My headcanon is that she loathes Trump, was hoping he'd be indicted, and this is her attempt at reviving the newscycle now that Iran had had a ceasefire when she made her announcement.
aramis87
Oh course I believe him!
The only people I'm interested in voting for are those currently pushing back against the regime. Beyond a few tweets or comments, she hasn't even tried.
Oh please, it's not like you should expect any of them to math properly, they can barely read!
I mean, she met Trump through Epstein, she posed nude, and eventually worked for Trump's modeling "agency" (which, afaict, existed mostly so he could poach women from his beauty contests and move them around to where he wanted them). I'm not sure how much to believe her when she says she didn't have a relationship with Epstein.
And don't spend money on fancy prescription sunglasses - that gives you an extra pair of expensive glasses to lose. You can get over-glasses sunglasses for like $20 each. They fit over your regular glasses; provide more sunglare protection from the sides, overhead and even reflected upward; you'll still be wearing your regular glasses so you won't lose them; and they're cheap enough that you don't need to worry about scratching or losing them.
The people we should be looking to, at the Federal level, are Congress. But of course we all know how ineffectual they are. Feels like they might as well not even exist, sometimes. Though, there are some real structural reasons for their ineffectiveness:
I love the detailed reasoning you've given to your entire post, thank you. The one thing I would add to your reasoning here is gerrymandering, which protects districts and allows Members to become ever more extreme, leading to increasing gridlock.
It's also frustrating when someone takes something from the Opinion column and reacts as if it's an actual news article.
Name eight members of his Cabinet that you think would've voted to remove Trump.
Oh, sneaky!
Vance didn't have a majority of the Cabinet.
First Luigi, now this guy.