They've been right (or at least more right) than democrats quite a bit over the last few years.
Where's the source on that?
I do.
Because you ignore any information that doesn't help your arguments. Almost every Republican was saying Hunters laptop was real while you lot denied it, even when he himself said that it might be on television.
You're not doing much to dispel the claim that you treat this as just a game. You're arguing as though someone is going to award you debate points.
Lol bollocks.
Here's a source on 2022 market share. United Health at 15.3%; CVS at 5.8%; Cigna at 2.4%.
You just said that insurers only make their money from premiums. Yet the PBM directly pockets a portion of the rebate without passing the saving onto the insurer. The PBM's income does not come from premiums. It comes from spread pricing and the partial pocketing of rebates.
Because those same Republicans lied and misrepresented the contents and significance of the laptop. If you tell an insignificant truth in the course of telling a larger lie, I'm not going to treat the statement as honest.
I'm not really interested in dispelling whatever insults you want to hurl. It saves time and blood pressure to just ignore them.
My "reputation"? What the fuck are you talking about?
FIRST STEP looks to be a good program, though I don't know much about it so should probably do more research.
He's being put into a high appointed office by a Republican administration, he's close enough.
It's true...
What about the contents do you think they lied about?
That is the conversation you inserted yourself into. Anyone who wants to use this case as their evidence of Trump's wrongdoing looks ridiculous.
You're just admitting this is a prejudiced judgment you're making. You have decided that based on your judgment of his character, you think it is likely whatever accusation is directed at him is true (or more importantly to you defensible). That's not what I'm looking for. Do her claims specifically seem likely to you? Don't tell me that you can imagine them being vaguely possible and then say it's probably true cause it's Trump, I want you to look at the case the way a jury is supposed to and consider the claims she's actually made.
Ah right, here.
Only the portion that is passed back to the insurer counts against the premium.
That it incriminates the family at large, and the President. You yourself tended to distance yourself from that stretch. Republican politicians, less so.
Looks ridiculous to whom? I don't much care if I look ridiculous to zealots.
Buddy, a pattern of behaviour is both logically and legally relevant. We do not consider the likelihood of someone's culpability in a void of context.
The problem is the RFK is a conspiracy theorist
Republican politicians saw the contents of the laptop as a reasonable cause to further investigate the Biden family at large and Joe Biden. I'm not aware of Republicans claiming the laptop was proof of criminal actions by Joe Biden, and if anything, Republicans have been much more interested in the way the laptop was treated by the FBI and intelligence community than the contents themselves.
What about people who would be your ally? If we're drawing lines between "sides" here, I'd say pretty clearly Phoenixmgs and I would be grouped together, and on the whole I would pick Phoenix's arguments over yours, but Pheonix also sometimes repeats claims that make me shake my head. I guarantee there are people on here who largely side with you that read some of the hills you choose to die on and cringe for you.
A pattern of behavior can only support other claims and evidence, it cannot supersede them. If all evidence points to someone being the criminal, it doesn't matter if they were a saint their whole life. If the evidence points away from someone, it doesn't matter if they're already a murderer in the past. The accusation here is that Trump raped a woman in a public place where you'd expect witnesses, and there were none. Her story has them fight in a way you would expect at least one of them to sustain injuries, and there is no evidence that either of them did. The only evidence that they even interacted that day (a day we don't actually know when it was) is her testimony or that of people who heard from her later. She put her accusation in a book and announced it on the cover of New York Magazine, wearing allegedly the same outfit she was assaulted in, which she said she preserved all these years from that day, and there isn't a thread out of place.
www.newsweek.com
Accusing him of "siding with MAGA" is just pointlessly negative framing. The fact that a lot of jobs, under their current conditions, can only be filled by giving them to people with lower expectations, need be all the way from the other end of the world, is one of the biggest problems of western economies.Bernie Sanders sides with MAGA on H-1B debate
Sanders released a statement opposing Musk's viewpoint on H-1B visas.
Meanwhile, in China, they are workaholics. Look what they made.
View attachment 12582
But no the Indian engineers are the problem. Sure Bernie sure.
Trump: "With what came out today, it's even worse. All of the emails, the emails, the horrible emails. Of the kind of money you [Joe Biden] were raking in, you and your family".
If anyone I often agree with takes particular exception to something I've said in this thread, I encourage them to speak up.
Obviously the pattern of behaviour isn't the sole piece. I merely said it was relevant, after you insinuated it wasn't.
"Why are people paying attention and respect to someone who isn't me? This is MY special day! Nobody should stand for this!"Donald Trump fumes over flag flying at half-staff to honor Jimmy Carter during inauguration
"Nobody wants to see this, and no American can be happy about it," Trump said of the US flag flying at half-staff during his inauguration.www.usatoday.com
Male skin cells 25 years later after she, at minimum, wore it for a photo shoot, which Carrolls legal team provided incomplete records of and then dropped the request, and then hearsay of her personal claims, and then something that didn't happen. Trump wasn't recorded boasting about sexual assault. "They let you" explicitly describes consensual activities. You may doubt that consent was given (I doubt he was grabbing them in the first place personally), but the brag was specifically about the things he was allowed by women to do.
Did they provide "Incomplete records", or did they merely not comply with the prosecution's pointless condition that the full lab report be turned over to them?
They'd be 'hearsay of her personal claims' if we were using them to prove Carroll's allegations themselves. I'm not: the salient point is that they heard it many years before the article or the lawsuit. On that point, they're direct testimony.
This framing is tremendously weak.
