Atomhed t1_iyuhzjk wrote

>These 11 cases of missing children, aged 12 to 17, were considered some of the area’s most sensitive and difficult, and involved sex trafficking, abuse and exploitation, the release stated.

The headline and the content of the article seem to be in line.

Which specific articles about missing children have you generally found to be problematic?


Atomhed t1_iyuhubv wrote

>These 11 cases of missing children, aged 12 to 17, were considered some of the area’s most sensitive and difficult, and involved sex trafficking, abuse and exploitation, the release stated.

It looks like the headline points at 11 saved kids, and the article goes on to corroborate that.

Who is implying all the kids were in dangerous situations?

And why do you need an article about 11 kids saved from abuse to go into details about kids are aren't in abusive situations?


Atomhed t1_ix9butt wrote

>in 40 years dems never had a filibuster proof majority? 😅 at least don't lie for them,

In the last 30 years Dems have had less than 6 months of filibuster proof majorities, there is literally proof of that.

>seriously this isn't a true argument in the least, the dems are just as corrupt and beholden to donors positions.

Bullshit, the existence of donors or capital in general doesn't make Dems the same thing as Republicans.

We can actually point to the things the GOP does as a party to serve it's donors favors, there is no evidence of Dems as a party serving favors to donors.

>Dems at this time flipped from industry first to nothing they still put profits and capital first over environment.

Can you point to a particular example?

Let's inspect it together.

>so no it's a much deeper issue then one side being a bunch of idiots and the other complacent to the idiocy, they are all corrupt.

Bullshit, this rhetoric was literally born in a billionaire funded right wing think tank, and it's designed to make you think there isn't any point in showing up to out-participate conservative voters.

Here's the thing, my friend, if you intend to vote for the best possible set of material conditions and consequences a given election can afford, then more often than not a Democrat is going to get you there.

It doesn't matter if they're perfect, it doesn't matter if they're leftists or progressives, what matters is that they provide functional governance for disabled minorities like myself.

I don't have the privilege to wait around for perfect candidates before I vote, I don't have the privilege to wait for coordinated attacks on communities conservative rhetoric targets the most before I embrace Democrats as an ally against evangelical conservatism.

The general existence of donors and capital doesn't make Democrats and evangelical conservatives the same thing.

Conservatives have literally spent the last 40 years bragging about breaking the government so the people can't receive results, and that's literally what Newt Gingrich said he wanted to do, prevent the people from seeing results.

And all you've got on Dems is that they have donors too?

What a crock of shit.


Atomhed t1_ix570x9 wrote

In the US things look this way because the GOP has ground Congress to a halt for the last 4 decades, so no durable progress can be built, and without a filibuster proof majority to pass durable legislation it's just a game of who is signing executive orders at a given time.

The solution is to elect politicians that are actually interested in running the government, rather than a bunch of conservatives who just want to break it.


Atomhed t1_ivdkhgo wrote

Fetterman has a speech issue, that's what happens with a stroke, people can still think and process things normally.

>The red wave will be so satisfying.

Lol, why?

So you can continue to watch the GOP refuse to allow the government to function and work for you?

So you can spend another congressional cycle wondering why your life doesn't improve?


Atomhed t1_isdofby wrote

>Like I said previously, regardless of what data I send you, you wouldn't look at it and/or just denounce it.

I don't know if you're projecting or what, but if you have corroborable data that illustrates climate science is a farce, let's see it.

>Rather than listening to a random guy on the internet, why not just speak with your local meteorologist?

Lol, why?

We have data available from primary sources.

>You could always speak with people that work in the trades like windmill technicians too.

And ask them what about climate science?

>As for the Russian thing, it’s not Russia you have to worry about. More than likely Ukraine will fast track joining NATO and cause WW3 which would just result in a nuclear holocaust.

Lol, if Russia fires off nukes because a sovereign nation signed a peace treaty with Europe, then that's Putin's fault.


Atomhed t1_isbntb6 wrote

Bro it isn't a farce, and you're not presenting any hard data.

The fact of the matter is that man made climate change has been measured and documented for well over a century at this point, it's happening, and it's going to destroy the world.

This is why no one gives a shit about Russian nukes anymore, the world is already being destroyed.