I'd very much like to subscribe to your newsletter arguing how much of a thundercunt he is thoughEven I’d struggle with that one.
I'd very much like to subscribe to your newsletter arguing how much of a thundercunt he is thoughEven I’d struggle with that one.
That the person that is running for them is clinically insane?
Just a reminder that Dax is a member of Trump’s base.Multiplied by the fact that his voting base is even more insane.
Just a reminder that Dax is a member of Trump’s base.
In mean terms, I’m not sure that’s correct.Multiplied by the fact that his voting base is even more insane.
Most of us would.I am aware of that. If I'd told him what I truly thought of him I'd get a permanent ban.
In mean terms, I’m not sure that’s correct.
Well, I don't believe that to be true.That the person that is running for them is clinically insane?
This is untrue. Only true if the USC suggests lower courts decide on XYZ (as per this case in terms of defining "official acts") and/or a case is remanded.
LolMultiplied by the fact that his voting base is even more insane.
Well, I don't believe that to be true.That the person that is running for them is clinically insane?
Yes. But the point I'm making still stands. When the SC delivers an opinion, they often just consider what's in front of them. And no matter what decision they make it would inherently leave some questions unanswered. Answering those questions is often why claimants bring cases. Almost no one would bring a case on issues that a clear and decided already. Such cases would be dismissed by the lower courts.This is untrue. Only true if the USC suggests lower courts decide on XYZ (as per this case in terms of defining "official acts") and/or a case is remanded.
Well, I don't believe that to be true.
Lol