ChiGoose

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.

Ok, this is totally off topic at this point, but CRT is a law school level theory. Who is teaching that to kids?

From what I've read, there is discussion on training them, but I agree that doing that in a war is too difficult. There also had been discussion of transferring NATO planes to former Eastern Bloc countries so those countries can send their MiGs and SUs to Ukraine, but I don't get the impression that this is happening either.

Ah, I didn't realize they had changed their minds. I recall them asking for F-15's and F-16's, but the Biden administration was worried about them using the planes to strike inside Russian territory. In any case, they need to be able to destroy Russian artillery to level the playing field. HIMARS seem to be doing a good deal there, but they only have a couple and Russians are already adjusting their tactics.

A leading California secession advocate got funding and direction from Russian intelligence agents, US government alleges "According to a federal indictment unveiled Friday, Russian intelligence officers also cared deeply about West Coast secession — as part of an effort to destabilize the United States. The indictment focuses on Aleksandr Viktorovich Ionov, a resident of Moscow and head of the "Anti-Globalization Movement of Russia," Assistant Attorney General Matthew G. Olsen said in a statement. Prosecutors alleged he worked with at least three Russian officials on a "brazen influence campaign, turning US political groups and US citizens into instruments of the Russian government," Olsen wrote. That effort involved hosting government-funded conferences in Russia, inviting secessionists from around the globe, as well as providing "financial support, consulting, instruction and promotion in Russia media outlets" to separatist movements in the US." Add the California secessionist movement to the other accounts / groups being used by Russia to harm the US: Twitter accounts: @TEN_GOP @jenn_abrams @Pamela_Moore13 @America_1st_ @march_for_trump Facebook Groups: "Being Patriotic" "Stop All Immigrants" "Stop All Invaders" "Secured Borders" "Tea Party News" "Black Matters" "Blacktivist" "Don't Shoot Us" "LGBT United" "United Muslims of America" Social Media hashtags: #HillaryClintonForPrison2016 #nohillary2016 #KIDS4TRUMP

I'm not sure what the answer is or if there even is one. But from what I can tell, the only thing that might accomplish both: Recovering all of, or enough Ukraine territory to allow the Ukrainians to feel comfortable with a peace deal; and Punching Russia in the face enough that they have to accept their losses and acquiesce to a deal Would be to supply the Ukrainians with enough weapons, ammo, and intelligence, to enable them to push Russia back, at least to the 2014 ceasefire borders, if not further. Already, the HIMARS are changing the game. Give them more, and give them additional weapons like MLRS, drones, maybe even planes, and tons and tons of ammo. There is no scenario I can think of in which a peace is reached without things getting a lot bloodier first.

This feels true to me. Also to note that, after the atrocities in Bucha and the reports of Russians castrating POWs and then murdering them will make it very hard for Ukraine to accept any agreement that leaves parts of Ukraine under Russian control. Ultimately, whatever deal is to be made must be made by the Ukrainians and I just don't see them agreeing to anything that keeps Ukrainians under Russian control.

It's more like: working together towards a shared goal is not the same as entering into an agreement to work together towards a shared goal. But the end result is the same: there's no crime of collusion and no agreement between the parties means no conspiracy.

1. The Steele Dossier The Steele Dossier was covered terribly by the media and caused people to believe it was a thing that it was not. What happened was that the Clinton Campaign paid their lawyers to get oppo research on Trump. The lawyers then found a company that had been doing oppo for one of the GOP primary challengers and paid them to continue their work. That company, FusionGPS, then subcontracted this out to a former spy (Steele) who then put together a raw intelligence piece. There is a tremendous difference between a raw intelligence document and an intelligence assessment. The dossier was the former but was treated as the latter. Essentially, it's a document saying "this is what we've heard and been told, but we have not analyzed these claims for credibility" but the media took it to mean that these claims had been vetted, which was wrong. It is not surprising that most of it was just junk, but that's what happens with raw intelligence and why it needs to be analyzed. The media totally botched this. 2. The Russia Investigation The Steele Dossier did NOT lead to the Russia investigation. The investigation was underway before then. The investigation also was not bogus and was found to be properly predicated. While there were issues with things like the Carter Page FISA, the investigation found dozens of contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians. However, since "collusion" is not a legal term of art, Mueller compared the facts to the crime of conspiracy, which requires an agreement between the parties. While the Russians and the Trump campaign both wanted to help Trump and frequently worked together (something that might meet the colloquial definition of "collusion"), they did not have an explicit agreement to work together and therefore did not meet the elements of a conspiracy. 3. Hillary Campaign I would have no problem with investigating the Hillary Campaign for wrongdoing if it is appropriate. In fact, I believe they recently got in trouble over the Steele Dossier. They believed the document was embarrassing and wanted to bury it, so they hid how they paid for it to avoid it becoming public. This was blown when the dossier was leaked (I believe by Steele himself), which lead to the Clinton campaign being fined for not following disclosure requirements.

The irony of deflecting by saying I deflected... I know you'll never answer my question but, sure, I'll answer yours. 1. The media effed up the Hunter Biden laptop. The problem with conspiracy believing morons who make up garbage about their political opponents is that when they actually have something with a grain of truth to it (even if that truth isn't exactly what they are claiming), it gets dismissed into the large pile of BS they've been raging about. 2. No.

So you're saying that the 2016 Trump campaign did not have numerous contacts with Russians and work with Russians to help the campaign?

I think your point is valid, I just don't agree with it. And I think that's fine to have a difference of opinion. Sanctuary cities do not prevent immigration enforcement, they just don't take on that federal responsibility locally. It's fine to say that the local law enforcement should help federal agents enforce immigration, I just personally think that has more negative consequences than positive ones. Additionally, studies have shown that sanctuary cities either have the same crime rates as non-sanctuary cities or even lower rates. So from a crime perspective, sanctuary cities can make sense (as I have pointed out with encouraging assistance with local law enforcement). Since all resources, including law enforcement, are limited, focusing on the people who are here illegally and are also committing other crimes seems preferable to me than utilizing limited resources to round up anybody who is undocumented, regardless of whether or not they had committed other crimes. Ultimately, it's up to the federal government to enforce immigration laws. But our system is hopelessly broken. So while we can advocate for changes we believe will improve the system, we have to be realistic about the reality we face now and the choices we have.

Karrin Taylor Robson was up when the polls closed but then, overnight, the lead changed to Kari Lake. I am told this means it's all fraudulent and it must be the fault of the Deep State Democrat Reverse Vampire Cannibal Pedophiles. https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2022/08/02/arizona-primary-election-2022-live-news-updates-results/10156317002/

Imagine reality? Sure, easy enough.

Sanctuary cities are not breaking the law. Local police are not responsible for immigration enforcement. However, if they suspect that someone in their custody may be here illegally, they often contact immigration enforcement and keep the individual detained until the feds arrive. Generally, sanctuary cities simply do not do that. Law enforcement processes people based on what they are charged with and leaves immigration enforcement to those charged with responsibility for it.

My brain was melting out of my ears with the lunacy of this article, but it all made sense when I saw the author, whom I've never seen post anything requiring brain cells. The botched FBI operation around Whitmer was somehow a plot against Trump This is stupid. The FBI has been walking the very thin line between informants and entrapment for a long time and they really need to dial it back. But to claim that they do it just for political reasons requires a tremendous amount of ignorance on what they've been doing for years. Military style round up of Jan 6 rioters This is also stupid. Thousands of people were at the Capitol on Jan 6 but fewer than 1,000 have been arrested and 90% of those have been released while awaiting their trials. This is exactly how you would expect law enforcement to react to these events Claims of collusion with Russia in 2016 were phony Apparently this author did not read (or, given their grasp of facts and reality, is incapable of reading) the Mueller report. The 2016 Trump campaign was crawling with Russians, including Russian agents. Mueller documented dozens of interactions between the campaign and Russian operatives, but he made the decision not to evaluate based on "collusion" since that is not a legal term. Also, the idea that law enforcement agencies such as the FBI skew liberal is really hard to believe given the people who generally sign up to work in law enforcement. It also requires completely ignoring James Comey's actions that may have tipped the election to Trump in 2016 when he broke with long-standing agency precedent by sending the Comey Letter.

Has anyone been able to find the actual changes in the text between the two versions of the bill? I pulled the text from HR 3967 from June and S. 3373 with amendments and I only found one material change, which was removing the following language: "(e) Not A Taxable Benefit.—A contract buy out for a covered health care professional under subsection (a) shall not be considered a taxable benefit or event for the covered health care professional." I can't believe that is the only change, and with different versions of the the same bill out there, I may have pulled the wrong versions. Does anyone have the specific text that was changed / challenged?

If you are a mayor of a large city, there are likely already many undocumented people in the city to begin with. Regardless of whether or not you "invite" them, they are already present in your city. You can lobby Congress and make as much noise as you want, but you have no authority to change enforcement of immigration laws. So the question is, what do you do about that? Do you want the people who are already in your city to feel safe to work with law enforcement to report crimes? Or do you want them to be too scared that they might get deported, allowing criminals to go free (or worse: leverage someone's immigration status to abuse or otherwise harm them, knowing they won't go to the police)? We need to fix our immigration system, but a mayor has little to no influence over that. Also, things that could help are generally not popular (increasing caps and quotas, better funding for immigration courts, a more accessible legal immigration policy, etc.) and the things that are popular generally don't help (a big dumb wall in the middle of a desert when most undocumented people come into the US legally or snuck in through ports of entry). There's no incentive to fix this because our politics are broken and our politicians would prefer to have a broken system to rail against in ads and speeches then actually do anything to help.