue with someone that wants to be the Presidential nominee for their party but helps an opposition candidate that voted with Trump (88.8%) and the Repub party line and, despite Biden praising his record on cancer, voted in favor of repealing the ACA every single time along with a bunch of other votes to strip people of healthcare. Plus you're ignoring the elephant in the room: Biden took $250k to give that speech.

Nobody has said it's a crime, so that's a weird non sequitur. Biden endorsed 135 other Dem candidates but (after getting paid $250k for a speech in support of the Republican candidate) refused to support the Dem candidate without any reasons (like a difference in policy for example). I think this will be a huge problem for Biden in the Dem primaries if he decides to run.

Here's a conservative take on how AOC could make government better (it's not at all what I expected):

An interesting take on how billionaire philanthropy is on the whole supporting inequality:

Of Course Joe Biden Supported a Republican in a $200K Speech It wouldn't have been so bad had Biden endorsed the Democrat in that race, but he refused to do so.

Go to Twitter Search for the word you're looking for Use the search options to narrow to only the account you want to search ??? Profit!

The search only takes a few seconds...

We're talking about late-term abortions not all abortions since that's what you originally posted tweets about (misleading tweets I might add). From your link late-term abortions are only 1.3% of all abortions, which is much less than the 7% that are due to health concerns, so possible that most of the late-term abortions are due to medical issues but I don't see data anywhere to support or reject that conclusion.

8

Because not every situation is the same? You want to change the laws to try and cover every possible medical emergency scenario involving pregnancy? Or should the law perhaps just let the woman and the doctors decide what is best, like it does today?

Or you're using hyperbole correctly to lead people to an issue that's both critical and urgent. Or it's not even hyperbolic because failure to reverse climate change could be the end of humans. I agree that our politics tend towards too much hyperbole but that doesn't mean it's never warranted. Reagan used hyperbole about the tax code and the Soviets constantly - you decide if he wasn't being a good leader in those cases.

I agree. I know some aren't a fan of her hyperbole (or gaffe depending on your take), but we really need to discuss that we've only got about 12 years until climate change becomes irreversible.

SPH doing a better job explaining than I am. I'm not saying Trump or AOC are "good" or "bad" leaders, just that they're leaders. When I called AOC a "real" leader I was thinking more as compared to other Dems like Schumer.

I think Trump is leading in the wrong direction, but he's still a leader. Like I said, you can disagree with AOC, but the entire reason we're even talking about her policies is because of her leadership. Can you name the policies of any of the other new Congressional members? Or even know any of their names?

FYI, I think you misquoted as that wasn't my post Just look at all the topics and policies she's caused to become part of the mainstream discussion. She's leading the discussion about the same issues she campaigned on. There's a huge difference between lying and a gaffe, but I think you already know that.