The economy is a loser in part because it’s not great right now, but also in part because Dems really don’t have any real policy solutions for it they are even willing to put forward. Spain, I believe, just announced a 2% one time wealth tax to provide revenue to help people struggling with inflation. Where are the…

He may or may not be right about that, but I guess the question is, what are Democrats, the party currently in control of both houses of Congress and the White House, supposed to say about the state of the economy right now that won’t hurt them?

it’s supposedly the “big tent party” but doesn’t have a place for a hateful bigoted moron smdh

There is a lot of evidence that cancel culture hysteria is bullshit, and Bill Murray getting to act like an asshole on the set of an Aziz Ansari movie while a powerful company steps in and tries to help make it all go away is yet more.

“Tantrums and star fits” is an interesting way to describe grabbing and kissing someone, without their consent, as a joke.

Maybe he’s basing it on the multiple people who have worked with Murray who have described him as a boundary-ignoring asshole?  Maybe a person who is very nice and charming in some situations can also be an asshole in other situations, and the former doesn’t cancel out the latter?

It’s not a surprise that this is an issue Mr. Integrity doesn’t quite fully grasp (https://www.prochoiceamerica.org/2017/04/20/naral-statement-dnc-chair-perez-senator-sanders-embracing-anti-choice-candidate-nebraska-today/).

I keep forgetting how misogynists bow down in the face of powerful women. I guess I’m just not sure that’s how misogyny works, that misogynists see a woman with little power and are willing to pile on, but will see a powerful woman and that misogynistic instinct will be suppressed?  

Don’t worry, in 6 months I’m sure you’ll be taking Pitt’s side. 

No she didn’t. 

So your logic is that misogynists who were willing to go full bore after a less powerful woman, will hold their fire when confronted with a more powerful women?  Gotta admit, I don’t necessarily buy that. 

Can you cite an article from the time it happened? In any event, that case was dismissed very quickly.

The incident at the airport was not, as far as I can tell, reported on until Heard made her abuse allegations against Depp, so I don’t think that went into her pre-existing reputation.  I’d have to wonder whether a woman in her 20s/early-30s being reported to be doing drugs with her husband/boyfriend is really a…

I guess here’s where I’m getting lost. Amber Heard was a relative nobody, i.e. relatively powerless, with basically no prior reputational baggage, married to a guy over 20 years her senior, with a history of violent behavior, drug and alcohol abuse, misogyny, and who was well past his prime in terms of being any sort…

Considering that Amber Heard did not really have any type of reputation for anything before she made any allegations against Depp, and now she’s a drugged up, lying slut who shits on beds and beats people, I guess I just don’t share the optimism that Jolie, who actually has a history of doing shit people think is not…

We could get infinitely granular comparing the situations to argue over how many points of similarity are needed before we declare them analogous for the purposes of any given discussion.

Remember, also, that Warnock is a literal PASTOR, and if he loses it will be because of people who claim to be “family values” voters.

Unhinged? How?

No she didn’t.  She has consistently denied doing that (and for the record, the British court that heard Depp’s defamation suit found that there was no evidence indicating she did, and also pointed out that Depp was frequently blackout drunk).

I’m not saying the media isn’t doing what the article says it’s doing—I’m saying Jolie is so much more powerful than Heard (both absolutely, and relative to her own ex/opponent,) and better situated and equipped to handle the situation than Heard, that the cases are not ultimately analogous.