Its almost impossible (especially with this administration) to sue the federal government and win. They have to agree to allow you to sue them before things can even get started.
Someone can spin up an instance and have votes federated to them anyway, so regardless of whether lemvotes exists or not, people can harvest your information.
the Anti-Defamation League found that from 2022 through 2024, all of the 61 political killings in the U.S. were committed by right-wing extremists. That changed on the first day of 2025, when a Texas man flying the flag of the Islamic State group killed 14 people by driving his truck through a crowded New Orleans street before being fatally shot by police.
Is this author claiming that the religious extremist group ISIS is a left-wing group?
Yep they know to only have the bare minimum sign on so that they can get these bills passed like they want, while still claiming they oppose this stuff as a party. Its just like how professional wrestlers know the outcome of the match beforehand and play their individual parts to give the crowd a good show.
It's about trying to achieve goals, and the importance of knowing when you've maximized the achievement possible without ruining your chances of achieving the goal by pressing further.
And in a scenario where the two outcomes are Trump or Hitler, Trump is the good achievement as that means millions of people don't get murdered and the country is better off thereby maximizing progress toward our goal.
Trump being less shitty than Hitler doesn't make Trump good.
It sounds like you're starting to understand the point. Newsom being less shitty than Trump doesn't make Newsom good either, yet here we are being told that he is despite their shared ideologies simply because he has a (D) next to his name instead of an (R). "Vote blue no matter who."
It doesn't mean "I can imagine something worse, therefore this terrible choice I do not want is now alright with me".
She'll probably get more perks just like the last time the DOJ met with her.
Previously they met and after she released a statement saying that Donald Trump wasn't a client of Epstein's. Shortly after, she was transferred to a "club fed" prison where she gets to roam freely, have yoga classes, etc. They're likely going to do something similar again.
Perhaps she will answer questions about Democrats and plead the 5th the rest of the time. Perhaps they'll even give her immunity for her "brave" testimony about how Bill and Hilary Clinton were the real ring leaders. I doubt any part of the process will be good for the country.
Trump is "good" because he's not as bad as Hitler was. Therefore, we should be glad to have him despite him not being "perfect." I'm not sure what's unclear about that.
Normally that saying is used in a context where someone is potentially getting some of what they actually want, because getting all of what they want is not feasible
In your example you seem to be using it like it means you get a choice of either a negative outcome or a worse negative outcome
These two statements mean the exact same thing.
Trump hasn't sent millions of Americans to the gas chamber (the "good"), and that's better than the alternative right? If you put any value in this expression then how could you possibly disagree with this?
As long as a worse possibility exists or can be imagined, this saying can be used to justify quite literally anything, which is why it's completely worthless outside of trying to make your opponent seem unreasonable in an argument regardless of the topic.
They attempted to impeach him twice. A third time, after he is out of office, wouldn't have really done anything beneficial. Without a conviction in the senate, he would still have been eligible to run in 2024, and his base would've been even more fired up. It would be seen as more liberal virtue signaling and another witch hunt.
They attempted to impeach him twice. A third time, after he is out of office, wouldn't have really done anything beneficial. Without a conviction in the senate, he would still have been eligible to run in 2024, and his base would've been even more fired up. It would be seen as more liberal virtue signaling and another witch hunt.
They attempted to impeach him twice. A third time, after he is out of office, wouldn't have really done anything beneficial. Without a conviction in the senate, he would still have been eligible to run in 2024, and his base would've been even more fired up. It would be seen as more liberal virtue signaling and another witch hunt.
Don't forget BlueAnon too. The people currently arguing with me in a separate post about how we shouldn't be complaining about all the inaction from Democrats because now's not the right time to act and they've totally got some 4D chess move planned for the future - COMING SOON®™
Its almost impossible (especially with this administration) to sue the federal government and win. They have to agree to allow you to sue them before things can even get started.