He wasn’t trying to flatter her, he was trying to eat up her time in a way that would make her look like a bitch to people who watched the video if she called him on it.

You need to work on recognizing when someone is taking a parodic stance

She wouldn’t have been driving the car in the first place if it had been an automatic.

You’re right, we’d be better off if they had been Republicans so there had never been a majority in the first place and no healthcare bill at all.

Do you remember when Republican senators voted against the Republican healthcare plan?

They should have refused to court moderate Republicans so that the Republicans could pass their terrible healthcare bill and we could smugly gloat about how bad what they’re doing is for the country while knowing it’s not our fault.

Do you remember when Jim Jeffords gave Democrats control of the Senate?

Not necessarily. I mean, just throw out the bag.

I live in SF, where Trump got less than 10% of the vote and there’s still racism everywhere - and from people of all races. This is not just a matter of a small segment of society, nor is it just a problem with conservatives.

I’m trying to remember, who was that politician who changed their position on vouchers as soon as they realized Muslims were taking advantage of it, and outright said that was the reason? I think they were a state legislator.

At least with the loss of the mother. It sounds like losing the father might be for the best (though it’s horrible they were saddled with a man like this for a father in the first place).

Yeah, I was debating whether it would be too obvious to even post the quote.

Whether it’s a “choice” is irrelevant to this argument. You can’t generally set different rules for women and men just because it’s possible to follow them.

By the way the Seventh Circuit has disagreed with your position and I expect the Supreme Court will more likely than not take the same side when it gets to them (barring too many right wing appointments in the interim).

It doesn’t apply to both sexes. You have one rule that applies to one sex and a different rule that applies to the other sex. It’s like if you had a rule that women have to wear pink and men have to wear blue, or a rule prohibiting interracial marriages.

You just spelled out why the DOJ had taken the opposite position, but they are now reversing it on the right wing ground of “NUH UH YOU CAN’T MAKE ME LOGIC”.

The headline is slightly misleading. The DOJ has reversed its position under Obama and said that firing a man for sleeping with men isn’t discrimination based on sexual even if you don’t fire women who sleep with men. That position is pretty much impossible to support logically but they would presumably grant that it…

It has been argued, it’s the entire theory why the DOJ (before this about face) and also the Seventh Corcuit said federal law prohibits it.

They also challenged “Murkowski, Lisa” because her name was written as “Lisa Murkowski” on her registration, even though all the printed candidates were listed as “last name, first name”.

It still didn’t stop her write-ins from being challenged on the basis of being misspelled, including one instance where the voter wrote “LISA MURKOWSKI” with the L and I too close together, so they tried to argue it was a vote for “USA MURKOWSKI”.