Under no circumstance would the dems be running RFK if Biden wasn't in the picture. RFK has never been anybody within the party and Democratic voters don't like him that much, to say nothing of his discredited beliefs that are pulling more conservative voters to his campaign than liberal ones.
But we should look at why conservative voters are responding so well to him.
The anal fissure is what causes that pain. The lifts are merely just an inconvenience.
Because he didn't traffic children.
If you look at the charges of Greenberg and that essentially nobody once ever referred to Gaetz as a suspect but rather "subject of" or "involved in" it becomes pretty clear what happened.
Greenberg was running a blackmail ring, or at least managing it, Matt Gaetz was the target of it. He started getting suspicious and went to the FBI.
Check out the podcast Conspirituality, and their book from AK press.
The spirituality and wellness community has always been viewed as being of the left merely because counter cultures are always assumed to be leftist, and there certainly are leftists in the space, but these are communities largely built off anti-modernism and orientalism, with an unquestioned trust in unregulated capitalism.
It also doesn't hurt that Nazis are able to infiltrate these communities incredibly easily, because the Aryan creation myth developed by the Nazis was stolen from Helena Blavotsky, who pretty much developed Indo-European esoteria. Most forms of yoga practiced by white people are also descended from Bikram yoga, which was a Hindu nationalist cult.
The spirituality community is not itself fascist, but its overt apoliticalness is definitely a vector point for far right ideologies to be laundered for upper middle class white women.
The issue is these people are tied to Trump, not neccesarily the Republican party.
When Trump dies will the yoga community continue voting Republican? Doubtful.
Jesus, thats quite the interpretation and sort of proving his point.
Criticizing for profit media is seen by liberal voters as an attack on liberal democracy.
You're part of the issue here, and I gotta ask, why?
I was a huge fan of his. My understanding is that he was an out of the closet man essentially married and living with another man but it was just agreed by all parties that to sell books it wouldn't be discussed in the press.
I hope Google paid you for this response.
We get it, you are better than.the common man.
I suspect the short prison sentence is because he flipped on the people above him.
You can't feel guilty. You did everything you could and therapy is definitely a good idea.
Netflix is pretty much nothing now except foreign reality TV. Thank you for reminding me I need to cancel them and Hulu.
Peter theil wants Ramaswamy, he seems to be the front runner for the pick.
The issue is that there just often aren't non political churches to go to in many areas anymore.
In the seattle area, I think the only new church that has gotten built in the last 30 years has been prosperity gospel while the ones that serve the poor have been in the area for a hundred years or operate on weekends out of a high school gymnasium.
The story of Christianity on the west coast is one of land deeds.
Being married and getting paid opposite weeks, gpay is essentially the only google offering I am in no hurry to break free from.
Though it would be nice to see competition in the space.
Your argument is that they are both too rich to deserve forgiveness, but also only have themselves to blame for being too poor to pay back their loan.
I guess I would say that only a reactionary would argue the complete truth of both at once. Ironically, if the people in debt were the truly rich as you 50% claim to believe, they would have gotten their way, and you likely would have supported it.
It's odd to me, when a landlord takes out a loan to buy another property, hypothetical future income is not barring him from having those loans written off, and nothing in your history here that I can find suggests you believe landlords should be put into the same situation as student loan repayers.
If people with student loans were as rich as your claim, the fiscal policy would already be set up to benefit them, but the fact that your argument hinges on denying them the very benefits you allow rich people to have in our system I think pretty effectively shows you don't actually believe this, are merely just a reactionary.
What percentage of people with student loans actually can afford it though? If your argument is that all of us are too rich to get hand outs, what are you casing that off of?