701–710 of 712 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Biden signed 162 executive orders. Is Trump somehow different here?
Is this just rage bait or a serious question? If it's the latter please explain how you see these two the same. The numbers don't match.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My entire line of commenting has been based in: Prove fraud. The post I originally replied to accused fraud. There is a legal definition of fraud - so prove it. Everything you're going on about has nothing to do with fraud, and is 100% irrelevant since its not about evidence of fraud. I mentioned morality of loopholes because to me your question looked like some sort of end-run around providing evidence of fraud. Tha…
> Prove the claimed fraud. This is a forum not a court of law. You're hung up on "fraud" and lost sight of the discussion. Sometimes "fraud" is, for the time being, billowing black smoke. There's a small chance it's a harmless smoke machine, not a fire. Some will cling to that hope, but many others will yell fire. The process with DOGE is unfolding, so hang tight! Surely you agree "efficiency" would be a good outcome…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"We're going to stand by for splashdown located in the Gulf of America," she said. >Ah, yes. The Gulf of America. >This is why we can't have nice things. That doesn't sound like an "excellent journalist". It sounds like a Redditor.
An excellent journalist recognizes that the President can't unilaterally rename internationally recognized bodies of water. What is the complaint? You don't like the style of rebuking this ridiculous behavior?
I'm curious if you were complaining when Barack Obama renamed Mt. McKinley.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Didn’t he very publicly offer to fund fixing world hunger then ignored it when an NGO came up with an actual plan?
He called them on some ridiculous claim that $10 billion could end world hunger. He said that if they could show him how, he'd donate the money. Spoiler alert, they could not show him how.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally I don't think that's good enough justification. Being stuck in space doesn't make any country look good, if anything, it makes them look bad for their errors. But the only people that can actually say this was bad or good are the astronauts themselves, only they know how much they love their work to turn the word "stranded" into something else positive.
> Being stuck in space doesn't make any country look good They were not stuck in space > But the only people that can actually say this was bad or good are the astronauts themselves Multiple people that actually ran this mission have said multiple times that they were not stuck, and explained all the reasons for the extension. And yet you keep ignoring everything except the narrative of "stuck" and "stranded".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He called them on some ridiculous claim that $10 billion could end world hunger. He said that if they could show him how, he'd donate the money. Spoiler alert, they could not show him how.
back in reality, no, they said "address world hunger", not "solve". I know we are in a post-truth phase of the decline, but please, try do do your part.
Check the errata at the bottom.
The drone footage is absolutely amazing (as compared to any other camera angle from the recovery boat where you would expect to have better quality but was actually awful). I had trouble, for a moment, believing that it was not CGIed. Is there any information about what drone/camera equipment was used?