Why is this tweet "stupid"? It is an important distinction. At this point are we just looking for anything to post? I am sure she will end up saying really stupid things...... but the last few tweets posted on here really fail to qualify.
you realize Kavanaugh was quoting from an opinion? here's the background http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/10...on-fact-thinks-government-interest-providing/ fwiw Orrin Hatch's staff provided a screen capture from the actual dissent
which for the record makes AOC's tweet yet another example of, if not a "stupid" tweet, an ill-informed, "speak first and understand later" tweet. Good job AOC!!!
and just for the record, AOC's retweeting ANYTHING that Eugene Gu, MD (he of the Zina Bash white power/white supremacy A-OK hand signal conspiracy theory proliferation web) tweets, is probably not a good sign
By now he should know better than to quote someone else and expect to get away with it. These white supremacist judges will never get it.
No I didn't, all I saw was her tweet. If he didn't make that claim, in that context, then she is wrong to be attributing it to him.
And I'd say he needed to use more of the case quotation if quoting is what he was doing. Omitting "contraceptives" (the next word, apparently) made for either a carelessly unfortunate or disturbingly intentional gaff on a very sensitive and important issue for many. We can reasonably excuse those who think it was either a dog whistle or a Freudian edit. (I vote careless, myself, instead of conniving or telling; he often seemed a bit flummoxed.) None of it matters, in the end. The proven liar-under-oath will be confirmed and hopefully he can bring the better angels of his nature to bear on his long time on the SCOTUS. Anyway, agree that the dem. candidate's tweets, in the main, still can't touch the daily if not hourly stupidity level of other tweeters who've actually been elected to offices and positions of substantial power... But... whatever.
this "lying under oath" meme seems to be itself a kind of Democratic talking point. Even Vox has a hard time coming up with a defense of the thesis: https://www.vox.com/2018/9/7/17829320/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-hearing-perjury
I don't think it is a question of stupid or not stupid, just highly political and still sensitive. The 'abortion pill' objection to Plan B is that it can, in cases where the egg is fertilized, alter the uterine lining so that it cannot implant and thus naturally aborts. Even if that isn't the main driver of Plan B's effectiveness, it will be the cause of at least some of its avoided pregnancies. And in those cases, pregnancy is avoided after the egg is fertilized, so some pro-lifers would call that an abortion. It's really not about an understanding of how the body works, but how you want to define a life, when life begins, and what are the logical implications of those assertions. Referring to Plan B as an abortion-inducing drug signals to me that the speaker is deep in the pro-life camp, defining life as beginning in the instant of fertilization, and intending to defend that life starting at that moment. Insisting that Plan B is not an abortion-inducing drug because it doesn't destroy fertilized embryos likewise is a giant signboard for a committed pro-choicer who refuses to yield even the smallest ground to the pro-life argument. All I see here is the same-ole same-ole abortion debate I got tired of 20 years ago.
PR should have accepted statehood decades ago if they wanted to do nothing for themselves and have the federal government completely fix everything for them. Their local government set them up for this by squandering their funds for decades while their infrastructure crumbled. PR is a welfare state similar to what Ocasio Cortez says she wants, and that's the main reason why their economy is so terrible.
