scoobdog

The arbiter was fairly clear. They're not going to be able to arbitrarily apply a full year suspension even if that's what the public wants and Watson deserves. I don't see anything that would change the judgement since they can't introduce new evidence to suggest that what Watson was doing qualifies as violent (WTF?!!).

LOLJK. It's really just delaying the inevitable. The NFL was originally calling for a year-long suspension but it got reduced to 6 because the NFL has such a shitty domestic abuse policy. The rationale from the arbiter might sound like bullshit, but she was essentially telling the NFL they didn't have the ability to make such a long suspension based on their own policy.

Seems a bit tepid considering he was going to nominate pro-life judges.

Hold your horses.... It ain't over yet.

Eh.... China has been saber rattling for so long, this hardly does much to change anything other than give China another opportunity to draw a line in the sand that everyone is going to ignore. China isn't going to war now with the Ukrainian conflict ongoing and too man opportunities to fill in the void left by Russia in Europe, and they're not giving up on Taiwan anytime soon either. At best, it's the Democrats thumbing their nose at China at a time when doing so is thoroughly unnecessary. It isn't going to destabilize anything, but that only highlights how pointless it was. One could even argue China came out ahead by putting a spotlight on how pointless the trip is for US and Taiwanese relations.

Bit... harsh, but, yeah, there is absolutely no strategic reason for her to be there other than to thumb our nose at China or, possibly, hold off anything China has planned for a few days. It's performative politics at its worst, and it leads one to suspect that she's drawing attention away from something else by doing it.

The vibe has definitely started to change.

Now is a good time to be a regular again.

That center is going to end up killing a pregnant woman sooner rather than later.

Good!

They haven't said. Usually, repounds happen when the immune system is compromised or suppressed enough to make it less capable to clear the virus before the antiviral is complete.

Shut the fuck up. You’re just spreading anti-vax lies.

Catchy:

Supposedly, rebounds are common with Paxlovid treatment.

Democrats were not under the illusion that Biden was anything other than not Trump. You might be misattributing what we’re doing as a us calling it a mandate, but that’s hardly the case. Climate, voting rights and child care can hardly be called wildly progressive considering the overwhelming need. They’re causes that most progressives can agree are really important and frankly don’t need mandates.

That’s true. A lot of the disarray you see from progressives is a result of the GOP self immolating and purging is own moderates creating both an even larger progressive tent and a sense of urgency that a loose coalition can’t realistically meet.

Not to interject, but part of it is about making administering this place less onerous before worrying about who is doing what. Just having someone else try to do what Pat has been doing by himself up to this point is just going to end poorly. It makes more sense to give stakeholders more of a say over their stakes then continue to have one person take all the responsibility for keeping everyone happy.

I'm only quoting this because it's a perfect example of why conservatives are so easily conned by a charlatan like Trump. @Master-Debater131- This "meme" naturally explains the problem with comparing a conservative coalition with a progressive one. When your basic model is maintaining the status quoa, your ideology doesn't change much as time progresses. You might tailor the message to meet the current climate or you might attempt to soften some instances of blatant exclusion (bigotry, racism, or xenophobia) to better reach minority voters. In general, though, you're still just selling people on the fact that things are fine just as they are and how they've always been. When you attempt to put various social movements together under one progressive banner, however, you get a mirage as to where the extreme elements of your coalition may or may not be. The sensation of progressives becoming more and more extreme is less about these elements suddenly appearing as the meme above might suggest and more about suddenly trying to compare progressive movements against each other. Make no mistake, the year 2012 brought with it some key social movements that continued to gain momentum during the misrule of Trump. Movements like "Black Lives Matter" were always in existence, but the uptick in police violence made the issue tangibly real and made racism a lightening rod for some progressive voters. Similarly, the recovery from the 2008 crash opened up fissures between the companies that benefitted from an accommodating Fed and workers with wages that increasingly fail to provide sustenance. These are just examples, of course: how much influence (if any at all) each of these or any other progressive movement has is subject to debate. The point is that the progressive rallying around each of these movement can seem incompatible to centrists of even each other. @NewBluntsworth being the clown he is, illustrates this, and it highlights how there is no real "extreme" left that relates to centerists.

It hasn't changed. Demographics are mostly irrelevant here. By being conservative, the GOP really has only one effective ideology, that being maintaining the status quoa with the minimum cost. That's not a knock, it's a general feature of any conservative party in any system and it's particularly effective in an Electoral College system that allows for fewer supporters to maintain power. Progressivism is by its vary nature a much more loose coalition, with each group rallying around its own unique ideology and the broader party being a coalition of those members working together to help each out. It's about a bunch of people with fundamental disagreements working together to get their own agendas the into play. To put in a far more simpler terms, for Republicans the combined action and the goal are one in the same, for Democrats the combined action is a means to separate goals. Also, that makes the one pitfall to a narrow coalition being that if that smaller cohort begins to purge moderates instead of outliers, which is what Trump is trying to do now. By allowing a celebrity with no real political acumen control of a powerful and fairly stable political entity, they've committed the one fatal mistake they can create when it comes to maintaining power.

Oh really? What are you hoping Nancy finds out?

He does now. I would imagine the agent probably thought it was a completely unenforceable part of the contract and let it in as a sign of goodwill as the Cardinals were about to give Murray a huge payday. Those are the kinds of things that end up in contracts all the time but never see the light of day for this reason. If the agent had come out right away and called the release a lie or a mischaracterization, a lot of the damage could have been mitigated. But, the bigger issue is that someone in the Arizona's front office allowed this out. They're giving the guy this much money only to sabotage him right out of the gate? Not only that, but they're damaging his value across the league meaning he's going to be difficult to trade if (or when) things don't work out in a year or so. Word is it's the owner himself leaked it.

He's what we need more of across the country.

Well, they nominated awful candidates because they're in even more disarray than the Democrats. When you allow a know usurper to have the kind of influence he has on your party, you set yourself up for this exact problem.

He only got pissed when everyone else correctly pointed out how much shit he's going to get even if he does great. The Cardinals really fucked him over, and his agent didn't do anything to stop it.

Happy Birthday, dude.