In fairness, “fair”, “balanced” and “factual” are probably about equally true over there. If it’s true for their (recently, but now former) top slot...

...or an explanation of how and to what standards, “Fox News confirm[ed]” the false story.

Seven homeless men have come forward to say they were part of a group of men recruited at a Poughkeepsie homeless shelter to act as veterans that had been displaced from a Newburgh hotel in order for a non-profit organization to perpetrate a fraud on the public.

Your explainer on subsequent comments would be a lot more fitting if that was what happened, no?

I can understand flubbing “former” and “latter”, but the difference between a singular occurrence and three times?

In fairness, the article may have been “Hunting The Most Dangerous Game”

Oddly, I can’t help but wonder if this doesn’t perversely make it more likely she runs to (putatively) retain her seat, such that it’s harder to argue she wasn’t doing campaign stuff all along

In fairness, it does appear she got savaged (with words) by at least one Black man.

The quality of my link [1] is “a reporter made this assertion” so calibrate your level of belief and back-tracking accordingly. Sarcastro7 [2] alluded to contradictory sources, but hasn’t linked to any, yet. I’d love to see a more authoritative source, myself.

I’m not sure what you’re saying. I agree the Republicans wouldn’t have any direct influence on who replaced Feinstein in the Senate, but I linked to a piece stating they can absolutely filibuster an addition to the committee, even in the event of her death or retirement.

The list could easily be longer: For instance, the Hawleys and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. (I love the “must run in the family” double entendre.)

While I largely agree with your contention, I doubt that’s the reasoning behind her exclusion. I think it’s far more likely that the issues were around the parts where I’d tend to agree with her that it wasn’t inappropriate for the context in which they were made

Yes... So much fuckery from MTG there.

“There is only upside [...] by having someone on the team” I clearly have to concede the point that if we ignore the ways in which we wouldn’t get someone “on the team” (or other potential downsides) then there is nothing but upside.

No worries; the tangent was a bit of a leap and easy to miss. This is the bans on care map. (They have a bunch of interesting maps.)

I think it’s at least as likely they wheeled that prop stump in front of a photography studio backdrop

It’s also worth remembering the Clinton campaign wasn’t exactly ignoring the industrial Midwest or trying to lose.

‘someone [...] talk about how it’s “not so simple” to demand her immediate fucking resignation’ Wow. That person must be really ignorant! What could be simpler than simply demanding something?

“how Rs will respond has nothing to do with it.” I mean, if we’re discussing principles and ideals, sure. If we’re talking politics and the natural consequences of things we advocate, it ought to be a big part of the conversation.

“not sure what your point is” Perhaps you’d have an easier time if you weren’t so dismissive of my comments (in multiple meaning of the word)?