Chicagoland. You had me at politics/baseball/road trips/tv/fast food/dad jokes.
2,146 followers 314 following 1,442 posts
view profile on Bluesky
Except I endorsed Zohran because unlike him, I let the voters make the decision in the primaries and then back that candidate. We have a non-partisan election but I backed Johnson in the runoff over a quasi-GOP opponent. Trust me, he won't be reelected. Bye now!
How is the DNC staying neutral in the primaries "holding onto privilege"? Sounds like you don't trust the votes and feel the need to muck it up.
That's what primaries are for. I guess you thought it was cool when the DNC played favorites in 2016 too.
He unapologetically broke the DNC's rule about primaries (and the basic fairness that the DNC should stay neutral in primaries). If he was planning on such backstabbing, he shouldn't have run in the first place.
The answer could have been "A 1970's "pet rock" they bought off of eBay" and it have been an improvement.
Romans 1:22.
Romans 1:22.
The second tweet apologizes- I think if we’re commanded to forgive (if, of course, you accept that, but most faiths do - Jews, or example, forgive on Yom Kippur) we have to take it at face value.
Or: tell Trump to fck off and don’t watch anything on ESPN/ABC/Disney.
Matthew 6:14.
Moderna doesn't do anything Pfizer doesn't. Reverse not true. www.modernatx.com/en-US/products
I find that strangely reassuring, in a "faith in the goodness of humanity" sense.
At least until we see what happens with the midterms.
(I don't have two minutes worth of thoughts about it, just love it)
Crazy the amount of MAGA influencers who are going hard against Thomas Massie right now. All the same talking point.
👇
Sure S. Want to show us a star apology where they explicitly says "I take it back" and don't say "I didn't mean it" or "I was misunderstood"? Even funnier: you write "she didn't retract what she said" - which means her "I'll do what's best for me" comment proves my original point! 😂
Riiiiight - that's why she apologized, bc nobody could possibly think that's what she meant. Everybody thought it! Today's ESPN story says the coach also had words with her. The original article includes "I have to do what's best for me." I get you're a fan, but it's just not what leaders say.
For their record & performance. Leader's own: they take the blame, claim they didn't play up to their potential, promise to be better, etc. Not "my teammates aren't talented enough, the front office better get me help or I'm outta here." Did you see that she apologized to teammates yesterday?
Alas, at this level of non-vaccinations, heard immunity is destroyed and the effect will hit the blue states.
Empowering this child-killer (unless you had a problem with heard immunity) and Phil "Iceman/Supplement Husker" McGraw.
Because it's a team sport that she accepts the "leader" mantle.
Utterly predictable (and for the record I was a fan of hers until the game she cheered that blindside of Clark). She's not the reason the team is so awful (Cardoso is more complicated) but right now all I want to hear from her is apologies for the team as a whole, not planting seeds for exit demand.
. THIS is one of the biggest problems of our time . . . ⬇️ ⬇️ ⬇️ .
Is that just south of Addison? If so that Jewel is still there, but presuming the pic looks north, it's on the other side of the street. I think the pic is farther south but I'm not great at judging distances - I went with Diversey.
campaign to push what I think would be very popular: a targeted tax on the superwealthy to lower Medicare age to 62 and make part of the argument it will let more people retire early and open jobs (or blunt AI disruption).
Understanding that this is 20-20 hindsight, there was no grand theme unifying it - I would have tried to focus on the caretaking subsidies and new business seed money and argued how it would boost the economy from the middle vs. Trump's 1%er giveaways. Biden's inflation made it impossible for the
Thought the same thing - I think the large building in the background is at Irving Park Road - they built another one in the 1980s at Addison but I don't see it and the cars look mid-late 70s.
Circa Diversey and Broadway, 1978
Incomplete. But if you forced me to give an actual grade: B+ he seems to have evaluated other teams' minor league talent better than many experts who criticized his trades. Picked a good manager, and I liked that he didn't deal Robert just to deal him.
Says she was Jewish. "I think we've just demonstrated that your understanding of the event is not sufficient to make those, or any other, sort of interpretation. If you don't have basic facts right, your conclusion is faulty from the beginning."
Good Lord are you dense: that's the point: he conflated the two. To the extent he even knew about the event there, it wasn't for Israel but for the entire diplomatic community in DC. And by the way, you said the woman victim wasn't Jewish. Really? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Ca...
The Inartful Dodger strikes again!
Utter BS, that was the goal, as it was for the Kurds until they got a somewhat autonomous region and is why the Yazidis, B'haihs, and a half dozen other persecuted minorities need the same. In fact, Israel was even more secular at the time of its creation than it is now.
Yes, and you understand that the murderer killed them because they thought they were Jewish and/or anyone at a "JEWISH MUSEUM" was fair game, right?
Deal - let’s bet Hamas’ fate on whether you’re right.
It doesn’t and that’s the reason he dodged answering.
Three questions with short answers and you dodged them all, for obvious reasons. Shalom.
a homeland or at least autonomous area, or ask about the Kurds experience before and after they received one (i.e., after the first Iraq War), well, Bose's best headphones couldn't deliver such silence.
3/4 of the antizionists I engage with believe Israel at its inception was overwhelmingly Ashkenazi Jews. A larger percentage have never heard of Pan Arabism, dhimmis codes, etc. And when I present a list of persecuted minorities not "of the Book" and ask what will happen to them if they don't get
Were they murdered at the Israeli embassy? Were they murdered because they the murderer knew they worked at the Israeli embassy? What building were they murdered at again? Three questions, I know, but they're short.
Let’s make a bet BKM: a year’s worth of karma that I’ve spent years tutoring kids, including migrants, and genuinely meant what I said - you got the ovaries to even stand that much behind your guff?
And yet they prefer that to the alternative. Strange.
Wow, they must *really* think a Palestinian state would be a disaster. What do you think they know that you don't?
Tell it to the vast majority of Israeli Arabs supporting a two state solution - after you convince them, get back to us.
Have a nice day Eliza.
You don't teach phonics to kids? Child abuser.
So you agree with the entire point of my thread, but go to this much contortion to try smear me as tolerant of slavery - seek help.
How about we wish the fate of the far left (and feel free to throw in the fate of your immortal soul) on the truth of that contention? Have a great day!
I'm sure an Iraq War widower or an 8 year old daughter of migrants shipped to a South Sudan hellhole will appreciate your "Sorry, I had no choice - had to send a message" defense of why you stepped aside (as I presume you didn't vote for Harris or Gore based on this principle).
Of course, the hypothetical itself is inane - look how far it has to take Newsom's positions on trans rights to make something comparable to Vance/Trump. If the Newsom critics (and he's not even my first choice) were at all fair-minded, they wouldn't have to resort to such things.
They hypothetical presents a "support Stalin to defeat Hitler" scenario. The Democrat would hypothetically follow the rule of law, meaning they'd have to amend the Constitution. Vance/Trump wouldn't give a whit about the Constitution AND would prevent free elections to allow voters to reverse. ctd
That's a lie - I did not respond to that hypothetical, I replied to it saying the hypothetical would have to include additional terms to be analogous and then responded to that. Stop bearing false witness.
And I didn't respond to the hypothetical you claim I did, I responded to they hypothetical that made it minimally analogous to the thread.
Been to other parts of Detroit, but you probably got me there, if that's the cutoff for "Lincoln Park"-like existence :-)
Been there - east North Chicago comparable. Pittsburgh is a way underrated tourist destination btw.
Love you too!
How to say "I've never been to Waukegan/North Chicago/etc." without saying it.
No, the hypothetical says that 1) both candidates want to bring back slavery and 2) the other will make it impossible to undue it if successful. You're boasting that you would step aside for #2. By your ilk's logic we wouldn't have allied with Stalin, who enslaved people too.
Translated: "I lied about you at first, and even though you may have worked on interventions in genocides and other ethnic conflicts since 1994 (I didn't care enough to ask), all I care about is that you think Israel should exist in some form
the murder of Jews in D.C., and to the extent their national (I've only witnessed this locally), misc education policies ranging from opposition to phonics-based education to teacher certification policies so lax as to permit near mathematically illiterate teachers in elementary schools.
Their stance against humanitarian interventionism (the only genocide they give a fuck about is Gaza) and general isolationism, their anti-zionism (not anti-Israel but against the 1948 recognition, their deletion of the Mizrahi Jewish experience, etc.), the refusal to eject the faction that endorsed
Horsefeathers - in the context of the hypothetical, I'm voting for the only way to prevent slavery from coming back - take your deceptive "nuance" and incomplete retweet and shove it.
Did you bother to ask which DSA policies deeply offend me? Shame on you Patrick.
hypocritical to push the "many Dems won't vote for someone like Newsom" and not consider many Dems won't vote for a DSAer either. That's the dillema the UK Labor and Canada's pre-breakup Torries faced and their intra-party wars kept both out of power over a decade/two decades respectively.
That's the point of the thread: her vow to not vote for Newsom if he's the nominee. Your argument is for the primaries and if some DSA-type prevails I'll support them despite being deeply offended by some of their positions (though if you're talking about electability in the general, it'd be (ctd)
peak leftist: selectively quote a response from an insane hypothetical and cry "gotcha!" I'd do the coward quote-tweet move except I care more about my followers than showing you up.
goes after the 1% employers who provide the lure for illegal immigration (because that's their donor class) rather than the sympathetic migrants. And pushing for an amnesty that concedes far more border control (walls, e-verify with teeth) than the Go8 bill.
Those leftists aren't vocal for obvious reasons, but you could often tell they had mixed feelings from how they avoided the subject or used carefully chosen words. That doesn't mean that everyone on the left, center or not, shouldn't demand due process, no cruelty, and loudly note how MAGA never
She wrote a letter to Orin Hatch in the 1990s calling the effect "devastating" on African-American employment (and geezers like me have witnessed many jobs that were once cliche (often racist cliche) for young African-Americans become dominated by undocumented immigrants and subsequent generations).
be free elections in the future. Go blame them for nominating someone unelectable."?! Pathetic. To your immigration comment: I don't think it's just centrists who have issues. Go look at Bernie Sanders' pre-2007 writings on illegal immigration for example. Was Coretta Scott King a "centrist"?
cast protest write-in votes. An eight year old daughter of immigrant parents shipped to some hellhole South Sudan prison asks me "how could you let this happen?" And I'm going to respond "I'm sorry dear, but I had no choice - I had to send a message to the party. Even though now there may not
To your question: absolutely not: it's wrong for centrists to threaten to withhold their vote at this time in history for the same reasons. I'll give the same hyper-dramatic example I've put to others re: Newsom: Say the nominee was AOC, she loses the election bc polls show many centrist Dems (ctd)
"Why did you let this happen" - how do you think "I'm sorry child, I had no other choice - I had to send the Democrats a message. Even though now it's possible there won't be a democracy in the future." is going to sound to her?
Except she's not "making the argument," she's vowing this is what she'll do. I'll pose the same hypo I gave to someone else: Newsom is the nominee, your non-vote allows Vance (or Trump) to win, an 8 year old daughter of migrants sent to a hellhole in South Sudan asks you (ctd)
I've seen trans activists on the hellhole site do it, maybe for shorthand, but I welcome the correction.
a question for you. Say Newsom is the nominee and Vance/Trump wins the election. An eight year old child of parents who were sent to a prison in South Sudan asks you why you didn't vote for Newsom and allowed this to happen. You're really going to say "I'm sorry child, but I had no choice"?
You realize we're talking about the general election? If Newsom is the nominee, 1) it's inane to claim between Newsom and Vance (or Trump) there's "no difference" on trans issues, 2) Newsom preserves democracy so one day you can elect someone you approve of. Vance/Trump? Notsomuch. Now (ctd)
I'd suggest we wish Gavin Newsom's fate rest on the truth of that contention, but I'm not that big of a fan.
You're claiming Russia and England could have defeated the Axis singlehandedly? Just curious how delusional you are.
You wanted an answer other than "none"? Girl, so confusing.
We allied with Stalin to defeat Hitler - if folks like you had prevailed back we wouldn't be talking about elections OR minorities.
Because *this* loser is the subject of the OP!
None, which is why if it's Newsom v. Trump/Vance I'll try to save them all from the consequences of climate change.
It doesn't - that's not what the OP said.
The OP - this isn't about who to support in the primary. He's not my first choice either.
Who the heck said it was "okay" for them to stay at home?
He's not my first choice (I thought he did a lousy job in the debate he had on Hannity) but I think his chances aren't nearly as bad as you think.
I appreciate the local update, but both the OP and myself are in Illinois! Chicago also has a Lake County, Indiana in its metro area but ours is more fun :-)
So he's not worse and his opponent will destroy democracy and make it impossible to do better anytime soon, not to mention will immensely harm others, and you step aside for that outcome?
Kiss your mother with that potty mouth?
nobody wanting the border controlled had faith the Democrats would do it and it was easy for people to believe the bill was flawed or incomplete.
their cases were denied. The RW media were relentless in asking what possible reason could the Democrats have for allowing this to continue, and all the logical answers were terrible. Near the election, the Dems tried to defend themselves with the deal in Congress that Trump squashed, but by then
that all these people were lawfully here seeking asylum. Technically that may have been true, but everybody understood this was pretextual: they weren't fleeing religious or political persecution but violence and poverty, and hardly any would be showing up for hearings and voluntarily leaving when
Trump pushed the most in 2016. For literally months these voters (and the nativists ones who are motivated by the issue) saw people streaming across the border unchallenged, with Biden doing next to nothing to stop it. When the admin and its allies did address it, they would focus on the loophole
Eugenia of Cats 
