Yeah but when you know what they're messaging on you can absolutely prepare for the worst ones like After Birth Abortion and Immigrants eating pets. Which were the two big fact checks.

Those were some of the best moments though! When the Linsey Davis (moderator) deadpan said, “There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born." I fell off my couch laughing at Trump. He didn't know what to do, he was like a fish out of water.

I guess the GOP made it a deal breaker for the VP debate.

This should be fun. Where uh... Where's the US policy on using human shields?

The "everybody does it" argument is complete bullshit, but I'd love to see your evidence that the US routinely and as a matter of standard procedure uses human shields.

This isn't a shower thought, it's half baked both sides propaganda. It only works if you include VP slots and completely ignore the fact that Obama/Biden was an outsider ticket.

A. We already have a term limit.

B. It was put in place to prevent another FDR, someone who was re-elected so much because he spent most of his political capital on actually helping Americans and then using the looming European and Pacific conflicts to build a middle class manufacturing economy. Which we promptly started selling for parts once the the rest of the world recovered enough to host our factories.

You could very easily argue that term limits were put in place to make sure no President could stay around long enough to prevent worker centric policies from being watered down or destroyed before they can have an impact.

But the British did it too is a woefully bad argument.

That was a lot easier of an argument to make before Biden started giving billions of dollars to a war criminal.

Yes. We're already starting to use it in some places!

Don't look up

Its winds are well below hurricane strength now. It's a post tropical cyclone for its spinning nature and it's prodigious rain.

This was also a lot more powerful than the Appalachian mountain and westward communities are used to getting. They aren't set up for it in the same way that communities East of them and on the coast are.

Tennessee and Kentucky are far more purple than conventional thought gives them credit for.

So Isrealis are terrorists? We have actual video of them using human shields.

Trump. Obama was the last one to hold them accountable for anything.

The problem with hacking and intelligence is they're vulnerable to hard power. In other words you can hack stuff but you're not going to hack your way out of Delta raiding your office. If Israel is using their hacking and intelligence to blackmail politicians then they're constantly one fuck away from "find out".

They don't fully control America though. Most of us didn't even realize the actual situation until this year. The Palestinians just got lumped in under terrorism and that was that. The new media exposure is turning that around. If you look at our response to apartheid in South Africa it's tracking pretty closely. The halls of power didn't want to care and the people forced them to care.

No. Not exactly. The Israelis have spent decades pushing Palestinians out. They aren't just moving in.

Oh no, they built more housing and improved the economy! The horror!

She did do a 5 month walk on it a few years earlier. So it's not like she disagrees with you, she just also wanted to get that record.

There are a couple things working in the defender's favor. The payload isn't nearly as heavy or large, so the rocket actually is quite a bit cheaper. This means putting multiples up for each ICBM isn't impossible. Also countermeasures deploy after re-entry. The SM-3 taking out a satellite was a big deal because it means it can hit stuff before re-entry and the protective covers come off. This also significantly cuts down on the number of intercepts required because Russian missiles actually carry a whole bunch of warheads and decoys.

So yeah it's still pretty hard to stop every warhead, but it's not the same situation as the 1980's where we'd be living in a post nuclear wasteland with every major city obliterated. Which is the point. We can go on as a country with a few craters. We cannot go on if we eat a thousand warheads.

To add really quick, it is a lot less missiles than people think. For example the Russians have 5,500 warheads. If all of them were slated for ICBMs then that would be around 500 missiles. Less because their smaller yields fit 15 per missile. And they aren't all slated for ICBMs either. Their current idea of ICBM defense is actually to send up short range nukes and nuke their own sky. They also have submarine and plane warheads which are dealt with by other missile defense systems. I don't want to make it sound like nukes are no big deal. I just don't want people thinking we're in the same situation we were 40 years ago. It would be a lot less devastating today.