Fulton County is part of Georgia. Kemp is the governor and oversees the AG who is elected to run state legal affairs. In Fulton County, Fani Willis was elected to run state legal affairs. It’s a government of Georgia relationship.
And Georgia is part of the US. But Fani Willis doesn’t answer to US AG Garland or president Biden any more than she does to GA AG Carr or Kemp. She works for Fulton County. She doesn’t run state legal affairs. She is a prosecutor for the county.
Correct, however she practices Georgia state law. Federal law is for the feds. State and local law is what Willis does. If she malfeasance the AG and governor can step in. That is exactly what the Georgia state legislators want. Kemp says no.
The court was already packed by right wing ratfucking. I still want to knkw what Trump said to Kennedy that made him stop dead in his tracks and resign shortly after. And the fucking Scalia rules for thee but not for me debacle. And all that to say nothing of Leo and the Federalist Society.
Maybe part of the problem is the media never calls out right wing court packing, but then screeches from the rooftops when Biden even thinks about rebalancing the court.
There’s a fascinating history for why there may have been significant differences throughout history but they seem to have far more to do with the state of the medical establishment and their willingness to marginalize certain people than anything else.
The RFK Jr. hype is baffling. I know there’s some clickbait value to headlines about a Kennedy saying shit you’d expect to hear from Alex Jones, but that’s already lost its novelty. Feels like this media attention is being driven and it sure as hell isn’t by grassroots support for this lunatic.
For a guy who is on the US House Armed Services Committee, he sure as hell understands surprisingly little about World War II and the Cold War. Russia has expansion interest since after World War II. In fact, that's how a lot of Soviet Russia was formed. The allies bombed the fuck out the nations, the nations were destitute, broken down countries are really easy to just sweep in and take over. The thing as we all know about that last part is that, it's easy to topple leadership in a country, it's mighty difficult to maintain your grasp on the nation cough Iraq cough.
NATO aims to combine a military strength to act as a deterrent towards expansion into member states, which is why a lot of Europe is in NATO. The only thing guiding NATO is the fourteen articles of the North Atlantic Treaty, outside of that, nations are free to govern themselves. This is in opposition to how Russia was going about adding Ukraine, Moldova, and so on to their collective group.
NATO in very loose terms is a different way of doing a USSR, if that helps Matt Gatez to understand "WHY" we can't just:
extend NATO to Russia and make it an anti-China alliance?
Russia isn't interested in upholding the means by which nations govern. It's like asking the San Francisco 49ers why they won't invite the Boston Red Soxs to come play a game. They aren't doing things that have enough similarities to not have a ton of friction on the collaborative and still call it "football" or "baseball" as we know it. We can totally invent something completely different, but per the definition of things being what they claim to be: Something completely different is in fact completely different than NATO currently be, and thus, we would just invent something different (oh say like a G and some number after it) that has less friction to facilitate interchange in that regard.
But even then when we try something different and invite Russia, they still just have to go edgelord and fuck their membership up. So we literally tried to take Chad to get ice cream at McDonald's as a way to see if they're ready to go to an actual sit down place, AND Chad just couldn't help but to take a shit in the ball pit. So since Chad still is shitting in ball pits, we cannot take Chad to the sit down place with the nice dessert. That's just how it be currently.
So hopefully that's dumbed down enough for even him to understand why we "just don't go and do that thing". If Russia cannot help itself to fuck it's membership up with the G8, they sure as shit aren't going to act proper in a setting like NATO. How is this a thing that eludes this guy?
Even if he understands, it doesn't suit his narrative. He is a far-right politician who says what his owners (domestic and otherwise) want to hear on the cameras. It's a coin toss whether he actually believes some of the things that he says, but largely inconsequential at the end of the day because he isn't going to argue in good faith even if someone miraculously trips over a genuine belief that he holds close to him.
newsweek.com
Top