But isn't Trump a Russian asset?

I'm not too knowledgeable of Buchanan's role specifically in the events leading up to the war, and I'm not asking this as some attempt to defend him, but so many times I've read something along the lines of "Buchanan consistently ranks at/near the bottom because of his failure to find a compromise to prevent the Civil War".

Was there really a compromise to be had in regard to slavery? What would that have been? Let some states peacefully secede because the whole country couldn't agree on slavery? Set up some legal guidelines/restrictions on slavery if they stay in the Union?

I can't see how anyone in office at that time, Buchanan or not, would've avoided a war without allowing slavery to continue. I'm sure there are Constitutional experts out there that could explain how secession could work when there are significant differences amongst major segments of the population. But the conversation is different when you're talking about inbred rednecks that are willing to die for their "right" to own other people.

So seriously, what compromise was this poor douche supposed to pull out of his ass?

So say we all.

Is this supposed to be some sort of revelation? She didn't get anywhere in the 2020 primary. No one has any genuine enthusiasm for her. It makes no sense that she was VP in the first place.

How is that the headline? Not that "the president's priorities are fucked", but that he used a naughty word in private when he was pissed?

If they ever get this perfected, the next step would be to deal with the inevitable "you actually have the wrong department. Please hold while I transfer you to some other asshole".

Not for me. After nearly 20 years in retail, I can safely say that at least half the people out there are dumbasses. I'm sure that they'd vote for one of their kind.

Of the many jokes I've heard over the years, I've forgotten most. This one, which I heard about 20 years ago, I've never forgotten, and it still hasn't gotten old.

Just like Connor Clapton.

This is pretty ridiculous. Every politician is full of shit to at least some degree, and our "reporters" are horribly biased and broken. If they really want to do something about it, they can discuss broadcasting standards or maybe consequences for deliberately deceptive journalism. No single group or issue should have its own standard.

I'm sure they'll do a very thorough job investigating themselves.

I can navigate Windows well enough for my job, but I'd never choose it for personal use. I'm no Linux expert, but I haven't yet been faced with a problem I couldn't solve.

He could be right, but it will come down to how the other Republican candidates handle it. If they get behind him and portray him as a martyr, there are certainly enough gullible (R) voters to deliver the election. We'll just need to see if the (D) turnout is strong enough to overcome that. On the other hand, if they unite against him, he'll lose the nomination, run independently, and split the (R) vote.

Option A is far more likely. We've seen over and over again that facts, legality, and consistency don't matter, but appointing judges does. A disgraced scumbag that appoints who he's told to appoint is infinitely more important than having "principles" without power.