So, national emergencies can do some of that, but this one has more to do with financing of programs, and the legal basis for financial sanctions relating to fighting terrorism. It also allows for more flexible hiring of military officers and for there to be more generals than usual.

The actual things being changed by the emergency declaration is listed in the order.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13224

It's basically "we don't need to ask Congress when the Treasury department tells a bank they can't send money to specific overseas accounts".

Oh, it's totally freedom of speech. But freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to broadcast your speech on public property without exception.

If they hung the banner on their house or private property, there would be nothing to be done to stop them.
But you can't hang a banner from the governments property without their permission, which must be given in a manner impartial to the content on the banner beyond any compelling interests like "no hanging very distracting banners where it could cause accidents".

They didn't ask, so they can have their banner removed just as though they hung it from the flagpole in front of the courthouse.

They're being prosecuted because a racial component to a crime is an aggravating factor that makes it more appealing to prosecutors.
So their claim is entirely correct: they're being prosecuted because their crime was minor but made worse by being racist. We've already decided that it's reasonable for the government to be particularly harsh on racist crimes because it singles out a type of behavior that's particularly harmful to society.

Do you think that source contradicts what I said?

Mr. Miranda asked Ms. Wasserman Schultz whether they should call CNN to complain about a segment the network aired in which Mr. Sanders said he would oust the chairwoman if he were elected. “Do you all think it’s worth highlighting for CNN that her term ends the day after the inauguration, when a new D.N.C. Chair is elected anyway?” Mr. Miranda asked. Ms. Wasserman Schultz responded by dismissing the senator’s chances. “This is a silly story,” she wrote. “He isn’t going to be president.”

Shocking. She didn't speak kindly of a person who publicly attacked her, and opted to leave the story alone instead of doing anything.

Same information, but cast with additional context

Most of the shocking things mentioned in the emails were only mentioned, and are then dismissed.

Your mistaking opinions and preference bias, which all people have, for unfair bias. Do you actually expect that the people who run a political party don't have an opinion about politics?

The coin thing didn't happen.. At best she won six out of a dozen, which is what you would expect. The reality is more complicated.

You grossly mischaracterize the agreement.
From the article:

This does not include any communications related to primary debates – which will be exclusively controlled by the DNC.

Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC's obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process. All activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary. Further we understand you may enter into similar agreements with other candidates.

HFA will be granted complete and seamless access to all research work product and tools (not including any research or tracking the DNC may engage in relating to other Democratic candidates).

In other words, her campaign agreed to give the DNC money to prepare for the general election, and in exchange they got to look at those preparations.
This was definitely the Clinton campaign assuming she would be the candidate, but it's not exactly a smoking gun for financial impropriety regarding the primary.

Honestly, if your campaign can't find a lawyer or accountant who can understand campaign finance management, you probably actually shouldn't be in charge of a country. The financial arrangements weren't particularly obtuse or obfuscated for moving millions of dollars between multiple political entities in multiple states.

Oh, definitely. Not just possible, they weren't even looking for that. They were entirely looking for what the debate did to preferences and opinions directly about the candidates.

I mostly brought it out as an example of the headline not capturing the whole message of how it impacted voters. Or didn't impact, rather.

Like what? Did she get votes for him thrown out?

People have been saying for years that she had an advantage and so it wasn't fair, but those advantages seem to ignore that more people voted for her.

He was an independent running as a Democrat, and then claiming it's unfair when the Democratic party was more aligned with the person who had always been a Democrat.

George Washington eschewed political parties because he didn't want to establish a precedent where his choice as first president set the standard everyone else had to conform to, and there's a little irony in people holding him up as an example in that light more than 200 years later.

He, and the other founders largely, disliked political parties in their entirety, not just having some specific number of them.
They also built the system that enshrined the two party dichotomy as the only option, actively sought to ensure that the "right" people could override the will of the people if needed, and founded the parties they had previously argued against.
They are far from infallible bastions of correctness in this matter.

True. But they were going to have the same criticism of Biden regardless.

It's part of the reason I didn't even watch. Looking over the polling, the debate didn't really change anyone's opinions on anything to any significant degree.

See, you're talking partisan politics, I'm talking "you literally have to pick someone". We've had these candidates before. You already know which one you're going to vote for. You picked your side four years ago when you were asked the same question.

Beyond that though, there's "parties" and then theirs "sides". One side is xenophobic, homophobic and actively wishes harm on a lot of people. The other side doesn't, for all their flaws.
There are more parties than there are sides in the past few elections.

By saying you think you should vote for someone who will be good for everyone, you've picked a side. The side that doesn't want to do good for only the "right" people, or make sure only the "right" people get hurt.
The only question is if you'll vote for that side to win, or if you'll let idealism or anger drive you to vote otherwise.

... Picking a side is literally what an election is.

Does it really count as "lucid" if you enunciate your lies, fabrications, misrecollections about... everything?

I did two full loops once while I was learning to drive. I wasn't confident enough to merge over without a lot more room than the people around me were willing to part with, so I just stayed in the lane, took the next ramp and cycled through.
Then it happened again.

Fortunately it was my dad and not like, an instructor who could grade me or something.

It's like the map from an angle without a specific destination. Helpful for showing the surrounding map area.

If you've driven a car with a built in map display, it's basically that but for your phone.