All_Pro_Bills

Jury tampering is a serious offense so anyone reckless enough to attempt to coerce and intimidate jurors to render a verdict not established from the evidence presented and their assessment of that evidence is eligible to do some hard time if changed and convicted. Given the high profile of this case i expect the legal system will have no patience with anything that could throw off due process. The other concern is these idiots could give defense counsel a justification to express the position that a "fair" trial in Minneapolis is impossible and push for a change of venue. Its doubtful a judge would rule in favor but wait for that...

In politics I don't think there are any coincidences..

We could go on forever like this. So I could claim Biden & family took millions in payoffs from China and other foreign entries. But where does that get us? Defending one slime ball vs. another slim ball. Can we agree that both political parties have ethically and morally challenged people? And end this well when your guy did it you didn't say anything so you can't say anything now theme.

This spending bill doesn't have much to do with "COVID Relief" and the names are somewhat disingenuous. A more appropriate name might be "The Hand Out A Lot of Free Money To Our Supporters And Constituents Pet Projects" bill. Who would support the Patriot Act if it was called "The Domestic Spying on All American Citizens" bill or the Affordable Care Act if it was called "The Big Health Care Spending Bill Written By The Insurance Industry To Charge You More And Make Them More Money" bill. Since we're talking COVID - "A safe and effective vaccine or "an experimental messenger RNA Gene Therapy Biologic Agent with unknown mid and long term effects or complications.". Hard to see a lot of people lining up to wait a couple hours to get injected with something presented that way. But that's what 2 of the approved "vaccines" are.

Biden brings me back to SNL spoofs of Gov. Patterson wandering aimlessly around the set. And yes, things are better now as the new administration FUBAR's everything it touches.

its sad the Democrats had to pull Joe out of retirement in order to re-capture the White House. Obviously, like it does with many old age has taken much of his mental and physical abilities. As market research showed none of the roster of primary candidates polled well against Trump so they needed somebody that appealed to the center left or right swing voters that reluctantly cast ballots for Trump in 2016. Somebody that could move the ticket far enough to the right to grab enough moderate votes to win the key swing states. Mission accomplished. As it becomes more and more obvious and harder to hide its only a matter of time before the handlers behind the scenes decide Joe is a liability that must be removed. So invoking the 25th Amendment comes into play. Section 1, 2, 3, or 4 is the question. At that point VP Harris, who is already performing many duties traditionally carried out by the President, will take over. A politician that polled something like 3% of the primary vote that would have surely lost to Trump dispute all his flaws in the 2020 general election. All that won't matter as the obligatory celebration of the first women and first women of color to become President will drown out any concerns. But for how long?

You're just yanking my chain at this point, right? So you're abandoning your argument comparing Trump to the most hated man in history that was directly and indirectly responsible for the killings and death of 10's of millions over to an unfortunate situation where certain minorities are the targets of hate? Truth be told I haven't heard too much about suspects but given the current environment if it was a verified the perpetrators were a bunch of Trump supporting "white supremacist right wing extremist militia members" we'd be hearing it 24x7. Since we don't hear much of that my suspicions turn to other possibles.

Quite a few. Through the actions of Brown Shirts and other street thugs battling opponents in the streets along with attacks on targeted groups. It was only after 1932 and gaining power that the Nazi party was able to "institutionalize" their terror and brutality. To suggest it didn't exist prior is to ignore facts. And to suggest a former President or any so called "followers" are going to engage in some reign of terror is completely preposterous unless we want to engage in conspiracy theories.

The short story is the Nazi's came to power through means of violence and brutality but also through the ballot box. The party held a minority position but managed through "legislative" process to set up the circumstances where Hitler became chancellor. Through changes to the rules of how the government operates Hitler and the Nazi's were able to gain complete control over every aspect of German society and unleashed its brutality on the rest of the world. I fail to see any corollary to Hitler, his motives, actions, and impact to Trump. While I find he to be a somewhat despicable character I think continuing to parrot that comparisons simply shows ignorance of the facts. But please enlighten me and tell me how many millions of people did Trump exterminate, brutalize, or imprison? And please answer the question and don't change the topic or avoid it which is typical.

Why can't the government give us all $50,000 a month? We should vote on that. I'll bet it passes and democracy will prevail. That way nobody has to work and we can all live an affluent and comfortable life and end poverty and income inequality all together. Please don't ask about trivial details like where are all the goods and services we need coming from if nobody has to work.

DHS has been told to refer questions to the White House on the border crisis (but don't call it a crisis) situation. So the "cone of silence" has been invoked.

Deek & Bill you're onto an important insight. I put my "2 cents" in on the Dr. Suess books here but truth is when it comes down to it I could care less about it one way or the other. I expect that's the general view of most. I doubt anybody is ready to take to the streets in acts of civil disobedience or protest in front of the "Dr. Suess foundation" (if such a thing exists). In the scheme of things its completely unimportant. But being unimportant is why the social justice crowd is successful. Their strategy is to follow the foot in the door approach. Ask for something small in the pursuing the objective of something big. They only pick the small fights they know they can win at the start. They're smart and cunning bullies. They're not going to pick a fight with the biggest, strongest, and meanest guy in the room because once somebody kicks the crap out of them their game is over. At that point nobody will listen or comply. But as they proceed and their power grows the fights get bigger and bigger and the stakes get higher and higher. And by the time their "boil the frog slowly" approach gets to the tipping point its too late to mount any resistance or descent to what they want. At this point even the biggest, strongest, and meanest guy in the room is no match for them. At this point they'll have achieved the objective which is not to censor and erase "racist" images or words but rather to acquire power. Pure and simple. Power to dictate what people do, what people say, ultimately what people think. Power to reward themselves with the spoils of conquest and the property and wealth of others. Power to reward their followers and punish their opponents. Power to control everyone's lives. Power to control the government and all aspects of live through one party rule and the so called "democratic" process. Somebody posed the question "sure you say they need to be stopped but what do you propose to do to stop them"? As it is this isn't some brutal form of some political or social ideology where people are physical forced to follow some edicts or rules. This is a "soft" tyranny. Coercion, social pressure, shaming, threats against people's livelihoods. Most of it done through social media where its not necessary to take the risks associated with physically getting in somebody's face. But in general nobody is "forcing" anyone to do or not to do anything, at least to this point. To this point everyone seems quite agreeable to comply without much of a fight.

I've read elsewhere, a NYT op-ed, that Pepe Le Pew appears to be the next target of the cancel mob as the cartoon character symbolizes that rape and sexual assault are okay. But rather than argue the pro's and con's of Pepe I thought it would be more fun to generate ideas on what might be targeted by the cancel cult. But first a just a word of warning to all Wokesters and SJW's. I realize that none of you have any sense of humor nor do you find any joy in life or the burden of sniffing out social injustice everywhere so be warned that I am attempting something lighthearted and nothing that is intended to be serious. Sticking to entertainment I ran across some while surfing through the channels for classic TV. The Honeymooners - the lead character verbal abuses his wife and on occasion threatens her with violence. Hogan's Heroes - Nazi's and comedy just don't go together. Married With Children - the lead male character is a symbol of extreme misogyny. Three's Company - the male lead pretends to be gay in order to share an apartment with 2 women which leads to lots of homophobic comedy. The Three Stooges - gratuitous use of violence (at the time called slap stick comedy) while occasionally negatively stereo-typically portraying racial and ethnic characters Any show that depicts male/female roles where the man goes to work and the women stays home to tend to the household. Clearly sexist. Bugs Bunny & Daffy Duck - I'm not sure what's wrong here but there's something about a story about a Rabbit and a Duck that just doesn't seem right. Same thing goes for that Roadrunner and Coyote. Scobby Do - that dog better watch his back because I'll be watching and if he so much as blinks an eye inappropriately at anyone his ass is cancelled.

I've always loved the comedy of George Carlin. His humor combined with the ability to break down a topic and expose the essence of an argument was second to none. Many of his conclusions and insights have stuck with me. A specific thing he said (to paraphrase) which I find applicable today is "the last thing any government wants is a population of critical thinking citizens. They want obedient workers that are just smart enough to get things done that won't ask too many questions". This can also be applied to the MSM because for all intents the MSM is now a instrument of government. That's kind of where we are now. Critical thinking, logical deduction, skeptical approaches to understanding events, are unwelcome and discouraged. Looking at most of the prevailing narratives of today anyone applying any or all of those concepts will likely generate a lot of tough questions that officials will prefer to avoid. To understand how all this works we need to examine how people think. I've concluded most people believe things that reinforce their pre-existing conclusions that come from sources they "trust". No matter how ridiculous or absurd these narratives or conclusions might seem to people applying mental tools like critical thinking. And why do they trust these sources? Simply because the message they communicate is something they agree with already. In other words its a closed loop feedback system. Anything that conflicts with the message being sent through the system is rejected. Until the trusted source in the system alters the message to include anything previously prohibited.

Or Huge migrant influx poses major COVID super-spreader event risk (throw in mention of more infectious and deadlier variants for dramatic effect) Administration faces humanitarian crisis at the border without a plan Family separation policy draws fire from immigration experts and faces calls for Congressional hearings Administration's media black-out policy draws ire from legal experts and activists while raising questions about abuse (What are they hiding?) I could go on. More or less the problem is what we get from MSN is controlled by 7 people. A concentration of power situation. Billionaires that use their power to deliver "news" and opinions to support their own personal agenda. Used to be you had professional news people running these organizations. They cared about the truth, finding and reporting facts, posing tough questions to officials and others. No more (other than going after Trump 24x7). Today its con men and grifters running the show.

Well Biden's kind of correct about that conclusion. While certain segments of other minority groups are pissing and moaning about racism and white supremacists along with playing the victim all the time and making up a lot of excuses for their failures by always blaming somebody else and demanding more handouts and free money the American-Asian-Indian community has been quietly and effectively embracing the concepts of the American Dream by working long and hard while rejecting the victim approach. In a short time they've achieved success and some degree of affluence that appears to be elusive to others.

I expected it too. I bought a whole bunch of energy funds and ETFs starting around the 1st of the year. I tried to convince a lot of my friends and colleagues to do the same but they just don't see it either. It all seemed so obvious where things are headed. I'm not going to blame Joe for all of it because he kind of walked right into the meat grinder and for decades the government has been on a drunken spending binge running up massive un-payable debts and the Federal Reserve has been accommodating this behavior along with making a lot of rich people a lot richer for a long time now. All acting as if there are or never will be any consequences. COVID kind of pulled those consequences forward and now its here. Food costs and inputs are also rising which is going to result in a lot more suffering on the poor and internationally on developing nations. Big 1970's type inflation with an added kicker of out of control government debt and a failing currency is on the way. If you've lived it or studied it you will know what I'm saying but most people under 50 years of age have no real-life experience to understand. It will be nothing like anything most have experienced before.

Crazy old Uncle Joe just wandered out of the basement and onto the stage here! One subplot concerning "foreign policy already getting results" is the price action in the energy markets. The result is you'll be paying well over $3 for gasoline soon. Crude oil prices are in an uptrend. Supply at the margin is controlled by OPEC (with Saudi Prince MBS) and Russia (with Putin) calling the shots. OPEC decided to keep production cuts in place this week and price rose significantly. Who are some targets of the Biden administration so far? Well traditional whipping boy Russia and now MSB with the intelligence report conclusions. Combine that with the decision to stop the Keystone XL pipeline and new limits on fracking and add in some life in the economy if things open up over the course of the Spring and we've got the ingredients for a price climb to around $100 a barrel and certainly gasoline prices well over $3 by Memorial Day. Yes, getting results already!

The only risk faced by the National Guard troops stationed at the Capitol is the potential to die from boredom. There isn't going to be another "attack" and none are planned. The so-called intelligence is plain old horse crap. Made up stories rather than "intelligence" reports which are released for dramatic effect. Keep the story alive and in the news and on the front page for as long as possible. I can't understand how totally clueless people are that take it all hook, line, and sinker. There doesn't seem to be any learning curve here. Again, there are no attacks coming on the US Capitol building. What would be the point of it? I'm open to suggestions and ideas. Tactically, the element of surprise is clearly gone and the force you'd face is overwhelming. Other than fulfilling a desire to die what would be the point of leading or participating in such an attack? Pelosi suggested another attack is in the works too but I think she's been inhaling a lot of exhaust fumes hiding in the House parking garage from imaginary "right wing militia's".

A fundamental requirement for any "election reform" might be to remove political parties and their interests from the discussion. The common interest should focus on the benefits to the voters. The way it works now is like a competitive sporting event between two teams where the game is officiated by the manager of one of the teams. You can't help but think there's going to be some funny business at work here. Sadly, the entire process might boil down to an exercise in common sense where you could pick a handful of posters on the board here willing to work together in cooperation and they could come up with a sensible and valid approach to the electoral process that ensures its fair and accurate for everybody. But politics and common sense aren't often spoken or written in the same sentence.

I hear what you're sayin' but it doesn't send an assuring message to the international community knowing the President's health is potentially compromising his ability to perform his duties and presents an ambiguous and unknown chain of command. Its a certainty that every intelligence service of every country we deal with friend or foe is aware of this situation. Some may be alarmed while others might see opportunity for advantage or mischief. And for example if VP Harris was making key decisions and performing key duties I might feel a lot better than if the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon had commandeered policy decision making duties for Middle East policy. Essentially the government is operating without a functional head of state. This might ultimately fall under the 25th Amendment of the Constitution in some scenario fitting of the the 4 sections.

Expanding on your conclusion, wouldn't you agree that having a President that is incapable of performing the most elementary duties of the office is a national security threat? Which begs the question, if Biden s not calling the shots here, who is? Actions like VP Harris taking meetings with other world leaders where custom and protocol require them to be handled by the President is a red flag. Something is wrong. We know it, our allies know it, and our enemies know it too.

You are right once again here. The 1st amendment protections apply to the prohibition of government actions to restrict free speech. When you walk into the workplace you lose your Constitutional rights and you are at the mercy of your employer. Which to a large extent is true. There are many things you cannot do inside the workplace environment regardless of what the Constitution allows. In the case of individuals being targeted by cancel culture, individuals can be targeted for something they said at some point in their life or something they did or didn't do at some point in their life. it doesn't matter if it has anything to do with your conduct on the job. The general idea behind the proponents of cancel culture is to punish these people by depriving them of employment or the ability to earn a living by coercing or influencing their employer or management to fire them. Sometimes it might be for something they said or did 20 or 30 years ago as there's no statute of limitations cancel culture follows. The objective is to control everyone's behavior, and words and actions by making examples of others. Like the Roman practice of decimation. Killing every 10th prisoner. The origin of the work decimate. It keeps the remaining group in line with the program through fear and terror. Giving in to the mob can leave an employer open to a lot of lawsuits for "wrongful termination". Can you fire someone "for cause" because of something they said 20 years ago? Or in a private setting last week? I guess it depends. On the terms of employment and the nature of things like employer code of conduct and ethical standards and rules for governing employee behavior. But in the end it all works this way. The mob descends on somebody for something they "said" and then fires up the outrage machinery on social media. There's pressure on the persons employer at some point whether their job has anything to do with the situation or not. Soon the employer is targeted for allowing a "terrible" person to work at their firm. Rather than have the fortitude to stand up to the mob and tell them to MYOB the firm takes the easy way out and looks to dismiss and terminate the employee. But the legal department warns them there's a big risk of litigation. So they call in the employee and his representation and hold a meeting. They give some sob story about how their hands are tied and they're sorry but they need to let the person go for the "good of the company". But in order to avoid any legal issues or negative publicity they offer the employee a substantial and generous severance package bundled with a non-disclosure agreement. Everybody walks away happy. The mob gets their blood, the employer skates away without any business impacts, and the fired employee gets a generous package. So what's the point of it all? It proves some mob of idiots can get you fired and force your employer to give you a few hundred thousand dollars and health care coverage to keep your mouth shut about the whole thing.

Kill them? No. Admit them to some facility for the mentally ill? Yes, as they must be delusional because they "find" racism behind every tree and under every rock. I assume trees and rocks are racist too as some trees are taller than others and some rocks are bigger or smaller? I sense an inequality issue here! The lives of these intellectually and morally superior super humans must be perfect because they apparently have no problems of their own to devote their time to handling and they are free to concentrate all their time and effort on finding fault and issues with everyone else. Meanwhile, the rest of us are left to the dreary task of trying to scrape by and generally minding our own business without a care or concern about what Dr. Suess wrote or what pictures he used. I deserve zero discourse. Don't flatter yourself..

Wow. That one really stings. And is so original. Is that one they teach in the handbook to use when you can't find anything intelligent to use in countering somebody else's views?