Welp, she's insane.

Now this one i think is made up

no one supports him
tax returns
he's incompetent!
russia collusion
evil mastermind
obstruction
see! he grabbed someone in the pelvis area! <-- election-deniers privileged lefties are here again
he's literally a national-socialist!

e: of course buzzfeed 2.0 and their descendant of slave owners anchor had this person on primetime. fits right in with their usual guestlist

This post was edited by excellence on Jun 25 2019 03:02am

and it's real easy to find when it's delivered daily with confirmation bias convenience by opportunists

tim pool and dave rubin for example

Nutpicking? Reminds me of cbt

https://www.businessinsider.com/stephanie-grisham-white-house-press-secretary-melania-trumps-spokesperson-2019-6

-Melania Trump's longtime spokesperson Stephanie Grisham will be the new White House press secretary-

I really don't care. Do u?

dunno who she is

I was campaigning for James Woods for entirely selfish reasons

In my experience, what David French struggles to understand is that extremists drive policy. Conversely, moderates wield far less power than their numbers would otherwise dictate.

At no point in pre-war Germany did the Nazi party achieve majority, and yet obviously they went on to dominate the state.

All that aside, I read through the study he's referencing, and I'm not that impressed. The questions are incredibly general. Asking Democrats "Are all police bad?", or Republicans "Should bad people be allowed easy access to guns?" will obviously elicit more moderate responses, which the study (produced by "More in Common") is obviously geared to generate. When we look at isolated events (e.g. reaction to Ferguson, versus Clinton's "tough on crime" initiatives in the 90s) we can see that the public perception on some of these issues have swung widely in either one direction or the other.