ChiGoose

Ok. What are “they” doing? And specifically, who are “they”?

What am I doing?

The only people talking civil war are on the right. Nobody wants a civil war but some people just can’t stop talking about it for some reason.

No. It has nothing to do with that. This is obvious to anybody with a brain.

Literally read the words from Trump’s statement. He whines like a toddler who didn’t get dessert. And screw this banana republic crap. Trump took classified documents from the White House and refused to return them for months. This search is in relation to that. Anyone who values law and order and/or was upset over Hillary’s emails should be ok with this. Unless it’s really all about partisanship.

Before we play the classic PPP “jump to conclusions” game, it looks like this is neither some end of law and order nor is it “the big one” that’s finally getting Trump for the election crap. This appears to be in relation to the 15 boxes of documents he took from the White House and refused to return for months. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/08/us/politics/trump-fbi-mar-a-lago.html I am sure that everyone who was upset about Hillary’s emails welcomes this enforcement of the rules around handling of classified materials.

LOL. Have we ever had such a whiny little B word for a president before?

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/05/does-the-inflation-reduction-act-violate-bidens-400000-tax-pledge.html Just in case anyone believes the lie that the Inflation Reduction Act raises taxes on people making less than $400,000: "The White House has used $400,000 as a rough dividing line for the wealthy relative to middle and lower earners. That income threshold equates to about the top 1% to 2% of American taxpayers. The new bill, the Inflation Reduction Act, doesn’t directly raise taxes on households below that line, according to tax experts. In other words, the legislation wouldn’t trigger an increase on taxpayers’ annual tax returns if their income is below $400,000, experts said." However, some are complaining that the other impacts of the law would increase tax burdens on average Americans without raising rates. While there is some truth to that, it is likely that the net effect of the law would more than make up for any increased burden on Americans making less than $400,000: "“The selective presentation by some of the distributional effects of this bill neglects benefits to middle-class families from reducing deficits, from bringing down prescription drug prices and from more affordable energy,” a group of five former Treasury secretaries from both Democratic and Republican administrations wrote Wednesday. The $64 billion of total Affordable Care Act subsidies alone would “be more than enough to counter net tax increases below $400,000 in the JCT study,” according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which also estimates Americans would save $300 billion on costs and premiums for prescription drugs The combined policies would offer a net tax cut for Americans by 2027, the group said." The bottom line is that poor, middle class, and even many wealthy Americans will be better off financially because of this bill.

Hey, if you want to shill for big pharma, you go ahead and do that. Personally, I think that Americans should have access to life saving medicine if they need it.

‘MURICA!

Really makes it hard to believe the GOP actually is “pro-life” since they oppose policies that help people live.

That may explain why health outcomes are worse in GOP areas than Dem ones. GOP: once you’re born, you can go die for all we care

GOP senators remove $35 cap on insulin from reconciliation bill. They only pretend to be pro-life, but they are very happy to have poor people die.

You may be right, but I don't see her path there. Her brand of not being a conspiracy-believing loon has no home in the modern GOP and she disagrees with Dems on most major policy issues. Does she run in the GOP primary? If so, I can't see her going anywhere. I can't see her running in the Dem primary. Independent? Maybe, but at that point, she's just playing the spoiler and would help re-elect Trump should he run again.

Yeah, I don't get why people are so quick to label something / somebody either all good or all bad without any nuance. Liz Cheney doing the right thing and upholding her oath of office at the expense of her job is definitely admirable. But it doesn't change who she is or the policies she pushes. Same for her dad, who is absolutely an awful person. Glad he's on the right side of this issue, but it doesn't make him a hero. It's possible to appreciate somebody for a particular action or position without having to lionize them as some great hero. Some people are even suggesting Liz should run on a centrist ticket with the Dems. Absolutely ludicrous. Some Very Online Brain happening around the Cheney's.

They will say he’s a RINO. Anyone who doesn’t toe the line is a RINO or somehow a democrat.

1. He's wrong. Lying is protected under the 1st Amendment. Otherwise, the people on this board claiming the election was stolen would be in jail. 2. He also will not decide what free speech is. That is not the job of a senator.

Is Orban talking about the globalists or the (((globalists)))? It's so hard to keep these conspiracies straight at this point...

You absolutely can do voter verification without ID, just like you can do authentication in regular day-to-day things (like logging into your email) without photo ID. It depends on the state, but generally your voter record includes your name, address, signature and other pieces of data. It's why you have to know all of that information and provide your signature so they can validate before you vote (or in the case of mail-in ballots, it's checked when the ballot arrives). The idea that there are hordes of people out there who both know all of the data for everyone else including signatures, and are going around voting in other people's names is ridiculous and has never found to be true. I think that voter ID laws would find broader support if they were crafted to solve a problem that actually exists and set up in a way to ensure people have easy access to the right to vote. But about 10% of Americans do not currently have government issued photo IDs and many of the proposed laws are very specific in carving out certain people, such as not accepting photo IDs from state colleges but allowing other forms like hunting IDs. After Alabama enacted a voter ID law, they closed many DMVs in areas with a high proportion of black residents, making it harder for them to get the ID they need to vote. Many of these laws are not actually about preventing fraud, they're just to make it harder for the "wrong" people to vote. Ultimately, any kind of bipartisan electoral reform will likely add a photo ID requirement to get GOP votes, but that should only happen if the IDs are both free and easily accessible. Otherwise, it's just making it harder for the people to exercise their franchise.

Job creation is a hallmark of modern Democratic presidential administrations

Yeah, that's what I'm trying to figure out. I would not be surprised if there was pork in the bill, but was the pork in there when it passed the senate with 80+ votes or was it added after? I pulled the text from (what I believe to be) both versions of the bill and ran a compare on them and found the only difference to be a removal of a single line about taxation of benefits. Which doesn't seem to be a giant slush fund thingy. However, I am willing to admit I'm wrong. I could have pulled the wrong versions of the text. Or maybe I don't understand the implications of that sentence because I am most certainly not a tax expert. I just wish that the people complaining about how it changed would point to the specific language that changed. I appreciate you providing insight and evidence into this conversation.

I looked through that and I definitely could be reading it wrong, but wasn't that dollar amount in the version passed by the senate in June?

Is there any evidence for this? The text of the bills are public. Did anyone point to where in the text this was?

What I do know is that the CRT panic is a made up phenomenon by a right-wing activist who sought to brand anything around race as CRT: It’s a cynical ploy to get people angry about something and activate that anger at the polls, regardless of the merit. We can certainly debate about when/if it is appropriate to teach kids certain subjects, but elementary school kids are not learning actual CRT.

Funny story from someone we know committed fraud. She was LOSING when the polls closed and then started WINNING OVERNIGHT?!? This is classic DemonRat ballot dumps to change the election to satisfy the lizard people so they can live forever in their med beds.