Lmao, what context did they provide for the dolphin porn search? I mean, I know why I do it, I just wondered what reason they gave.

We can only really say for sure that he didn’t write about it in his book. But have we checked everything he ever wrote?

Dude, seeing the 3 other horsemen come down at the end of the first game had me so fucking hyped

I didn’t even know it was a story until I read about the retraction. Like, “What do you mean they retracted their story saying he didn’t tuck a couch…? Does that mean…?”

Regardless of who the president is, regardless of their time in politics, or their influence on foreign policy, the United States of America has shown again and again that it supports Israel in everything that it does. 40 years ago Joe Biden took a 40 year old idea and ran with it.

Pretty sure they do “livable” space, i.e. square footage meant for people, which normally means air conditioned.

I think the term is used here to indicate that Israel is a core part of America’s foreign policy, and regardless of who the president is, they have to deal with that legacy.

Why wouldn’t this have bipartisan support other than the sobbingly obvious ways that it prevents consolidation of power?

It’s not that they’re conservative, it’s that they’re making dumb fucking decisions.

I thought the intent was to keep the number at 9 while still having elections every 2 years. Doesn’t that come out to 18?

Fair point, it’s not a de facto legalization. However, I have to question the intent behind allowing for such varied interpretations of presidential immunity. Confining it to official or unofficial leaves an insane amount of wiggle room, when they could have decided to allow for real scrutiny within the context of an action and whose purposes it actually serves.

As it stands, a conversation between a president and election officials, regardless of context, is an official act. Presidents are allowed to talk to people in an official capacity, so regardless of what is said during those conversations, it’s completely fine? Why not provide any guidelines on what constitutes an official act? It’s just too broad for anything other than a “I’m sure people will just be cool” acceptance, which is exactly why we find ourselves in this situation to begin with.

(Edited to add what I’m told is called a “para-graph”)

Somehow the writers of that Wikipedia article managed to fit that information into the first sentence.

Doesn’t removing criminal liability basically make it legal?

Nothing so pedestrian as that! That suggests indiscriminate fire, so I prefer “accuracy by volume.”

Not recently, tell her to call me