This is the second time I’ve warned about something like this well in advance and been right. In 2018, Feinstein was at 85 running for a term until she was 91. Because of Cali’s election system, she was running against a progressive, young Latino Democrat in the General Election. It was the easiest way to get her out…

This episode had plenty of potential. I love seeing the slow rebuilding of galaxy under the New Republic, I love getting to see the lives and journeys of people in galaxy who aren’t religious space wizards or criminals. I like seeing new creatures and planets and the effects were great.

So in that case, can we also make all the original EU stuff not contradicted by the Disney stuff, (say Old Republic, Darth Bane, etc.) that level of canon instead of non-canon again?

So were you saying the same thing about Hillary Clinton working for Goldwater the segregationist’s campaign when she was 17? Were you saying the same about Elizabeth Warren, who voted for Ford after he had pardoned Nixon and when she 27 years old?

She seems to have a variety of connections that are just objectively awful.

How are these allegations any different than the Aziz Ansari ones this commentariat acted like was no big deal? You should be as mad about allegations about a “woke” comedian as against a Republican politician.

No problem. That you’re admitting your mistakes (on the Internet no less) is something I find admirable.

So we’re using anti-woman slurs in an article concerning someone not being sufficiently against anti-black slurs?

Exactly!

But that joke is really nonsensical because the Founders allowed for that amendment process originally. If you’re trying to make a joke, make a good one.

No, that was changed through the Amendment process. The whole argument of originalists is that this, not speculation of SCOTUS about a “living” document, is how you change the Constitution.

You’re really reaching here. Does the word “possible” not literally imply it could or could not happen?

Which is more than a lot of people (including liberals) would have done personally for black people.

So should we also believe the large portion of Black Americans who are hardcore about their religious beliefs are lying if they say it wouldn’t impact the way they do their jobs?

Ok, but by that standard, the Founders also didn’t see free speech as being able to accomplish information distribution to the extent or pace the Internet now can. And you could argue we’ve seen the negative (as well as positive I’d argue) side of that.

If the Founding Fathers had wanted SCOTUS to interpret it as “a living document”, they wouldn’t have created the Amendment process.

But... that is the exact argument of originalists. If you want to change things, go through the Amendment process. Don’t ask the Supreme Court to rule what they want the Constitution to say and not what it says. When it comes to black Civil Rights which Joy Reid brought up, that is what changed things.

You’re clearly lucky enough not to be on Twitter then, I imagine.

Thank you for your understanding. I apologize for biting your head off before.

You’re right that I can’t believe you as an Internet stranger, but given everything I’ve seen of Tim Kaine looking into him further than the idiot “Woke Dad” memes of 2016, I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s true.