I am not missing anything. I just asked those who read the article how they fucked it up. I literally said i knew they fucked up. JFC. I didn’t think they did a good thing. I just think that getting people off the streets is a good thing so I wonder how they fucked up doing what I think is a good thing.
Step 1 round up homeless people Step 2 ship them off to federal "shelter" run by private prison owning donor Step 3 funnel money to said donor
“fewer illegal immigrants” because we want to make easier paths to citizenship =/= “fewer illegal immigrants” because they’re brown
Me saying “I think getting people off the streets is a good thing in general” is not me buying into their talking point. How did me saying I think “X” is a good thing so how did this administration fuck up “X” turn into me thinking something good about them? I literally said I knew they’d fuck it up I was just asking how they did. I was looking for an honest answer not “they are rounding up to gas them” one.
All I know is something needs to happen soon with the L.A homeless problem. Local govt. can't seem to get anything done, and every proposed shelter is voted down by the local population. Meanwhile there are tent cities infested with typhus and God knows what else. I'm sure a plan from Trump would turn out to not be the right one, but I'm not sure that some sort of federal intervention isn't needed at this point.
Its fucking terrible for the environment and there are earthquakes in Oklahoma & southern Kansas now they started fracking.
i can't draw you a map that points out all the bad things because they haven't even laid out a final plan yet. but they did criticize the state of california and liberals and pelosi and they have an extensive of buttfucking absolutely everything so that explains why there's little confidence this is more than 1) a political move 2) that will enrich their friends
Yes. The reporting is that they talked about getting him out when the story broke about about Russia attacking the election to help Trump but that the spy refused at that time. The reporting is that additionally Trump’s relationship with Putin and inability to maintain security led them to recommend removal again and that’s when he left. Re O’Donnell: it’s bad reporting. It isn’t false reporting. That’s a critical distinction that has to be made.
See this is the type of response I was originally looking for. Thanks. I was simply wondering if the article talked about a specific policy.
there’s no such thing as a trump administration “official policy” because these dumb motherfuckers are literally just winging it
They have to because Trump is just going to fuck them over on whatever policy they draft and tweet out some mindnumbing shit that forces the policy to be rewritten.
If Trump loses TX (with me moving there four months before the election), I am going to be permanently rock hard.
Like, imagine the size of balls you'd have to have (or how shitty of advisers you'd have to have) to take on Elizabeth Warren wrt who's more willing to stand up to corporate cronyism.
Ask them how they feel about former Exxon CEO and former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson suing to stop fracking near his property.
we elected a black guy once so i bet we're due for some good fortune again sometime in the next 30-40 years
here's a fun fact, my minority friend: white people get med about *everything* there's a reason why you guys invented cool stuff like peanut butter and we get credit for the "can i speak to the manager" haircut
Quick Google search says it was to stop the construction of a water tower and the noise/nuisance surrounding it. Need more than that.
I’m going to be disappointed If she wins the nomination and doesn’t cut this clip into one of her commercials.
clarification that I’m not starting an argument about Liz. In fact she’s probably my favorite of the 5