RedDenver

You're making the argument that all injustices are equivalent, which is obviously not true. Yes, but they make bad analogies when they aren't equally applicable.

You're both missing the most important point here: a political symbol is not at all the same as a brand symbol. You're basically arguing that wearing a swastika is the same as wearing the Mercedes symbol.

Let's see if Schultz can poll above 1% before even worrying about this.

Holy false equivalency, Batman!

I have major concerns with Kamala Harris and her record of prosecuting the poor and letting the rich go free. And I want to get money out of politics, but Harris (and others like Gillibrand and Booker) has been making the rounds at Wall St to get money. We don't need another President in the pocket of Wall St.

It's also common to the US Navy as well.

I see an EMP attack (which would require many EMP's to take out any significant portion of the grid as the power decreases with the cube of the distance or would require detonating a megaton nuclear device which would result in a nuclear retaliatory response from the US) as being similar to a hurricane or other natural disaster that destroys infrastructure. And the EMP wouldn't take down power lines like a storm can - the damage would be more centralized. (And would be mostly limited to electronics as most analog systems like transformers, power lines, circuit breakers, etc. wouldn't be damaged except by nuclear EMP's.) The power companies (and the government including FEMA, the military, national guard, etc.) would then start fixing things. It might take months in some places, but more like days in most places is what I expect. Yes, it would be devastating, but not like a nuclear attack or other sustained conventional bombing attacks would be, which is why an EMP attack against the US is dumb. The US military would be unaffected and would retaliate with physically destroying the infrastructure and military power of the attacker, which will be LOTS more things than just electronics and power grid. And that's assuming the US doesn't respond with a nuclear attack. P.S. Additionally, an EMP is defeated (or strongly minimized) with a Faraday cage. If we're really worried, then we could put a metal cage around sensitive infrastructure (like a server rack could protect the servers inside). And many buildings with metal roofs, metal siding, or closely spaced metal rebar in the concrete will act as a Faraday cage and limit the effectiveness.

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.