All_Pro_Bills

Our national government is a republic and not a democracy. A union of States. The electoral college was created and designed with the intent of prohibiting a few large high population states from dictating national polices to the remainder of the States. This was a condition for the ratification of the Constitution along with two Senators per State and proportional representation in the House. This issue is no less true in 1789 than it is in 2021. Absent this we'd have a few large states, California, New York, and a few others dictating all Federal policy to the rest of the nation. What's so fair about that?

From a statistical perspective its a certainty there was some form of voter fraud. No system or process is 100% effective in eliminating "defects". Certainly not a mail in process that was thrown together rather quickly and not subject to much testing and validation. The question is how much of it was there. Sure there was no evidence of any "widespread" voter fraud and for all I know there wasn't but when you're not looking for something its hard to find it. If you want examples of voter fraud look no further than Mayor Daley's Cook County political machine of the 1960's. Many of the 2020 claims of fraud are consistent with the practices of the past which were also denied. Such as in many densely populated Democratic districts were vote counting was stopped for no practical reason. Why stop counting when the votes are right there to count? The allegation was to wait for the rest of the state to be counted so you know how many "fake" votes you need to win the State. Specific to Georgia there is a court case pending where the judge is deciding whether or not unseal the votes and allow investigators to "match" specific ballots to specific valid voters in specific counties. The concern is how to protect the identities of the voters. Given there was no funny business it seems logical nobody would object to this scrutiny as there is nothing to find and nothing to hide.

That might work but States have some leeway in how they handle elections so it might be at that level. But I am still not clear on what fact based and objective concerns people have against the requirement of people identifying themselves as "valid" voters? What is so difficult or such a big imposition of having to show some form of valid ID? What keep citizens, specifically objections about how it impacts minorities, from acquiring a valid voter registration ID? Many of us are "proofed" almost daily and I'd expect those same objections should apply to these other requirements but I hear no objections to those situations.

This all just didn't happen overnight. But it did take most people a long time to figure out we're screwed here already and its too late to reverse the course. So maybe the architects of the China "most favored nation" designation back 30+ years ago could explain to us all what they were thinking at the time? Did they not foresee any of this? Assisting a communist and dictatorial regime with favors. In the process businesses and whole industries were shipped off to China from all over the country resulting in a loss of jobs and communities in thousands of small towns and cities. But it did give us "every day low prices" for all the crap we consume that's made in China. Or failure to enforce IP laws and restrictions per international law and trade deals along with forced joint venture arrangements. Or sending trillions in funds to China by way of the US trade deficit. Or a general trend in US foreign relations favoring coercion, sanctions, and consequences for non-compliance with US direction vs. cooperation and mutual benefit. China was playing the "long game" while our leadership has been focused on diversity while sitting clueless as our country is strip mined of assets and productive capacity. To be certain, a world led by China will care not one bit abut diversity or what pronoun somebody wishes to be address by.

I expect at some point these "cancel culture" people are going to mess with the wrong person and they'll be found chopped up into about a hundred pieces stuffed in a big plastic garbage bag.

For gangs I suggest sensitivity training and assigning a social justice "coach" to each gang. Holding anger management sessions where they can discuss their feelings and maybe even hug each other and cry together.

I've got a question to both sides which is slightly off topic but still relevant to the gun control debate. If ownership of these weapons is made illegal should police, public and private security forces that protect rich people, officials, and politicians also be banned from owning and using them? After all, why would police and private security need to be militarized like SWAT teams similar to a Navy Seal team on a covert mission if nobody has these weapons on the streets? Why should they receive an exemption? Why should I as a private citizen be subject to living in an environment where domestic law enforcement and security are armed like the military? Like some occupation force. After all, they are people and they may be more than capable of shooting a lot of people for one reason or another. If expectations in the politicial sphere is the ban works then there is no reason for these organizations to be armed for urban warfare. If the answer is "no" because criminals being criminals don't follow the law and they will still have access to these weapons to do harm then there's not much benefit in passing any new law other than to pursue an objective of systematically disarming private citizens.

Most curious is not that the administration has invoked the "cone of silence" (for the younger among us A Get Smart analogy). They've screwed the pooch here and the President's suggestion that Trump is to blame is laughable. Why would they want to shine a light on their failure here? Its the fact the free and fair media is letting them get away with it. Contrast with the previous administration where the press filled the role of Spanish Inquisition interrogator in grilling the WH press secretary every day. They should be filing all kinds of legal briefs and challenges, going to court to get access, and making a big stink of the issue in their coverage.

Legislature in Georgia must have read your post as Governor signs election reform bill yesterday. Some of the key provisions. "It would require voters to provide a driver’s license or state-issued ID card number to request and submit absentee ballots, and it would curtail the use of ballot drop boxes, limiting their placement to early-voting locations and making them accessible only while the precinct is open. The legislation also gives the Georgia State Elections Board the ability to effectively take over county elections boards in areas that it determines are in need of oversight. The secretary of state would also be removed as chair of the State Elections Board, a proposal that critics say would strip the state’s top elections official of a key power. The bill also takes aim at the state’s absentee-ballot request period, setting the deadline for voters to request absentee ballots at 11 days before an election". Needless to say some people are not happy with this turn of events. I would expect some level of court challenges to follow.

No its not messed up. It is no big deal. All candidates are allowed and entitled to file briefs and challenges according to election law and procedures. What's messed up is you refuse to comprehend the concept of due process and application of the law. If there was something illegal, such as the claimed pressure on exerted on specific officials, then where are the charges? If they could nail Trump with anything in Democratic controlled States and jurisdictions I can guarantee they'd be falling all over themselves to get charges filed. But nothing to this point. What you are engaged in is believing uninformed speculation and hearsay generated by third party sources interpreting conversations to support their biases.

Your comment has absolutely nothing to do with the theme of my comment. Other than concluding you are trying to change the subject I don't have a response other than to suggest you are helping in proving the message I'm trying to get across about irrational thinking so I thank you. As far as trying to get votes thrown out wasn't all that done through proper and legal challenges as supported by laws and procedures governing the electoral process? I don't believe any of it was what could be called illegal. So your claim seems to be an example of lying through omission. Sure the campaign challenged some votes. But it was all legal. So they did nothing wrong. While you suggest they did.

This is an example of how the irrational mind works. There are many others I could cite. They are not thinking critically or logically or subjecting their views to inspection by available facts or changing their views and conclusions when new facts become available. These are people that hold a specific ideology or belief. It might apply across the political spectrum. They view themselves as moral, ethical, and intelligent but they are none of those things. It seems our society is facing an epidemic of irrational and illogical thinking at a time when the opposite is needed to solve a lot of issues. I'm talking about people that have "filters" in how their mind processes information from the environment with which they draw conclusions. They start with a conclusion and selectively use subjective, objective, anecdotal facts, information or data that supports their conclusion while ignoring subjective, objective, anecdotal facts, information or data that don't support their conclusion. Some might calling it lying by omission. In the case of hate crimes against Asians the prevailing narrative is the attacks are caused by a white supremacist mindset. This is what most media and politically active individuals and organizations are running with now. But looking at hate crime statistics where the target was Asian... A fact is the victims are Asian and a percentage of the attackers are white. Another fact is the victims were Asian but the majority of their assailants were non-white. This according to FBI statistics. So if the majority of attackers were non-white how could a white supremacist mindset be the root cause of the attacks? A critical thinker would be inclined to look elsewhere for the motivation for these attacks. The prevailing narrative is drawn from lying by omission and ignoring non-supportive facts. And by omitting facts a false conclusion is being used which drives an incorrect response to the problem. Critical thinking and rational people need to challenge this epidemic of irrationality and challenge the people pushing these false conclusions. I know a lot of you are out there.

Or passed over because of your age? Or some other thing? My view is pretty simple. I don't support the concept of grouping and judging people based on the characteristics assigned to that group. Which basally steals and eliminates the person's individual identity and renders it unimportant. In order to judge people equitably labeling and grouping to determine their identity needs to stop. Equality means the system is "color blind" or "gender blind" or "gender identity" blind, or "age blind", or blind to any other attribute an individual might display or possess. Like being left handed or right handed, or their weight, or if they are judged to be attractive or not, or their eye color or their blood type. You get the idea. The person needs to be viewed as a unique individual with traits and characteristics of their own and not of some group. Here, more or less if the goal is to eliminate racial bias then stop focusing on race being something that makes people "different".

Every year you start at 0-0. The difference between the Bills and Sabres is EFFORT! Under McDermott this team puts up a fight, gives it their all, every weak. Leading by example Josh Allen. Contrast this with the talented Jack Eichel. A guy that I suspect was always the best player on the ice coming into the league and just doesn't have the same "hunger" a guy like Allen has, or has just lost his drive because of all the losing. Plus the Sabres are a physically and mentally weak team and the coaching staff doesn't seem to be able to get this group motivated. What said it all to me was a game a few weeks ago where the team needed a spark and got it from Cozens engaging in a fight. Wow, a rookie being the only guy to step up. Pathetic. I've seen more contact and physicality in pairs ice dancing than these guys show night after night. Contrast this with Feliciano and Dawkins getting into it against the Chiefs coming to their QB's defense. The Bills have heart and passion for the game. The Sabres are a bunch of guys going through the motions for 3 periods cashing big paychecks a couple times a month. Bad goaltending sure but even teams with bad goaltending go out there trying to win.

Mental illness combined with anti-psychotic and anti-depressant drugs with lots of side effects like suicidal thoughts and paranoia. The drug companies don't want anyone to bring this into the conversation nor do the politicians receiving lots of loot and contributions from the industry.

The plastic straw ban is a good one. Picking an obvious but incorrect solution to a problem. A better solution to the problem might be to identify how all these plastic straws are finding their way into the ocean and stop it. I think the problem is the US "exports" a lot of garbage to overseas locations and the junk falls of the ship or gets tossed overboard to cut disposal costs when they reach the destination. So stop doing this. Problem solved. But the gun thing. All these proposals are just diversions. It's more a social and behavioral problem than a weapons issue. This guys was clearly unhinged but nobody wanted to get engaged in confronting him because he'd cry "discrimination" and hearing the mating call of SJW all the useful idiots would run to his assistance. So maybe all the people so quick to charge and call everything a bias issue should shut up about that for a while and think it through. Heaven forbid anyone gets offended!

I get all the chat and ribbing about the Carolina connection. But based on results and the way Beane has reformed the roster, worked the draft and free agency, and along with the coaching staff and the players they've assembled got to the AFC championship game this year I'm more than willing to defer to his judgment and trust he's making smart and good player moves. And this might be another of those.

The truth is the cops are not going to be there to protect you and your family from an intruder when it happens. They'll respond afterward to zip up the body bags and do some investigation. They are not going to protect you. They respond to crime, not prevent crime. The problem with all the calls for more gun control is they don't do anything to address the fundamental problems that can stop or eliminate most of these mass shooting events. They are not going to take guns out of the hands of criminals or those bent on doing harm to others. All these gun control initiatives calling for more laws and restrictions do is give the government more power and control over its citizens. Why do we want to give an already overly-intrusive government, one that spies and collects all sorts of information and reconnaissance on almost every citizen through whatever means they have available even more power? A government that has over a short time militarized local and state police organizations. A government that preaches from the Capitol building, the seat of power for the federal government surrounded by fences and barriers along with thousands of armed troops and armed bodyguards and agents? A government that is somehow afraid of its own citizens but is more than willing to let you go about life in the environment outside of their fence perimeter that's safe enough for you to take your chances in every day. How about this, let Congress pass more restrictions and add an amendment making it illegal for government officials to have armed bodyguards and security forces. If its safe for us then its safe for them? Lead from the front, right? Why is it that states with the most restrictive gun control laws generally have the most crime? Simply put, because they have the most criminals resulting from social and economic conditions that drive people to crime and criminal activity, Much of it just for survival. Generally, these states blame "out of state gun purchases" for their problems but the real cause is their inaction to solve the fundamental problems of poverty. These are social issues that never seem to gets addressed and resolved. These mass shooters either hold some ideological extreme or are mentally imbalanced. What's curious about a lot of these cases is the individuals involved are "known" to the FBI and other law enforcement organizations but they never seem to do anything. Why is that? Maybe they should start checking into these leads with a little more enthusiasm?

A bit sarcastic but true to the point. Isn't it wonderful to live in a time where politics and virtue signaling are the determining factors in all circumstances and situations?

As CIGNA hires sub-standard candidates and ignores more qualified applicants their business will suffer. The quality of their workforce will suffer. Lawsuits will be filed. They will lose customers and providers. A management system perceived to be merit based will transform to one of "diversity" and performance will suffer as top performers perceive their efforts are going unrewarded. Top performers will quit and seek employment elsewhere. Competitors will exploit their weaknesses and gain market share at their expense. Earnings will suffer and the share price will fall. Money still talks so regardless of the desire to virtue signal the board of directors will fire senior management, most likely the CEO presiding over this situation along with the architects of this hiring model. This is how this will play out over time. That's how socialist approaches always resolve themselves as everything sinks to the lowest common denominator.

Pack up the news vans and get out of town. The shooters not a white guy so there's nothing to see here. 21-year-old Ahmad Al-Issa a devoted Trump hater. So I suspect the spin on the story will turn from playing up the white supremacist terrorists angle to some poor victim triggered into rage and violence by Trump. So Trumps fault on CNN and MSNBC and other MSM outlets tonight. Wait for it...

If you've ever dealt with a family member that has some behavioral or substance abuse problem you'll recognize it isn't that easy to control that person or bring the risk they pose to themselves and others to the attention of authorities. Plus the cops don't want to deal with it and their doctors, if they are even being treated, can't share much because of personal health information restrictions. I suspect almost every one of these shooters is on some kind of anti-psychotic or anti-depressant drug or another. Something that gets a passing mention if at all. Those meds are dangerous and the negative impacts are minimized by the industry. The can trigger a lot of bizarre thoughts and behavior including these mass shootings.

As for the American Way of Life I find it curious the left speaks frequently about threats to "democracy" when it suits their purposes. Democracy they say, we must protect it from those looking to threaten it. But they never express concerns or speak of threats to our "freedoms" and "individual liberties". Why is that? After all, those are the core beliefs that laid the foundation for our nation almost 250 years ago. The foundation of the republic, our legal system, the core principals expressed by various Amendments and law, the limitations placed on Government, the great documents that define it, the Declaration of independence, the Constitution, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, and many others all speak to liberty and freedom. The undeniable rights of men and women. But the left? Never. A basic defect in their thinking is their view of democracy. Simply, the ability of the "majority" to dictate to the minority any and all things without regards for their rights and needs through whatever means are necessarily. That's not democracy that's tyranny.

To be fair it takes two to tango. So what is the women in these situations other than a willing participant?

That could be dangerous. What will happen if Russian hackers break into the earpiece feed and tell the President to "hop on one foot and cluck like a Chicken"? I'd be curious how the White House press secretary explains that one away.