Which is pretty genius if you ask me. It acted as click bait in the beginning (when the numbers were still 'reasonable'), and now it's still a little on the click bait side, but since it's become a meme and a counter, no one will blame him for it.

And you know both can co-exist at the same time, and both have a positive effect without one detracting from the other right ? No matter what individuals are doing, no solution will be reached without involving governments and such, which requires to mobilize A LOT of individuals, which Gretta helped doing.
Also one might say that regardless of the effectiveness, POTUS might avoid taking shots at a 16yo doing her best, but hey, vote for a narcissistic manchild, get a narcissistic manchild.

There must always be a Therapist King.

Also great advice for the single people out there.

Y'all do realize there's a pandemic going on, and the point of having a QR on the wall / table / wherever is so that you can get the menu without having a physical copy of the menu (which gets passed to customer after customer after customer).
It's not restaurants trying to be 'hip', it's restaurant using technology to find solution to sanitary problems during a health crisis...
Get off your 'customer is always right' high horse, they are doing what they can to survive tough times.

Either that, or kid just said "hey mom, sign off on this paper please, its for PE." and she signed it without reading.

Yeah, it ain't disrespectful if the person taking it is into it oO

I'm pretty sure the Venn diagramm of "people who are against abortions" and "people who are against trans" is pretty damn close to a circle.
So the people who would argue against trans people rights to have an abortion, are probably the people who would argue against trans' rights, and against abortion in the first place.
And the people who believe in trans' rights would be glad uterus transplant is an available for trans people, and since they believe in trans' rights, they believe they are women, and thus deserve the right to an abortion.

He isn't great, he has been quoted saying : "I don't like sand, it's coarse rough and irritating and it gets everywhere."

Was that officially announced ? Because even though that would be in the best interest of the debate, I'm doubtful it will happen because :
- the media wants a show
- Yelling over people has been one of trump's key "strategies", so no way his team would agree to rules where mic muting is on the table.

Jesus the lack of self-awareness required to defend Trump's behavior during that debate is GOBSMACKING.
The man literally was told "you don't know how not to interrupt", said "you'd be surprised" and then 5 seconds later was once again talking all over his opponent on his time, and yet some people think the one who doesn't have an argument is the one who tells the guy who keeps talking during his time to shut up, and not the dude who can't go a minute without interrupting / talking over his opponent.
.
Yes, the rules of the debate are as follows : when it's not your time to talk, shut up man.

Not gonna lie, this has to be the most unlinkely downvote I've seen so far. Like who downvotes this ?

Your point was no-one would talk about it if the situations were reversed, but PLENTY of people talked about it when the situations were reversed.
It's not even a hypothetical, it's something that literally happened.

It's hard to believe your "I'm not partisan" spiel when your main argument is "if the situation was reversed noone would care", but the situation WAS reversed 4 years ago, it WAS on the news BECAUSE republicans refused to follow precedent and proceed to a vote, and now refuse to follow the 'new' precedent they themselves established and THAT is the reason why it's now such a big deal.
So you call it how you see it, through R(ose) tinted glasses.
And if you think a Justice replacement that could literally change the conservation/progressive balance of the SCOTUS, during a time where the US is as divided as it is now would ever NOT make the news, you are quite out of touch with reality.

Yes, I'm well aware republicans are changing their tunes. And not confirming a Justice is not the same as not holding a vote to confirm (or not) that Justice.

[part 2]
So now, when Democrats argue that RBG should not be replaced until after the election, they aren't "flip flopping" or "being hypocrites", they are arguing for Republicans to be held to the same standard they were so happy to set back when it benefitted them.
And btw, you have republicans on record back in 2016 saying "if the situation were reversed and it was a Republican president I would absolutely support waiting for the election". But of course, a Republican's word carries very little value.
.
.
You can't play Uno, and when I play 'draw 2' against you say "house rules : I can counter a +2 with my own +2, which carries the total of +4 to the next player", then when 3 turns later you play +2 against me, be upset that I want to counter it with my own +2 because "you disagreed with the house rule when I explained it, you're being a hypocrite".
Whether I complained or not, if you enforced it as a valid rule back then, it's now a rule.
And that is what PRECEDENT is.

I love this argument because if you reach the conclusion 'both sides are hypocrites' it really showcases how little you've pushed the reflection. Have you asked yourself WHY were all the Democratic voices arguing that a Justice SHOULD be installed back then ?
Well because back then the precedent WAS to have a vote in this scenario. So democrats were arguing for consistency with the established precedent.
Republicans didn't want to follow precedent (presumably because it benefited Democrats), so they came up with the excuse that you shouldn't do that in an election year. Democrats said it was bullshit, but Republicans, once again ignoring existing rules and precedent, set up this new precedent that a Justice shouldn't be appointed in an election year.
[part1]

Well I mean any amount of consistency on behalf of republicans would be the reason.
When Obama had an open seat and wanted to appoint someone TEN months before the election, Republicans argued that doing so SO CLOSE to the election was unfair and the people deserved the right to chose. For that reason the Senate refused to HOLD A VOTE on it (please note that that is NOT the same thing as holding a vote and refusing to confirm the appointment, which would've fallen well within the Senate's authority).
By refusing to HOLD A VOTE (presumably to not have to go on record voting against a moderate and highly qualified judge) they established the precedent that a SCOTUS seat shouldn't be filled during the last year of the presidency, as that strips the people from the possibility to chose.
And now, TWO months before the election, republicans are out here pretending none of that ever happened, and once again proving that they live by the moto 'rules for thee, but not for me.'.

Who are you who are so wise in the ways of scaring kids ?

F

Does it tho ? It didn't for Breonna, if we don't push for something better it won't for many others.