The linkage is hard to ignore. RFK Jr. being in the race helps Trump. Trump's lead widens when it is not a two-man race. I hope RFK Jr. gets on more state ballots, particularly Virginia. It's close enough in Virginia that Trump could carry the state. If Mellon's financial support allows RFK Jr. to be on more state ballots, it is good news for Trump.
Can you clarify your concerns about Biden in this case then? He presumably made a statement you would agree with in condemning the ICC's decision. Is it that it's still not good enough because he revoked sanctions 2.5 years prior?
Could be is the key word. I've seen many polls that were conducted with and without RFK Jr. So far, none has favored Biden.
As I explained in my comments. It is part of Biden saying one thing publicly and doing another thing in action. For example, Biden has been opposing Israel in private since January, but he has stated publicly US support of Israel is ironclad. I made a post here just the other day that Biden has a history of dealing with Israel this way going back to 1982. See post 341. In this case with the ICC, again Biden publicly states an ironclad support that does not exist in his administration. Yakking about support for Israel isn't the same things as taking actions in support of Israel. Try this action. Threaten the ICC with sanctions if they don't cease with the arrest warrant for Netanyahu. I won't hold my breath. I know it is toothless for the ICC to do make the arrest warrants, but the maybe intended consequence is to ferment more antisemitism around the world.
He's apparently supporting both Trump and RFK, Jr. Reclusive heir is giving millions to help Trump and RFK, Jr. Although the complete article is behind a paywall the title says it all.
The world isn't black and white. There's a middle ground that exists between the extremes of thinking Netanyahu should be arrested and full, 100% unconditional support of Israel. For example, expecting Israel to try to avoid committing war crimes even if you don't believe their conduct to date has risen to that level.
Round about? Try directly violating the rules, for altering the post he's replying to. You should report the post (I have that nolie on ignore...).
RFK, Jr. pulls more votes from Trump than Biden. Go find yourself some RFK fans on the Internet and ask yourself if they sound like they ever planned to vote for Biden. Be honest.
checked the rules. it is not prohibited to misrepresent post content. attacking a fellow poster is, but, dang, that is sop here.
Sorry sport, since I did not publish nor provide the links, I am not obligated to comment on them. Perhaps take a break if this upsets you too badly. I find the majority of your links nearly worthless and unreliable thus I'll seldom comment on them. If you're calmer, reread my post to ascertain my comment was you were bashing Biden for both supporting Israel and not supporting Israel. BTW I'll also continue to cut your comments when they take the puerile form of an imaginary conversation your narrative invents for Biden. LOL
When a thread is created featuring or centered on subject matter contained in a link or a video, pertinent comments on the subject are required in the OP. This is not a requirement of subsequent posts. When quoting another's post it is not necessary to quote the entire content of that post if the person quoting an abridged quote has no comment to make on the deleted portion. Any portion of the quote pertinent to the reply / response must be included for the sake of clarity.
It is not permissible to change a quote inside the quoted box. It would not be an infraction to handle a 'correction' this way: Fixed it for ya. Boebert will lose her race.
You often post long treatises with multiple quotes from multiple sources. It's hardly dishonest for someone to want to talk about a specific issue or claim. A couple of days ago, you posted a paragraph than indicated you didn't like an HHS rule that prohibited medical services discriminating against LBGTQ people. I asked you why. You refused to answer, instead pointing a video of Republicans talking about gender surgery. If you want to be honest, you'd answer that question rather than simply avoiding it..
The reason I did is I wanted to discuss the overriding point of the post that you did not address. The Catholics charge wasn't about LGBTQ rights. It was about what the added phrasing would be used for as admitted to by Secretary Beccera in the video under questioning in congress. That charge is the administration will defund hospitals that do not offer gender changing surgeries for children. Simply answered, I do believe in the rights of people that are LGBTQ. However, as somebody pointed out to me in a post above, this is not a black and white world of right and wrong. I do not believe defunding hospitals that have a religious objection for not performing gender changing surgeries should be the law of the federal government. When these agencies write rules, they are making quasi laws that must be followed. The changed wording came without complaint from the LGBTQ community for their health care and was an unneeded and unjustified addition to the rules. Hope this better answers your question of do I support LGBTQ rights than providing a one-line response.
The only problem with this is coleg replied to my post and then deleted my comments from the box that clarified what I was saying. Just for clarity, are you saying that to change the thrust of the post after replying to the post is okay?
btw, my misunderstanding of this rule is why I chose to reply to your short post in that other thread, rather than the reeeally long one. If I'd known we could abridge a quote, I'd put an '...' after a couple of lines, so you could recognize the post without having the entire post reproduced (then having to scroll way down, to post my reply). fwiw.
EG1, a mod would need to receive and read a report on any post found objectionable or otherwise unsuitable. I would suggest that to you.
It's of benefit for people who respond to something specific, tangential, or unrelated to the remainder of the post. Most especially when what caught the attention is at the end of the post.
Double Dose of Biden Trouble Today: Biden administration to sell gas in bid to tame prices ahead of summer (axios.com) The White House is hoping to squeeze political mileage out of a mandated gasoline sale from a federal stockpile. Why it matters: Pump prices will rise on the political radar as Memorial Day launches summer driving season — and the election looms. Driving the news: The Energy Department on Tuesday said it will sell 42 million gallons from the Northeast Gasoline Supply Reserve. The sale this fiscal year, and closure of the reserve, are required under the bipartisan spending deal in March. In an admission that the Biden Administration intends to try to buy votes, they are releasing 42 million gallons of reserve gas to try to bring the price at the pump down during the summer driving period. Just me, I don't think that will do the job. This is clearly a move of desperation. Existing Home Sales Fall Amid Skyrocketing Prices and High Mortgage Rates (breitbart.com) The National Association of Realtors (NAR) reported on Wednesday that home sales fell by 1.9 percent in April, reaching an annualized rate of 4.14 million units. This figure, which represents the number of homes that would be sold over a year if the monthly sales pace remained consistent, fell short of Wall Street’s expectations. Analysts had predicted a slightly higher rate of 4.21 million units. Despite the slowdown in sales, the housing market witnessed a significant rise in prices. The median price for an existing home in April surged by 5.7 percent to $407,600, marking the highest price ever recorded for the month of April. Existing home sales have gone down below expectations, but mortgage rates have gone up after the Feds didn't and can't deliver on lower rates while home prices have simultaneously skyrocketed to the April highest price ever. Bidenflation: gas, groceries, high interest rates, and housing prices Oh My!
