All_Pro_Bills

The alternative is potential for voter fraud and I'd suggest that either side is more than willing to look the other way if it means victory. That leaves a need for some agreement that meets the requirements for voter authentication and guaranteeing every citizen's right to cast a ballot while removing the biases inherent in the political process. But given the current polarized environment that is proving difficult absent some extreme prodding from citizen groups interested in the process of fairness and democratic principals. Sadly, reading my own words leaves me feeling like a delusional idealist longing for reasonable thinking given the current climate.

Only if you consider some form of voter identification which is consistent with identity verification methods used in every day personal transactions to be difficult. Yet a majority of Americans polled representing Democrats, Republicans, and Independents believe this is reasonable yet resistance among a loud minority of leaders and citizens block efforts. Because its.... (wait for it...) Racist! The excuse of the times we live in for everything that can't be defended by logic and reason.

"Virtue signalling" is something the left has perfected. Wearing a $35K dress to protest against wealth. Flying a private jet to a climate change conference to demand a halt to fossil fuel usage, accuse others of dangerous speech while threatening them unless they stop, censoring ideas as disinformation while spreading disinformation.

It will all depend on the actual indictment which we should see today. What I struggle with is identifying the victim of this felony? Its not campaign donors who had their donations funneled to a payment to Daniels. If it was a campaign funding violation the Feds would have jumped all over it. And they didn't. Its not Daniels. Its not the State of New York. The wording I've heard is "falsifying business records". But what does that mean? It wasn't falsifying a tax return or regulatory filing or any legal filing. The first argument we'll hear from Trump's legal team is the charges are baseless and not a violation of any explicit existing law or regulation. In short, an imaginary law created by the prosecutors to charge an imaginary crime. Something like intentionally mis-classifying a payment on business records with the intent of hiding the payment to enhance the chances of winning an election. We'll see how that goes.

SAUDI ARABIA TO CUT OIL OUTPUT BY 500,000 BARRELS/DAY FROM MAY KUWAIT TO CUT OIL PRODUCTION BY 128,000 BARRELS/DAY UAE TO REDUCE OIL PRODUCTION BY 144,000 BARRELS/DAY FROM MAY KAZAKHSTAN TO CUT 78K B/D TO OPEC+ OUTPUT CUT IRAQ TO CUT 211,000 B/D OF OIL OUTPUT FROM MAY ALGERIA TO CUT 48K B/D OF OIL OUTPUT FROM MAY TO END 2023 OMAN TO CONTRIBUTE 40K B/D TO OPEC+ PRODUCTION CUT

I'm wondering when we'll hear about the arrest of the person that leaked the indictment information to The Times. Its a class E felony by NYS law punishable by imprisonment. I'm certain the DA will pursue this leaker as everybody keeps repeating and telling us that "nobody is above the law". Ha, ha.

Bragg's thing is a stated belief in what he calls "criminalizing poverty" but such an approach ignores the rights and harm done to the victim of crimes. For an intelligent man this is incredibly stupid.

We all know that anyone from any place on the social and political spectrum blowing the whistle on the establishment gets fired and the crooks ride off free and clear. You're blind to that because you see every issue and event through the eyes of the government.

It's not about me. And you're missing the point entirely. There's a subjective application of the law based on your status. If you think you'd be treated equally by the system, as say Hillary Clinton, you're a fool.

The problem is your lack of objectivity and awareness of the realities of how "the system" operates. I could cite other people that have crossed the line but time after time ride off into the sunset free and clear. While nobody is above the law there are certainly people that operate outside of the law. The problem isn't Trump's penchant for breaking the law or the people that support him. The problem is you're either a member of the establishment protected political class or you're an outsider. I'm going to make an assumption that nobody posting here is part of that protected class. You're not a member, I'm not a member, and Trump is not a member. If you're a member you can do things like Trump is accused of and not have to break a sweat worrying that anyone is going to come after you. Nobody will. As a non-member of the protected class you're either obedient to the system like lots of characters in the media, business, and social causes or you express discontent and disobedience to the power of the political class. That makes you an enemy of the state and open to potential consequences for expressing your displeasure with their activities and positions. Like it or not, agree or disagree, this is how it works.

Respect to woman? That's funny. The Democrats and their social justice crowd can't even define what a woman is and think men menstruate. I've asked, show me one biological man that bleeds from "his" privates every 28 days but nobody as of yet has found the guy. I'm not saying you buy into that insanity, but you got to admit it's crazy and delusional thinking. How can you trust the judgment of people running things if they believe crap like that?

Well if you choose to ignore the obvious that's your business. But targeting a specific individual and morphing a federal misdemeanor offense, which the DOJ decides has no merit, into some vague felony charge the State of NY most likely has no legal standing to prosecute sounds a bit fishy. Of course we'll have to wait to hear the specific on the charges. Or just last week, the IRS showing up at the door of an investigative reporter during his testimony to Congress on the weaponization of government and social media resources to suppress opposition voices sounds a bit of a coincidence. Don't they typically send a litter first Is Lois Lerner's Obama enemies task force back in business? Today Nancy Pelosi showing a complete lack of respect for how the justice system works and the rights of the accused said it best, "Donald Trump Has A 'Right To Prove His Innocence". So apparently a senior member of the Democratic leadership in Congress believes we are no longer operating under the Constitutional protections of innocent until proven guilty where the State is required to prove guilt and not the accused who must prove their innocence? Sure sounds like that's the thinking.

Or consider officials that weaponize the justice system against their political opposition as enemies of the people and a threat to democracy? How difficult is that?

What's worse? Useful idiots brainwashed into denying Hillary exposed confidential and secret documents to our enemies or believing a 7 year fantasy that the opposition is conspiring with a foreign power?

I see it like this. We don't know the exact charges until they are unsealed. But the libs declaring victory now is like kicking a field goal on the first drive of the game and counting the game as a win. There's a lot of time left on the clock. My gut says everybody including Bragg knows these charges are on shaky legal ground, transforming a Federal misdemeanor charge to a felony State charge, statute of limitations issues, the legal standing of the State to pursue Federal charges, the integrity of the witness, and on and on. But none of that matters. The Democrats aren't stupid, they know all this too. They know the charges are flimsy and will most certainly be dismissed at some court level. But not in Manhattan district court where they can pick a friendly judge who can deny most of the defenses motions, and an almost all Democratic jury. They find Trump guilty, the case is appealed and overturned at the next level. But they get their conviction in the lower court and will use that conviction as proof of guilt, even though the defendant was ultimately acquitted. Ultimately they don't care if he's guilty or not. What they want is the voters to think he's guilty. That's how I see it playing out.

Before worrying about that, you should be asking your Congressional representatives what our government is doing with combat troops in places like Syria, Iraq, Somalia, and 600 other military bases around the planet?

Instead champion a policy of meddling in everybody else's business, everywhere, all the time? So no to isolationism but yes to imperialism?

What's interesting is how few people understand that having a healthy respect for your adversaries is a fundamental characteristic of productive leadership. And displaying a constant high level of hostility and contempt for others is not a recipe for successful engagement. Be it in business, politics, or personal life. If you're going to engage in dialogue or negotiations, or conflict that approach is needed to succeed. That's what Trump is saying in his less than eloquent speaking style. This is neither aiding or abetting any enemy. Its an effective approach to problem resolution and communicating your objectives and demands. Otherwise, you're left with one option, conflict. Now if you approach every relationship thinking the U.S. has some until the end of time "right" to take a my-way-or-the-highway stance with every engagement of some other party be it an ally or an enemy you'll see no need to approach problems in this manner. Its take it or leave it for everyone.

People that directly or indirectly support an ideology and political view that accepts the concept that a man can be a woman simply by believing they're a woman demanding and accepting only "fact" based arguments. No self-awareness.

Its well thought out reasoning supported by the conclusion that a policy which was in effect would continue. What's your argument? That regardless of who won Putin would have attacked? How is that any better?

I've got to laugh at the "evidence" ploy. But I'm not making anything up. For the unfamiliar its called reasoning and my reasoning is Trump would have continued the administration's policy and Biden's would not have been implemented. That seems like a reasonable conclusion. But put your money on the Washington establishment. But be warned, its a losing bet. They've bungled every foreign adventure for the past 25 years and there's no reason to expect anything different. They're well on their way to screwing this up too.

Biden's administration, thru re-inserting neocon Nuland and stepped up arms deliveries, encouraged Ukrainian paramilitary groups to step up attacks on ethnic Russian separatists in the east which began in 2014 and dismissed any diplomatic efforts and conversations between the parties. Escalation followed escalation and events unfolded to where they sit today. Trump's Department of State would have done neither. Now China is stepping into the vacuum and along with new partner France have begun engagement with Ukraine and Russia to broker a peace deal, absent Washington which of course is against any peace deal.

I don't know why they lied. Perhaps poor judgment? But the only charge was lying to investigators and if they told "the truth" there would have been no charges for anything. So the lesson is that if FBI or some other law enforcement agency asked you questions either tell the truth or decline to answer their questions without the presence of your attorney. That's a moot point. Because if Trump was President the Russians wouldn't have invaded.

The truth is Trump pardoned Stone. So what's you're point? I don't think Putin tried to get Trump elected. What would he want to do that for? To keep Biden's administration from destroying America and our standing in the world community? Great plan.

4 cases of lying to investigators, Manafort's tax evasion charges prior to joining the campaign. A Dutch lawyer? That's a stretch. And Stone meeting with a Russian person? That's not a crime. But this same Russian person, met with Glen Simpson at FusionGPS. The guy Hillary used as a conduit to funnel payments to Steele for the bogus dossier. Does that seem the least bit suspicious to you? What could they have possibly discussed? Should we scrutinize all of Mr. Simpson's contacts too? So how many millions votes and which States did this alleged interference change? Reality is a lot of people have been bullshitted into believing this story for 7 years and there's no turning back for them.