Discussion:
Some of the stupid people you can have in govt.
Add Reply
trotsky
2022-10-19 10:06:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Tuberville, MTG, Herschel, Boebert, John Kennedy, Gohmert, Scalise,
Blackburn--the list goes on and on. Then there's the likes of Larry
Craig, Gym Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Denny Hastert, and numerous other sexual
perverts that aren't as stupid, just disgustingly perverted. Why would
anyone want to belong to a party filled with stupid assholes like this?
The obvious answer is you'd have to be a stupid asshole yourself.
Ubiquitous
2022-10-19 17:13:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams (D) told MSNBC on Wednesday
that women across the Peach State need access to abortion to keep up with
surging costs in Biden’s America.

“I would assume, maybe incorrectly, that while abortion is an issue, it
nowhere reaches the level of interest in voters such as the cost of gas,
food, bread, milk, things like that,” MSNBC anchor Mike Barnicle said. “What
could you do as governor to alleviate concerns of Georgia voters about the
livability, daily, hourly issues that they’re confronted with?”

The election denier wasted no time defending the unholy sacrament of leftist
politics. Children — not Democratic policies — are causing economic angst,
she said.

“But let’s be clear, having children is why you’re worried about your price
for gas, it’s why you’re concerned about how much food costs,” Abrams
rebutted, claiming that abortion is not a “reductive issue” for women.

Abrams is currently getting clobbered in the polls against incumbent Governor
Brian Kemp (R), so it appears her final pitch is a rallying cry for killing
children. Of course, national polls show that abortion is nowhere near the
top of the list for most voters’ concerns.

“You cannot divorce being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy from the
economic realities of having a child,” she claimed.

***@staceyabrams says abortion can help address inflation issues:
"Having children is why you’re worried about your price for gas,
it’s why you’re concerned about how much food costs. For women,
this is not a reductive issue." pic.twitter.com/BNHJWqKRpa

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) October 19, 2022

Abrams went on to offer a providential government that addresses home costs,
puts cash in your pocket, and somehow solves all your problems without
presenting policy specifics.

Still, she added that having a child is an “economic issue,” and abortion has
to be kept on the table to help women be prosperous.

In response, Daily Wire host Matt Walsh said, “The Democrat cure for
inflation is to kill more children. These people are cartoonishly evil. They
aren’t even trying to hide it. Literal comic book villains at this point.”

The Democrat cure for inflation is to kill more children. These
people are cartoonishly evil. They aren't even trying to hide it.
Literal comic book villains at this point. https://t.co/uANXcHpdT3

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) October 19, 2022

Ryan Girdusky, the founder of the 1776 Project PAC, tweeted, “This is so
demonic.”

This is so demonic https://t.co/gViv7Jyi5e

— Ryan James Girdusky (@RyanGirdusky) October 19, 2022

Scott Walker, the former Republican governor of Wisconsin, stated, “The
‘Inflation Reduction Act’ doesn’t work. Joe Biden, Stacey Abrams, Tony Evers,
Mandela Barnes, and the rest of the radicals don’t have a solution for rising
food, gas, and housing prices.”

Evers and Barnes are the Democratic nominees for Wisconsin’s gubernatorial
office and U.S. Senate race, respectively.

“So the [sic] resort to this kind of crap,” Walker added. “Wake up America!”

The “Inflation Reduction Act” doesn’t work. Joe Biden, Stacey Abrams,
Tony Evers, Mandela Barnes, and the rest of the radicals don’t have
a solution for rising food, gas, and housing prices. So the resort
to this kind of crap. Wake up America! https://t.co/LEUYA8aaqT

— Scott Walker (@ScottWalker) October 19, 2022

As observed Tuesday, it seems the only way to protect your money in Biden’s
America is if you’re a wealthy, partially-deaf, green energy fanatic willing
to spend thousands of dollars to save hundreds.

Biden administration officials have been pushing tax credits for weatherized
homes, over-the-counter hearing aids, and electric vehicles. All of those
require Americans to spend money.

Now, according to Abrams, you need abortion as well.

That’s not the best slogan for any leftist.

--
Let's go Brandon!
The Horny Goat
2022-10-21 18:32:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams (D) told MSNBC on Wednesday
that women across the Peach State need access to abortion to keep up with
surging costs in Biden’s America.
“I would assume, maybe incorrectly, that while abortion is an issue, it
nowhere reaches the level of interest in voters such as the cost of gas,
food, bread, milk, things like that,” MSNBC anchor Mike Barnicle said. “What
could you do as governor to alleviate concerns of Georgia voters about the
livability, daily, hourly issues that they’re confronted with?”
The election denier wasted no time defending the unholy sacrament of leftist
politics. Children — not Democratic policies — are causing economic angst,
she said.
“But let’s be clear, having children is why you’re worried about your price
for gas, it’s why you’re concerned about how much food costs,” Abrams
rebutted, claiming that abortion is not a “reductive issue” for women.
What exactly does that mean? I know what "reproduction" means and I
know what "reduction" means but they're not at all the same thing.

"reductive" isn't a real word - and "reduction" has a rather nasty
meaning with respect to human populations.

Though I strongly suspect that comment has more to do with English
language illiteracy than anything remotely genocidal.
Your Name
2022-10-21 20:31:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Some of the stupid people you can have in govt.
Wait. Since when were there ever non-stupid people in government?!?!

The list of the non-stupid ones would certainly be much much much
shorter - it wouldn't even fill an business card size piece of paper!
Ubiquitous
2022-10-25 08:30:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Ubiquitous
Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams (D) told MSNBC on Wednesday
that women across the Peach State need access to abortion to keep up with
surging costs in Biden's America.
"I would assume, maybe incorrectly, that while abortion is an issue, it
nowhere reaches the level of interest in voters such as the cost of gas,
food, bread, milk, things like that," MSNBC anchor Mike Barnicle said. "What
could you do as governor to alleviate concerns of Georgia voters about the
livability, daily, hourly issues that they're confronted with?"
The election denier wasted no time defending the unholy sacrament of leftist
politics. Children -- not Democratic policies -- are causing economic angst,
she said.
"But let's be clear, having children is why you're worried about your price
for gas, it's why you're concerned about how much food costs," Abrams
rebutted, claiming that abortion is not a "reductive issue" for women.
What exactly does that mean? I know what "reproduction" means and I
know what "reduction" means but they're not at all the same thing.
"reductive" isn't a real word - and "reduction" has a rather nasty
meaning with respect to human populations.
Though I strongly suspect that comment has more to do with English
language illiteracy than anything remotely genocidal.
It's probably because she's a stupid race-baiting election denier,
but some have conjectured it's linked to the "population bomb" people.

--
Let's go Brandon!
Micky DuPree
2022-10-31 04:48:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Ubiquitous
"But let's be clear, having children is why you're worried about your
price for gas, it's why you're concerned about how much food costs,"
Abrams rebutted, claiming that abortion is not a 'reductive issue'
for women.
What exactly does that mean? I know what "reproduction" means and I
know what "reduction" means but they're not at all the same thing.
"reductive" isn't a real word - and "reduction" has a rather nasty
meaning with respect to human populations.
According to the online Cambridge Dictionary (as well as the online
Merriam-Webster Dictionary), 'reductive' is indeed a word:

"considering or presenting something in a simple way, especially
a way that is too simple:

"'reductive explanations of the origin of life'"

<https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reductive>

It's obvious to me that Abrams was saying that women aren't narrowly
fixated on a single issue to the exclusion of all others; that their
electoral interests can't be boiled down simply to one thing, but that
there is a broader interconnectivity to it all.
Post by The Horny Goat
Though I strongly suspect that comment has more to do with English
language illiteracy than anything remotely genocidal.
Pot, kettle, black. Fifteen seconds of googling could have put you
right about that word, but the temptation to throw undeserved mud at a
figure on the left was too much for you.

-Micky
The Horny Goat
2022-11-12 08:11:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 04:48:06 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
Post by The Horny Goat
Though I strongly suspect that comment has more to do with English
language illiteracy than anything remotely genocidal.
Pot, kettle, black. Fifteen seconds of googling could have put you
right about that word, but the temptation to throw undeserved mud at a
figure on the left was too much for you.
Hardly - I've read lots of material by "leftists" who make good points
and present their views clearly with good use of the language.

Abrams isn't one of those - and I DID watch her video on election
fraud in 2020 and while she had some interesting points don't think
she had the extraordinary evidence to back up her extraordinary
claims.

There are plenty of left wingers out there who are not nutbars -
plenty of right wingers too, but I tend not to take seriously those
who are and which camp Abrams belongs in is quite clear.

I assure you she's NOT somebody from the other end of the continent
who I've vaguely heard of and am shooting from the hip about. I don't
pretend to know everything about everybody in US politics but she is
one I >have< listened to at some length and think she manages to out
looney Trump.
Micky DuPree
2022-11-27 03:48:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 04:48:06 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
Post by The Horny Goat
Though I strongly suspect that comment has more to do with English
language illiteracy than anything remotely genocidal.
Pot, kettle, black. Fifteen seconds of googling could have put you
right about that word, but the temptation to throw undeserved mud at
a figure on the left was too much for you.
Hardly - I've read lots of material by "leftists" who make good points
and present their views clearly with good use of the language.
You're making a different point now, and avoiding the mistake you made.
'Reductive' is a word. Abrams was right in her usage of it. You were
wrong when you claimed it wasn't a word.
Post by The Horny Goat
I assure you she's NOT somebody from the other end of the continent
who I've vaguely heard of and am shooting from the hip about. I don't
pretend to know everything about everybody in US politics but she is
one I >have< listened to at some length and think she manages to out
looney Trump.
She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And even
if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot insurrection could
have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)

-Micky
The Horny Goat
2022-11-27 22:22:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And even
if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot insurrection could
have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
calls voter suppression.

To me I think it's the height of idiocy that states are allowed to set
their own rules for a federal election but then I'm a Canadian and
you're an American and there are historical reasons for each
countries' election practices.

Despite the fact that I'm a long standing 'reality TV buff' (to the
point of seeking out and watching foreign Survivors and Big Brothers)
I still can't believe I watched 3 seasons of the Apprentice since
while I'd heard of him before that show (I also used to watch pro
wrestling but gave it up over how the WWF/WWE folks abused their
female "managers") it wasn't in good terms.

I have saved the Photoshopped picture of Queen Elizabeth wearing a red
hat saying "Make American Great <small type) Britain (end small type)
again!". It's one of my favorites in fact.
shawn
2022-11-28 02:45:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And even
if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot insurrection could
have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
calls voter suppression.
Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
Republicans. So it was reasonable that a Democrat candidate would call
out those changes. When even the national Republican committee joins
in support of their lawsuit to keep Saturday voting off the table in
this runoff it becomes plain that this change was more about limiting
voter options than any risk of voter shenanigans.
Post by The Horny Goat
To me I think it's the height of idiocy that states are allowed to set
their own rules for a federal election but then I'm a Canadian and
you're an American and there are historical reasons for each
countries' election practices.
Despite the fact that I'm a long standing 'reality TV buff' (to the
point of seeking out and watching foreign Survivors and Big Brothers)
I still can't believe I watched 3 seasons of the Apprentice since
while I'd heard of him before that show (I also used to watch pro
wrestling but gave it up over how the WWF/WWE folks abused their
female "managers") it wasn't in good terms.
I would have to say that THE APPRENTICE went a long way to helping
Trump get elected as before that he would have been seen as just
another New York elite.
Post by The Horny Goat
I have saved the Photoshopped picture of Queen Elizabeth wearing a red
hat saying "Make American Great <small type) Britain (end small type)
again!". It's one of my favorites in fact.
BTR1701
2022-11-28 03:12:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And even
if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot insurrection could
have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
calls voter suppression.
Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
Republicans.
Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?
moviePig
2022-11-28 04:08:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And even
if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot insurrection could
have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
calls voter suppression.
Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
Republicans.
Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?
Trying to keep people from voting is antithetical to a democracy.
BTR1701
2022-11-28 04:24:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And even
if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot insurrection could
have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
calls voter suppression.
Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
Republicans.
Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?
Trying to keep people from voting is antithetical to a democracy.
Well, when the California legislature changed the state's voting laws to
legalize ballot harvesting-- something that's illegal pretty much
everywhere else because it's like rolling out the red carpet for voter
fraud-- and said right out loud that the reason for the change was to
help Democrat voter turnout, I must have missed the howls of outrage
from the likes of Stacey Abrams and the boxes of talking heads on CNN
and MSNBC bemoaning this partisan attack on the democratic process, and
the think-pieces in the New York Times speculating that this marks the
beginning of the fall of the republic.
shawn
2022-11-28 04:32:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And even
if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot insurrection could
have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
calls voter suppression.
Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
Republicans.
Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?
Trying to keep people from voting is antithetical to a democracy.
Well, when the California legislature changed the state's voting laws to
legalize ballot harvesting-- something that's illegal pretty much
everywhere else because it's like rolling out the red carpet for voter
fraud-- and said right out loud that the reason for the change was to
help Democrat voter turnout, I must have missed the howls of outrage
from the likes of Stacey Abrams and the boxes of talking heads on CNN
and MSNBC bemoaning this partisan attack on the democratic process, and
the think-pieces in the New York Times speculating that this marks the
beginning of the fall of the republic.
If they were actually engaged in voter fraud then they should be
arrested and put in jail. Otherwise there's nothing that prevents any
group (Republican, Democrats or any one else) from doing the legal
ballot harvest to insure everyone that wants to vote gets their
opportunity. Also given that Abrams has been focused on Georgia and
her election in Georgia I don't know why you would expect her to
comment on what California is doing.
Adam H. Kerman
2022-11-28 05:12:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
. . .
Well, when the California legislature changed the state's voting laws to
legalize ballot harvesting-- something that's illegal pretty much
everywhere else because it's like rolling out the red carpet for voter
fraud-- and said right out loud that the reason for the change was to
help Democrat voter turnout, I must have missed the howls of outrage
from the likes of Stacey Abrams and the boxes of talking heads on CNN
and MSNBC bemoaning this partisan attack on the democratic process, and
the think-pieces in the New York Times speculating that this marks the
beginning of the fall of the republic.
If they were actually engaged in voter fraud then they should be
arrested and put in jail. Otherwise there's nothing that prevents any
group (Republican, Democrats or any one else) from doing the legal
ballot harvest to insure everyone that wants to vote gets their
opportunity. Also given that Abrams has been focused on Georgia and
her election in Georgia I don't know why you would expect her to
comment on what California is doing.
shawn, my state has an abyssmal state legislature but our election laws
do not allow what California allows. A voter may give his completed
mail-in ballot to a trusted relative or friend who will then mail it or
drop it at a secure drop box set up by election officials. It would be
illegal for a political partisan unknown to the voter to offer to accept
the ballot. The re-election campaign of my governor clearly knew who had
applied for mail-in ballots. I started getting text messages and
mailings that were quite specific to the sending in the ballot.

That was creepy as hell.
anim8rfsk
2022-11-28 16:40:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
. . .
Well, when the California legislature changed the state's voting laws to
legalize ballot harvesting-- something that's illegal pretty much
everywhere else because it's like rolling out the red carpet for voter
fraud-- and said right out loud that the reason for the change was to
help Democrat voter turnout, I must have missed the howls of outrage
from the likes of Stacey Abrams and the boxes of talking heads on CNN
and MSNBC bemoaning this partisan attack on the democratic process, and
the think-pieces in the New York Times speculating that this marks the
beginning of the fall of the republic.
If they were actually engaged in voter fraud then they should be
arrested and put in jail. Otherwise there's nothing that prevents any
group (Republican, Democrats or any one else) from doing the legal
ballot harvest to insure everyone that wants to vote gets their
opportunity. Also given that Abrams has been focused on Georgia and
her election in Georgia I don't know why you would expect her to
comment on what California is doing.
shawn, my state has an abyssmal state legislature but our election laws
do not allow what California allows. A voter may give his completed
mail-in ballot to a trusted relative or friend who will then mail it or
drop it at a secure drop box set up by election officials. It would be
illegal for a political partisan unknown to the voter to offer to accept
the ballot. The re-election campaign of my governor clearly knew who had
applied for mail-in ballots. I started getting text messages and
mailings that were quite specific to the sending in the ballot.
That was creepy as hell.
One year while I was living at mom‘s I got a message from the republican
party that said I hadn’t voted in so long that my registration had lapsed
so they went ahead and re-registered me. As Republican.

That was creepy as hell.

In high school our social studies teacher gave us extra credit for
registering to vote. Of course we had to do it with him and he was a
Democratic registrar so you had to register Democrat.

That was creepy as hell.

And should’ve gotten him fired at the very least.
--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.
shawn
2022-11-28 21:26:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
. . .
Well, when the California legislature changed the state's voting laws to
legalize ballot harvesting-- something that's illegal pretty much
everywhere else because it's like rolling out the red carpet for voter
fraud-- and said right out loud that the reason for the change was to
help Democrat voter turnout, I must have missed the howls of outrage
from the likes of Stacey Abrams and the boxes of talking heads on CNN
and MSNBC bemoaning this partisan attack on the democratic process, and
the think-pieces in the New York Times speculating that this marks the
beginning of the fall of the republic.
If they were actually engaged in voter fraud then they should be
arrested and put in jail. Otherwise there's nothing that prevents any
group (Republican, Democrats or any one else) from doing the legal
ballot harvest to insure everyone that wants to vote gets their
opportunity. Also given that Abrams has been focused on Georgia and
her election in Georgia I don't know why you would expect her to
comment on what California is doing.
shawn, my state has an abyssmal state legislature but our election laws
do not allow what California allows. A voter may give his completed
mail-in ballot to a trusted relative or friend who will then mail it or
drop it at a secure drop box set up by election officials. It would be
illegal for a political partisan unknown to the voter to offer to accept
the ballot. The re-election campaign of my governor clearly knew who had
applied for mail-in ballots. I started getting text messages and
mailings that were quite specific to the sending in the ballot.
That was creepy as hell.
One year while I was living at mom‘s I got a message from the republican
party that said I hadn’t voted in so long that my registration had lapsed
so they went ahead and re-registered me. As Republican.
That was creepy as hell.
No one should be allowed to re-register you to vote. I don't have a
problem with your being contacted when if your registration expires as
that leaves it up to you to re-register or not.
Post by anim8rfsk
In high school our social studies teacher gave us extra credit for
registering to vote. Of course we had to do it with him and he was a
Democratic registrar so you had to register Democrat.
That was creepy as hell.
Giving you extra credit for registering to vote was okay. Did he
actually force you to register as a Democrat (as in no credit if you
didn't register as a Democrat) or was it more of the 'go ahead and
choose Democrat' recommendation since most kids wouldn't have a strong
preference for any party. In any case it shouldn't be a real problem
since you can change your party affiliation at any time.
anim8rfsk
2022-11-28 23:06:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
. . .
Well, when the California legislature changed the state's voting laws to
legalize ballot harvesting-- something that's illegal pretty much
everywhere else because it's like rolling out the red carpet for voter
fraud-- and said right out loud that the reason for the change was to
help Democrat voter turnout, I must have missed the howls of outrage
from the likes of Stacey Abrams and the boxes of talking heads on CNN
and MSNBC bemoaning this partisan attack on the democratic process, and
the think-pieces in the New York Times speculating that this marks the
beginning of the fall of the republic.
If they were actually engaged in voter fraud then they should be
arrested and put in jail. Otherwise there's nothing that prevents any
group (Republican, Democrats or any one else) from doing the legal
ballot harvest to insure everyone that wants to vote gets their
opportunity. Also given that Abrams has been focused on Georgia and
her election in Georgia I don't know why you would expect her to
comment on what California is doing.
shawn, my state has an abyssmal state legislature but our election laws
do not allow what California allows. A voter may give his completed
mail-in ballot to a trusted relative or friend who will then mail it or
drop it at a secure drop box set up by election officials. It would be
illegal for a political partisan unknown to the voter to offer to accept
the ballot. The re-election campaign of my governor clearly knew who had
applied for mail-in ballots. I started getting text messages and
mailings that were quite specific to the sending in the ballot.
That was creepy as hell.
One year while I was living at mom‘s I got a message from the republican
party that said I hadn’t voted in so long that my registration had lapsed
so they went ahead and re-registered me. As Republican.
That was creepy as hell.
No one should be allowed to re-register you to vote. I don't have a
problem with your being contacted when if your registration expires as
that leaves it up to you to re-register or not.
Agreed
Post by shawn
Post by anim8rfsk
In high school our social studies teacher gave us extra credit for
registering to vote. Of course we had to do it with him and he was a
Democratic registrar so you had to register Democrat.
That was creepy as hell.
Giving you extra credit for registering to vote was okay. Did he
actually force you to register as a Democrat (as in no credit if you
didn't register as a Democrat) or was it more of the 'go ahead and
choose Democrat' recommendation since most kids wouldn't have a strong
preference for any party. In any case it shouldn't be a real problem
since you can change your party affiliation at any time.
It was more like “go ahead and register Republican at your own peril but
you know damn well you’ll flunk the course“

The guy was not subtle

And there was no credit given if you had already registered. You couldn’t
show him your card or anything. You had to register through him. Which was
just weird. And creepy as hell.
--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.
trotsky
2022-11-28 22:43:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
. . .
Well, when the California legislature changed the state's voting laws to
legalize ballot harvesting-- something that's illegal pretty much
everywhere else because it's like rolling out the red carpet for voter
fraud-- and said right out loud that the reason for the change was to
help Democrat voter turnout, I must have missed the howls of outrage
from the likes of Stacey Abrams and the boxes of talking heads on CNN
and MSNBC bemoaning this partisan attack on the democratic process, and
the think-pieces in the New York Times speculating that this marks the
beginning of the fall of the republic.
If they were actually engaged in voter fraud then they should be
arrested and put in jail. Otherwise there's nothing that prevents any
group (Republican, Democrats or any one else) from doing the legal
ballot harvest to insure everyone that wants to vote gets their
opportunity. Also given that Abrams has been focused on Georgia and
her election in Georgia I don't know why you would expect her to
comment on what California is doing.
shawn, my state has an abyssmal state legislature but our election laws
do not allow what California allows. A voter may give his completed
mail-in ballot to a trusted relative or friend who will then mail it or
drop it at a secure drop box set up by election officials. It would be
illegal for a political partisan unknown to the voter to offer to accept
the ballot. The re-election campaign of my governor clearly knew who had
applied for mail-in ballots. I started getting text messages and
mailings that were quite specific to the sending in the ballot.
That was creepy as hell.
One year while I was living at mom‘s
How was the basement, is it nice?
moviePig
2022-11-28 15:46:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And even
if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot insurrection could
have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
calls voter suppression.
Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
Republicans.
Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?
Trying to keep people from voting is antithetical to a democracy.
Well, when the California legislature changed the state's voting laws to
legalize ballot harvesting-- something that's illegal pretty much
everywhere else because it's like rolling out the red carpet for voter
fraud-- and said right out loud that the reason for the change was to
help Democrat voter turnout, I must have missed the howls of outrage
from the likes of Stacey Abrams and the boxes of talking heads on CNN
and MSNBC bemoaning this partisan attack on the democratic process, and
the think-pieces in the New York Times speculating that this marks the
beginning of the fall of the republic.
If they were actually engaged in voter fraud then they should be
arrested and put in jail. Otherwise there's nothing that prevents any
group (Republican, Democrats or any one else) from doing the legal
ballot harvest to insure everyone that wants to vote gets their
opportunity. Also given that Abrams has been focused on Georgia and
her election in Georgia I don't know why you would expect her to
comment on what California is doing.
While most *anything* that makes voting easier also makes voter-fraud
easier, it turns out that people just seem disinclined to commit it.
And, while apprehending *every* offender is next to impossible, it's
relatively easy (by sampling e.g.) to quantify their effect, if any.
The Horny Goat
2022-11-28 20:48:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 23:32:05 -0500, shawn
Post by shawn
If they were actually engaged in voter fraud then they should be
arrested and put in jail. Otherwise there's nothing that prevents any
group (Republican, Democrats or any one else) from doing the legal
ballot harvest to insure everyone that wants to vote gets their
opportunity. Also given that Abrams has been focused on Georgia and
her election in Georgia I don't know why you would expect her to
comment on what California is doing.
Reporters have since the invention of the microphone put them in
politicians' faces looking for comments and if she chose to answer "I
do my best for Georgians and as a result don't have time for keeping
up on what's going on in California" you could hardly fault her though
"yeah sure...." might be a reasonable response.

But MANY of the "harvesters" have left unattended collection boxes
open during their hours and in those circumstances ballot stuffing is
very easy to pull off. I trust USPS - but I certainly wouldn't trust
an unattended box on the sidewalk.
BTR1701
2022-11-28 23:49:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And even
if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot insurrection could
have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
calls voter suppression.
Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
Republicans.
Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?
Trying to keep people from voting is antithetical to a democracy.
Well, when the California legislature changed the state's voting laws to
legalize ballot harvesting-- something that's illegal pretty much
everywhere else because it's like rolling out the red carpet for voter
fraud-- and said right out loud that the reason for the change was to
help Democrat voter turnout, I must have missed the howls of outrage
from the likes of Stacey Abrams and the boxes of talking heads on CNN
and MSNBC bemoaning this partisan attack on the democratic process, and
the think-pieces in the New York Times speculating that this marks the
beginning of the fall of the republic.
If they were actually engaged in voter fraud then they should be
arrested and put in jail. Otherwise there's nothing that prevents any
group (Republican, Democrats or any one else) from doing the legal
ballot harvest to insure everyone that wants to vote gets their
opportunity. Also given that Abrams has been focused on Georgia and
her election in Georgia I don't know why you would expect her to
comment on what California is doing.
Abrams comments on national issues all the time. Now suddenly she's
Georgia-only?
trotsky
2022-11-28 09:18:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And even
if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot insurrection could
have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
calls voter suppression.
Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
Republicans.
Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?
Trying to keep people from voting is antithetical to a democracy.
Well, when the California legislature changed the state's voting laws
A representative sampling of one isn't statistically significant.
NoBody
2022-11-28 14:12:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And even
if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot insurrection could
have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
calls voter suppression.
Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
Republicans.
Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?
Trying to keep people from voting is antithetical to a democracy.
Well, when the California legislature changed the state's voting laws to
legalize ballot harvesting-- something that's illegal pretty much
everywhere else because it's like rolling out the red carpet for voter
fraud-- and said right out loud that the reason for the change was to
help Democrat voter turnout, I must have missed the howls of outrage
from the likes of Stacey Abrams and the boxes of talking heads on CNN
and MSNBC bemoaning this partisan attack on the democratic process, and
the think-pieces in the New York Times speculating that this marks the
beginning of the fall of the republic.
If there is anything that should be clearly illegal everywhere it's
ballot harvesting. Interestingly enough Dems seem all for it.
trotsky
2022-11-28 22:31:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by NoBody
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And even
if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot insurrection could
have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
calls voter suppression.
Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
Republicans.
Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?
Trying to keep people from voting is antithetical to a democracy.
Well, when the California legislature changed the state's voting laws to
legalize ballot harvesting-- something that's illegal pretty much
everywhere else because it's like rolling out the red carpet for voter
fraud-- and said right out loud that the reason for the change was to
help Democrat voter turnout, I must have missed the howls of outrage
from the likes of Stacey Abrams and the boxes of talking heads on CNN
and MSNBC bemoaning this partisan attack on the democratic process, and
the think-pieces in the New York Times speculating that this marks the
beginning of the fall of the republic.
If there is anything that should be clearly illegal everywhere it's
ballot harvesting. Interestingly enough Dems seem all for it.
Prove it shitpuppet.
moviePig
2022-11-28 23:21:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by trotsky
Post by NoBody
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And even
if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot insurrection could
have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
calls voter suppression.
Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
Republicans.
Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?
Trying to keep people from voting is antithetical to a democracy.
Well, when the California legislature changed the state's voting laws to
legalize ballot harvesting-- something that's illegal pretty much
everywhere else because it's like rolling out the red carpet for voter
fraud-- and said right out loud that the reason for the change was to
help Democrat voter turnout, I must have missed the howls of outrage
from the likes of Stacey Abrams and the boxes of talking heads on CNN
and MSNBC bemoaning this partisan attack on the democratic process, and
the think-pieces in the New York Times speculating that this marks the
beginning of the fall of the republic.
If there is anything that should be clearly illegal everywhere it's
ballot harvesting.  Interestingly enough Dems seem all for it.
Prove it shitpuppet.
How does "ballot harvesting" differ in principle from busing voters?
The Horny Goat
2022-11-29 07:54:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
How does "ballot harvesting" differ in principle from busing voters?
Seriously?

Because if you bus (or otherwise transport a voter) you have anhonest
to god live voter who physically marks an "X".

As opposed to somebody who goes around stealing mail ballot envelopes
from somebody's mail in ballots and mail them in for them "on their
behalf" (all voting for the thief's preferred candidate) and counting
on most people wondering what happened to their ballot but not doing
anything about it - or turning up on election day in person and being
told they had already voted!
moviePig
2022-11-29 15:25:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by moviePig
How does "ballot harvesting" differ in principle from busing voters?
Seriously?
Because if you bus (or otherwise transport a voter) you have anhonest
to god live voter who physically marks an "X".
As opposed to somebody who goes around stealing mail ballot envelopes
from somebody's mail in ballots and mail them in for them "on their
behalf" (all voting for the thief's preferred candidate) and counting
on most people wondering what happened to their ballot but not doing
anything about it - or turning up on election day in person and being
told they had already voted!
Afaics, you're conflating 'ballot harvesting' with 'voter fraud'.
shawn
2022-11-29 16:10:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by moviePig
How does "ballot harvesting" differ in principle from busing voters?
Seriously?
Because if you bus (or otherwise transport a voter) you have anhonest
to god live voter who physically marks an "X".
As opposed to somebody who goes around stealing mail ballot envelopes
from somebody's mail in ballots and mail them in for them "on their
behalf" (all voting for the thief's preferred candidate) and counting
on most people wondering what happened to their ballot but not doing
anything about it - or turning up on election day in person and being
told they had already voted!
Afaics, you're conflating 'ballot harvesting' with 'voter fraud'.
Yes, ballot harvesting can mean they simply gather everyone's ballot
from some spot and then drop them off at a drop box. It doesn't
necessarily entail fraudulently filling out the ballots. Still it's
frowned upon because of that possibility of tampering with the
ballots.

trotsky
2022-11-29 09:19:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by NoBody
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And even
if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot
insurrection could
have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
calls voter suppression.
Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
Republicans.
Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?
Trying to keep people from voting is antithetical to a democracy.
Well, when the California legislature changed the state's voting laws to
legalize ballot harvesting-- something that's illegal pretty much
everywhere else because it's like rolling out the red carpet for voter
fraud-- and said right out loud that the reason for the change was to
help Democrat voter turnout, I must have missed the howls of outrage
from the likes of Stacey Abrams and the boxes of talking heads on
CNN and MSNBC bemoaning this partisan attack on the democratic
process, and
the think-pieces in the New York Times speculating that this marks the
beginning of the fall of the republic.
If there is anything that should be clearly illegal everywhere it's
ballot harvesting.  Interestingly enough Dems seem all for it.
Prove it shitpuppet.
How does "ballot harvesting" differ in principle from busing voters?
"Ballot harvest" is as much a pile of horseshit as "Hunter's laptop."
Right wing assholes want you to play this game so you're constantly
mired in horseshit.
NoBody
2022-11-29 14:48:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by trotsky
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by NoBody
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And even
if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot
insurrection could
have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
calls voter suppression.
Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
Republicans.
Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?
Trying to keep people from voting is antithetical to a democracy.
Well, when the California legislature changed the state's voting laws to
legalize ballot harvesting-- something that's illegal pretty much
everywhere else because it's like rolling out the red carpet for voter
fraud-- and said right out loud that the reason for the change was to
help Democrat voter turnout, I must have missed the howls of outrage
from the likes of Stacey Abrams and the boxes of talking heads on
CNN and MSNBC bemoaning this partisan attack on the democratic
process, and
the think-pieces in the New York Times speculating that this marks the
beginning of the fall of the republic.
If there is anything that should be clearly illegal everywhere it's
ballot harvesting.  Interestingly enough Dems seem all for it.
Prove it shitpuppet.
How does "ballot harvesting" differ in principle from busing voters?
"Ballot harvest" is as much a pile of horseshit as "Hunter's laptop."
You mean the laptop that CBS finally admits to being an issue? Glad
you finally made it to the party. Better late than never I guess.
NoBody
2022-11-29 14:46:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by NoBody
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And even
if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot insurrection could
have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
calls voter suppression.
Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
Republicans.
Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?
Trying to keep people from voting is antithetical to a democracy.
Well, when the California legislature changed the state's voting laws to
legalize ballot harvesting-- something that's illegal pretty much
everywhere else because it's like rolling out the red carpet for voter
fraud-- and said right out loud that the reason for the change was to
help Democrat voter turnout, I must have missed the howls of outrage
from the likes of Stacey Abrams and the boxes of talking heads on CNN
and MSNBC bemoaning this partisan attack on the democratic process, and
the think-pieces in the New York Times speculating that this marks the
beginning of the fall of the republic.
If there is anything that should be clearly illegal everywhere it's
ballot harvesting.  Interestingly enough Dems seem all for it.
Prove it shitpuppet.
How does "ballot harvesting" differ in principle from busing voters?
Quite frankly this practice, when done by political parties, should
also be illegal.
suzeeq
2022-11-29 15:34:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by NoBody
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by NoBody
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And even
if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot insurrection could
have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
calls voter suppression.
Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
Republicans.
Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?
Trying to keep people from voting is antithetical to a democracy.
Well, when the California legislature changed the state's voting laws to
legalize ballot harvesting-- something that's illegal pretty much
everywhere else because it's like rolling out the red carpet for voter
fraud-- and said right out loud that the reason for the change was to
help Democrat voter turnout, I must have missed the howls of outrage
from the likes of Stacey Abrams and the boxes of talking heads on CNN
and MSNBC bemoaning this partisan attack on the democratic process, and
the think-pieces in the New York Times speculating that this marks the
beginning of the fall of the republic.
If there is anything that should be clearly illegal everywhere it's
ballot harvesting.  Interestingly enough Dems seem all for it.
Prove it shitpuppet.
How does "ballot harvesting" differ in principle from busing voters?
Quite frankly this practice, when done by political parties, should
also be illegal.
But no one's standing over the bussed voters to ensure that they vote
for one party over another. They're simply getting them there.
NoBody
2022-11-29 14:45:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by trotsky
Post by NoBody
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And even
if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot insurrection could
have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
calls voter suppression.
Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
Republicans.
Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?
Trying to keep people from voting is antithetical to a democracy.
Well, when the California legislature changed the state's voting laws to
legalize ballot harvesting-- something that's illegal pretty much
everywhere else because it's like rolling out the red carpet for voter
fraud-- and said right out loud that the reason for the change was to
help Democrat voter turnout, I must have missed the howls of outrage
from the likes of Stacey Abrams and the boxes of talking heads on CNN
and MSNBC bemoaning this partisan attack on the democratic process, and
the think-pieces in the New York Times speculating that this marks the
beginning of the fall of the republic.
If there is anything that should be clearly illegal everywhere it's
ballot harvesting. Interestingly enough Dems seem all for it.
Prove it shitpuppet.
Since you asked so nicely:

"Democrats and their progressive activist allies did a better job
identifying and delivering their vote on and before Nov. 8. Like it or
not, early mail-in voting combined with newly legal ballot harvesting
has changed the modern campaigns. Democrats recognized and took full
advantage of this, while Republicans campaigned as if they were living
in the past. "

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/nov/28/republicans-must-learn-how-to-ballot-harvest-get-v/


So the media thinks it's a great idea for parties to go around
collecting votes in bulk and delivering them to voting sites. What
could *possibly* go wrong....
The Horny Goat
2022-11-28 20:44:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?
Trying to keep people from voting is antithetical to a democracy.
Well, when the California legislature changed the state's voting laws to
legalize ballot harvesting-- something that's illegal pretty much
everywhere else because it's like rolling out the red carpet for voter
fraud-- and said right out loud that the reason for the change was to
help Democrat voter turnout, I must have missed the howls of outrage
from the likes of Stacey Abrams and the boxes of talking heads on CNN
and MSNBC bemoaning this partisan attack on the democratic process, and
the think-pieces in the New York Times speculating that this marks the
beginning of the fall of the republic.
I share that view on "harvesting". While I don't have a huge problem
with mail votes (though I don't like it much) anything handling the
envelopes containing mail votes besides the US Postal Service is
inviting fraud.
NoBody
2022-11-28 14:11:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And even
if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot insurrection could
have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
calls voter suppression.
Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
Republicans.
Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?
Trying to keep people from voting is antithetical to a democracy.
You didn't answer the question.
moviePig
2022-11-28 15:27:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by NoBody
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And even
if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot insurrection could
have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
calls voter suppression.
Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
Republicans.
Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?
Trying to keep people from voting is antithetical to a democracy.
You didn't answer the question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question
trotsky
2022-11-28 22:38:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by NoBody
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start.  (And
even
if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot insurrection could
have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
calls voter suppression.
Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
Republicans.
Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?
Trying to keep people from voting is antithetical to a democracy.
You didn't answer the question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question
"Horny Goat" is a Horny Idiot.
BTR1701
2022-11-28 23:49:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by NoBody
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And even
if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot insurrection could
have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
calls voter suppression.
Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
Republicans.
Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?
Trying to keep people from voting is antithetical to a democracy.
You didn't answer the question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question
Nice, but my question was not rhetorical.
moviePig
2022-11-29 03:39:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by NoBody
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And even
if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot insurrection could
have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
calls voter suppression.
Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
Republicans.
Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?
Trying to keep people from voting is antithetical to a democracy.
You didn't answer the question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question
Nice, but my question was not rhetorical.
Have you stopped beating your wife?
BTR1701
2022-11-29 04:39:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by NoBody
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And
even if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that
she's maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot
insurrection could have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
calls voter suppression.
Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
Republicans.
Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?
Trying to keep people from voting is antithetical to a democracy.
You didn't answer the question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question
Nice, but my question was not rhetorical.
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Don't have one.
shawn
2022-11-29 06:16:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by NoBody
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And
even if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that
she's maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot
insurrection could have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
calls voter suppression.
Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
Republicans.
Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?
Trying to keep people from voting is antithetical to a democracy.
You didn't answer the question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question
Nice, but my question was not rhetorical.
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Don't have one.
So you haven't stopped beating your non-existent wife?
moviePig
2022-11-29 15:18:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by NoBody
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And
even if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that
she's maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot
insurrection could have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
calls voter suppression.
Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
Republicans.
Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?
Trying to keep people from voting is antithetical to a democracy.
You didn't answer the question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question
Nice, but my question was not rhetorical.
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Don't have one.
Two?
trotsky
2022-11-29 09:22:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by NoBody
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And even
if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot insurrection could
have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
calls voter suppression.
Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
Republicans.
Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?
Trying to keep people from voting is antithetical to a democracy.
You didn't answer the question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question
Nice, but my question was not rhetorical.
True, it was just a pile of horseshit. Here's me changing the rules:
every time you post horseshit without sites or examples to back up your
horseshit I'll just dismiss you as a eunuch to sent the proper message
to the rest of the group. Capiche?
NoBody
2022-11-29 14:49:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by NoBody
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And even
if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot insurrection could
have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
calls voter suppression.
Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
Republicans.
Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?
Trying to keep people from voting is antithetical to a democracy.
You didn't answer the question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question
Problem is that my question is NOT rehetorical. This is reality.
moviePig
2022-11-29 15:24:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by NoBody
Post by moviePig
Post by NoBody
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And even
if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot insurrection could
have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
calls voter suppression.
Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
Republicans.
Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?
Trying to keep people from voting is antithetical to a democracy.
You didn't answer the question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question
Problem is that my question is NOT rehetorical. This is reality.
You didn't ask a question.
The Horny Goat
2022-11-28 20:41:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?
Trying to keep people from voting is antithetical to a democracy.
Methinks that was Shawn's whole point.

And I do think American administration of elections is appalling -
even during COVID I have never taken more than 30 minutes to vote and
that includes municipal elections where we had to elect 1 mayor, 6
councillors, 4 school trustees and about 15 initiatives (not sure on
the last number but it's close)

The Canadian system has problems on the side of making electoral
districts fairly close in size (there are provinces with federal
districts with 20-25% more voters than others which would never happen
in the US except where a state has one representative) but as to what
happens on voting day it's fairly streamlined.
shawn
2022-11-28 04:28:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And even
if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot insurrection could
have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
calls voter suppression.
Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
Republicans.
Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?
Because the rules that tend to help Democrats also work for everyone
else (as in allowing more time for voting which allows more people who
can't take time off from work to vote.) I'm all for getting everyone
to vote so hopefully we get more people interested in who gets elected
and have more of a representative government.
moviePig
2022-11-28 15:29:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And even
if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot insurrection could
have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
calls voter suppression.
Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
Republicans.
Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?
Because the rules that tend to help Democrats also work for everyone
else (as in allowing more time for voting which allows more people who
can't take time off from work to vote.) I'm all for getting everyone
to vote so hopefully we get more people interested in who gets elected
and have more of a representative government.
Populist!!!
trotsky
2022-11-28 09:17:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And even
if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot insurrection could
have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
calls voter suppression.
Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
Republicans.
Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?
LOL! Just letting people vote freely and fairly "helps Democrats."
Republicans are shit party that has to cheat to win. It's not there
isn't ample evidence of this.
The Horny Goat
2022-11-28 20:37:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And even
if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot insurrection could
have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
calls voter suppression.
Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
Republicans.
Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?
Obviously it's not though as I told Mickey I find the idea that the
states hold their own rules for a federal election (which includes how
its administered) laughable and vaguely obscene.

Part of the problem with US politics in the Trump era is that
extremism on both sides have come to the fore and centrism of all
sorts is withering.
The Horny Goat
2022-11-28 20:34:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 21:45:36 -0500, shawn
Post by shawn
I would have to say that THE APPRENTICE went a long way to helping
Trump get elected as before that he would have been seen as just
another New York elite.
Post by The Horny Goat
I have saved the Photoshopped picture of Queen Elizabeth wearing a red
hat saying "Make American Great <small type) Britain (end small type)
again!". It's one of my favorites in fact.
It's possible - Google tells me Trump left the Apprentice in 2015
which is LONG after I stopped watching (I watched the first three
seasons)

I had heard of him long before that but with all due respect given his
induction into the WWE Hall of Fame in 2013 I am mystified anybody
would think of him as "just another New York elite"

Please don't think of that as support - as they say "OMG LOL"
Ubiquitous
2022-10-19 17:19:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
President Joe Biden paused while eating an ice cream cone to brag that the
United States economy was “strong as hell” — despite the fact that the
inflation rate for the sweet dairy treat alone is 13.6% over last year.

Biden, who often stops for a cone while he’s out and about, explained over
the weekend that he was not worried about the American economy so much as he
was about economies around the world.

WATCH:

BIDEN, eating ice cream: "Our economy is strong as hell"
pic.twitter.com/x5dyCg14l3

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) October 16, 2022

“Just one more economic question,” a reporter pressed the president as he
began to eat his ice cream. “Are you concerned about the strength of the
dollar right now?”

“I’m not concerned about the strength of the dollar, I’m concerned about the
rest of the world,” Biden replied as he attempted to chew. “Does that make
sense?”

“Our economy is strong as hell,” Biden continued. “The internal — inflation
is worldwide, it’s worse off everywhere else than it is in the United States.
So the problem is a lack of economic growth and sound policy in other
countries, not so much ours.”

“It’s worldwide inflation, that’s a consequence of —” Biden walked away from
the microphone mid-sentence.

The Biden administration has repeatedly worked to downplay the staggering
inflation that is being felt across the country, using month-over-month
averages to show that inflation rates are plateauing or even beginning to
fall — but the year-over-year averages (over 8% consistently) have hit record
levels not seen in four decades.

To make matters worse for the Biden administration, the 8% average is just
that: an average. Many American families have experienced much higher
inflation rates on items they need to live, feed their families, and get to
and from their places of employment.

Annual inflation via BLS just out:

42.9% airline fares33.1% utility gas30.5% eggs18.2% gasoline17.2%
chicken 15.7% coffee15.2% milk14.7% bread10.1% furniture9.2%
vegetables8.2% all items8.2% fruit8.1% ham7.6% women apparel7.2%
used cars6.7% rent

3.7% men apparel

— Ryan Struyk (@ryanstruyk) October 13, 2022

A line-item breakdown of September’s inflation numbers — from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics — shows that several items have seen much higher than the
“average” 8% inflation rate since September of 2021.

Airline travel is up an estimated 42.9%, gas for heating homes and cooking is
up 33.1%, eggs have skyrocketed — in part because of avian influenza
outbreaks combined with inflation — 30.5%, gasoline is still up 18.2%,
chicken (also related in part to the AI outbreaks) is up 17.2%, coffee has
risen 15.7%, milk is up 15.2%, and bread has climbed 14.7%.

--
Let's go Brandon!
Ubiquitous
2022-10-19 17:20:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre claimed on Tuesday that
Americans are saving money on gasoline under President Joe Biden.

The national average price for gasoline surpassed $5.00 per gallon this
summer, even though prices at the pump are currently $3.85 per gallon,
according to data from AAA, marking a nearly 62% increase since Biden assumed
office at the beginning of last year. Jean-Pierre nevertheless contended that
the recent decline is the fruit of the commander-in-chief’s work to decrease
costs for Americans.

“Gas prices have fallen by $1.15 from their peak, which was not too long
ago,” she told reporters at a press briefing. “The ninety-eighth
consecutive-day decline this summer was fastest in over a decade. Every
month, the typical two-driver family saves about $120 at the pump compared to
where we were in mid-June. Every day, Americans save about $420 million at
the pump compared to mid-June.”

Jean-Pierre, however, neglected to mention that prices were as low as $2.38
per gallon before Biden assumed office and $3.53 per gallon when Russia
invaded Ukraine.

“Now, gas prices are falling again,” Jean-Pierre continued. “The average
retail price is down by five cents over the last week. States that saw
sharper increases in recent weeks are also seeing more rapid declines.”

Some regions are indeed witnessing especially severe rises in gas prices. For
example, residents of California are paying an average of $5.94 per gallon
for regular fuel and $6.59 for diesel.

Biden has emphasized green energy throughout his tenure while leasing less
federal land for oil and gas drilling than any administration since the end
of World War II. He has also presided over a decrease in the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve from 638 million barrels to 409 million barrels, according
to data from the Energy Information Administration. Soon after his
inauguration, Biden also nixed Keystone XL pipeline project expansions.

The White House announced on Tuesday that officials would release another 15
million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve by December as a
completion of the 180 million barrels Biden vowed to release earlier this
year. When one reporter pressed Jean-Pierre on why the release was necessary
if gas prices are trending downward, she claimed that Americans would receive
“a little bit of breathing room” as a result of the policy.

“President Biden has said for months how he is committed to doing everything
that he can in his power to address Putin’s price hike,” Jean-Pierre said.
“He has said this on almost every speech that you’ve heard him talk about
when it comes to gas prices and what the American people are seeing and
feeling at the pump. And he’s been delivering on that.”

Democratic officials have claimed that the high energy prices will accelerate
a shift toward renewable power sources. Transportation Secretary Pete
Buttigieg told the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that the
“pain we are all experiencing from the high price of gas” would cause more
Americans to seek benefits from electric vehicles. The Biden administration
has set the “ambitious target” of ensuring that electric vehicles constitute
50% of car sales in the United States by 2030, according to a fact sheet from
the White House.

--
Let's go Brandon!
Ubiquitous
2022-10-19 17:22:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The White House announced on Tuesday that President Joe Biden would release
15 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

The national average price for gasoline is currently $3.85 per gallon,
according to data from AAA, marking a nearly 62% increase since Biden assumed
office at the beginning of last year. In response to the rising prices, Biden
announced in March that his administration would release 180 million barrels
from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a stock of emergency crude oil created
to manage supply disruptions in energy markets. Transactions for the final 15
million barrels will clear by the end of December.

“Global crude oil supply flows remain a challenge, due in large part to the
ongoing instability caused by Russia’s actions in Ukraine,” the White House
said in a statement. “The President is prepared to authorize significant
additional sales in coming months if conditions require.”

West Texas Intermediate, the American benchmark for crude oil, was nearly $85
per barrel as of Wednesday morning after a decline on Tuesday afternoon. The
White House noted that officials “will not hesitate” to use the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve or other tools “to shore up the global supply of energy,
support domestic inventory levels, and bring prices down for Americans.”

Biden plans to repurchase crude oil at prices that could range between $67
per barrel and $72 per barrel. According to the White House, the move will
“protect taxpayers and help create certainty around future demand for crude
oil.” Two years ago, however, former President Donald Trump attempted to
stabilize the energy sector by filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve with
oil priced at $24 per barrel, a rock-bottom rate that occurred as a result of
worldwide lockdowns. Democrats blocked the measure amid broader stimulus
package negotiations.

Biden has presided over a decrease in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve from
638 million barrels to 409 million barrels, according to data from the Energy
Information Administration. When one reporter questioned White House Press
Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre this week on why the release was necessary since
gas prices are trending downward, as the administration asserts, she claimed
that Americans would receive “a little bit of breathing room” as a result of
the policy.

“President Biden has said for months how he is committed to doing everything
that he can in his power to address Putin’s price hike,” Jean-Pierre said.
“He has said this on almost every speech that you’ve heard him talk about
when it comes to gas prices and what the American people are seeing and
feeling at the pump. And he’s been delivering on that.”

Although the release is primarily intended to cut domestic energy prices, at
least 5 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve have found their
way to nations such as India, the Netherlands, and Italy, as well as a
Chinese oil company with links to Hunter Biden.

The economy and inflation are salient issues among voters preparing to cast
ballots in the midterm elections, with 84% considering the former to be a top
factor on their minds. The Republicans lead the Democrats by a 16% margin and
a 19% margin with respect to trust on handling the economy and inflation,
respectively, according to a recent poll from ABC News and The Washington
Post.

The government of Saudi Arabia released a statement last week claiming that
Biden had asked the kingdom to avoid a decrease in oil production until after
the American elections. Earlier this month, Biden reportedly began preparing
to ease sanctions on Venezuela so that Chevron, an American oil company,
could resume production in the socialist nation.

--
Let's go Brandon!
Ubiquitous
2022-10-19 17:22:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
With less than three weeks to go before the midterm elections -- which many
pollsters predict will be a bloodbath for Democrats -- liberals are getting
desperate.

While nationwide surveys show soaring inflation, skyrocketing food and gas
prices, rampant crime and the crisis at the U.S. southern border as the top
issues for voters, liberals are hyping a woman's right to choose abortion, a
losing issue with the way things are right now.

The uber-liberal Independent newspaper brought out this breathless headline
on Tuesday: "Biden promises to codify Roe v Wade in January if Democrats win
control of Congress."

"Joe Biden will sign legislation protecting access to abortion care into law
if Democrats win control of Congress in midterm elections this fall," the
U.K. paper declared.

"If Republicans get their way with a national ban, it won't matter where you
live in America," Biden said at a Democratic fundraiser on Tuesday. "The only
sure way to stop these extremist laws that have put in jeopardy women's
health and rights is for Congress to pass a law."

Biden went on to say that he would "codify" Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973
Supreme Court decision that enshrined abortion as a constitutional right, on
the 50th anniversary of the ruling.

"And I've said before: The Court got Roe right nearly 50 years ago, and I
believe Congress should codify Roe once and for all," he said to applause.

"And, folks, if we do that, here is the promise I make to you and the
American people: The first bill that I will send to the Congress will be to
codify Roe v. Wade. And when Congress passes it, I'll sign it in January, 50
years after Roe was first decided the law of the land," he said to more
applause.

But here's the problem: In June, the nation's high court struck down
precedents established by Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey. So
Congress voting to pass a bill that simply "codifies" the tenets in the 1973
ruling would all but certainly be overturned by the Supreme Court, which
ruled that it wasn't a protection guaranteed in the Constitution.

Biden has absolutely no power to "codify" Roe v. Wade -- and he doesn't even
know that.

In the Supreme Court ruling, Justice Samuel Alito said the Roe ruling and
subsequent court decisions that reaffirmed Roe "must be overruled" because
they were "egregiously wrong," the arguments "exceptionally weak" and so
"damaging" that they amounted to "an abuse of judicial authority."

"The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is
implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on
which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely -- the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment," Alito wrote.

"That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned
in the Constitution, but any such right must be 'deeply rooted in this
Nation's history and tradition' and 'implicit in the concept of ordered
liberty," he added. "It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue
of abortion to the people's elected representatives."

What's more, abortion is not a winning issue for Democrats, at least not this
time around, according to James Carville, the architect of Bill Clinton's win
in 1992. Back then, more than 10 million Americans were unemployed, job
creation was the slowest since the Great Depression, the federal deficit had
reached a record high, and poverty and welfare rolls -- along with inflation
-- were soaring.

"A lot of these consultants think if all we do is run abortion spots that
will win for us. I don't think so," Carville said. "It's a good issue. But if
you just sit there and they're pummeling you on crime and pummeling you on
the cost of living, you've got to be more aggressive than just yelling
abortion every other word."

And this is the guy who coined the campaign motto, "It's the economy,
stupid."

It was then, and it is now.

--
Let's go Brandon!
The Horny Goat
2022-10-21 18:34:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
"Joe Biden will sign legislation protecting access to abortion care into law
if Democrats win control of Congress in midterm elections this fall," the
U.K. paper declared.
Wait a minute - didn't the SCOTUS just rule that abortion was an issue
under state jurisdiction?

Either it's a federal or a state issue and if its not clear then there
shouldn't be legislation.
shawn
2022-10-21 21:33:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Ubiquitous
"Joe Biden will sign legislation protecting access to abortion care into law
if Democrats win control of Congress in midterm elections this fall," the
U.K. paper declared.
Wait a minute - didn't the SCOTUS just rule that abortion was an issue
under state jurisdiction?
Either it's a federal or a state issue and if its not clear then there
shouldn't be legislation.
Not unusual at all. It is a state issue now until the Federal
Government steps in. If an amendment is passed that clearly states
that abortion is an issue solely between a woman and her doctor then
that returns the issue to federal control. Until such time as the Feds
step in the issue is a state issue due to the Supreme Court ruling.

So this issue has gone from a state issue to a federal issue to a
state issue and may go back to being a federal issue again after the
election. Nothing is permanent where the government is involved.
The Horny Goat
2022-10-22 02:11:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 17:33:46 -0400, shawn
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Ubiquitous
"Joe Biden will sign legislation protecting access to abortion care into law
if Democrats win control of Congress in midterm elections this fall," the
U.K. paper declared.
Wait a minute - didn't the SCOTUS just rule that abortion was an issue
under state jurisdiction?
Either it's a federal or a state issue and if its not clear then there
shouldn't be legislation.
Not unusual at all. It is a state issue now until the Federal
Government steps in. If an amendment is passed that clearly states
that abortion is an issue solely between a woman and her doctor then
that returns the issue to federal control. Until such time as the Feds
step in the issue is a state issue due to the Supreme Court ruling.
So this issue has gone from a state issue to a federal issue to a
state issue and may go back to being a federal issue again after the
election. Nothing is permanent where the government is involved.
Now when you say an amendment you mean an amendment that is passed by
both Houses of Congress and ratified by the requisite number of states
right? (aka 'a constitutional amendment')

Or do you mean something else? Because I was under the impression it
took a constitution amendment to transfer rights from the states to
the feds or vice versa.
Micky DuPree
2022-10-31 05:05:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 17:33:46 -0400, shawn
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Ubiquitous
"Joe Biden will sign legislation protecting access to abortion care
into law if Democrats win control of Congress in midterm elections
this fall," the U.K. paper declared.
Wait a minute - didn't the SCOTUS just rule that abortion was an
issue under state jurisdiction?
Either it's a federal or a state issue and if its not clear then
there shouldn't be legislation.
Not unusual at all. It is a state issue now until the Federal
Government steps in. If an amendment is passed that clearly states
that abortion is an issue solely between a woman and her doctor then
that returns the issue to federal control. Until such time as the
Feds step in the issue is a state issue due to the Supreme Court
ruling.
So this issue has gone from a state issue to a federal issue to a
state issue and may go back to being a federal issue again after the
election. Nothing is permanent where the government is involved.
Now when you say an amendment you mean an amendment that is passed by
both Houses of Congress and ratified by the requisite number of states
right? (aka 'a constitutional amendment')
Or do you mean something else? Because I was under the impression it
took a constitution amendment to transfer rights from the states to
the feds or vice versa.
From a reductive standpoint, yes, but the devil is in the interpretation
(or the interpretors more recently). I also suspect that shawn meant
"statute" when he said "amendment."

It's worth trying, but I see this SCOTUS being perfectly willing to
strike down any federal law protecting abortion, based on some 16th
century Calvinist theory or some such drivel.

-Micky
BTR1701
2022-10-31 17:11:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Micky DuPree
Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 17:33:46 -0400, shawn
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Ubiquitous
"Joe Biden will sign legislation protecting access to abortion care
into law if Democrats win control of Congress in midterm elections
this fall," the U.K. paper declared.
Wait a minute - didn't the SCOTUS just rule that abortion was an
issue under state jurisdiction?
Either it's a federal or a state issue and if its not clear then
there shouldn't be legislation.
Not unusual at all. It is a state issue now until the Federal
Government steps in. If an amendment is passed that clearly states
that abortion is an issue solely between a woman and her doctor then
that returns the issue to federal control. Until such time as the
Feds step in the issue is a state issue due to the Supreme Court
ruling.
So this issue has gone from a state issue to a federal issue to a
state issue and may go back to being a federal issue again after the
election. Nothing is permanent where the government is involved.
Now when you say an amendment you mean an amendment that is passed by
both Houses of Congress and ratified by the requisite number of states
right? (aka 'a constitutional amendment')
Or do you mean something else? Because I was under the impression it
took a constitution amendment to transfer rights from the states to
the feds or vice versa.
From a reductive standpoint, yes, but the devil is in the interpretation
(or the interpretors more recently). I also suspect that shawn meant
"statute" when he said "amendment."
It's worth trying, but I see this SCOTUS being perfectly willing to
strike down any federal law protecting abortion, based on some 16th
century Calvinist theory or some such drivel.
Or maybe they'd strike it down because it simply isn't one of the
enumerated powers of the federal government found in Article I, Section
8, DuPree.

That's how the federal government is supposed to work, after all. The
federal government only has the powers that are specifically granted to
it by the Constitution. Last time I checked, that isn't "Calvinist
drivel".
trotsky
2022-10-31 20:58:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Micky DuPree
Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 17:33:46 -0400, shawn
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Ubiquitous
"Joe Biden will sign legislation protecting access to abortion care
into law if Democrats win control of Congress in midterm elections
this fall," the U.K. paper declared.
Wait a minute - didn't the SCOTUS just rule that abortion was an
issue under state jurisdiction?
Either it's a federal or a state issue and if its not clear then
there shouldn't be legislation.
Not unusual at all. It is a state issue now until the Federal
Government steps in. If an amendment is passed that clearly states
that abortion is an issue solely between a woman and her doctor then
that returns the issue to federal control. Until such time as the
Feds step in the issue is a state issue due to the Supreme Court
ruling.
So this issue has gone from a state issue to a federal issue to a
state issue and may go back to being a federal issue again after the
election. Nothing is permanent where the government is involved.
Now when you say an amendment you mean an amendment that is passed by
both Houses of Congress and ratified by the requisite number of states
right? (aka 'a constitutional amendment')
Or do you mean something else? Because I was under the impression it
took a constitution amendment to transfer rights from the states to
the feds or vice versa.
From a reductive standpoint, yes, but the devil is in the interpretation
(or the interpretors more recently). I also suspect that shawn meant
"statute" when he said "amendment."
It's worth trying, but I see this SCOTUS being perfectly willing to
strike down any federal law protecting abortion, based on some 16th
century Calvinist theory or some such drivel.
Or maybe they'd strike it down because it simply isn't one of the
enumerated powers of the federal government found in Article I, Section
8, DuPree.
That's how the federal government is supposed to work, after all. The
federal government only has the powers that are specifically granted to
it by the Constitution. Last time I checked, that isn't "Calvinist
drivel".
Hey, does it say somewhere in the Constitution that the Senate Majority
Leader can confirm SCOTUS Justices only when he feels like it? TIA.
moviePig
2022-10-31 22:22:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Micky DuPree
Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 17:33:46 -0400, shawn
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Ubiquitous
"Joe Biden will sign legislation protecting access to abortion care
into law if Democrats win control of Congress in midterm elections
this fall," the U.K. paper declared.
Wait a minute - didn't the SCOTUS just rule that abortion was an
issue under state jurisdiction?
Either it's a federal or a state issue and if its not clear then
there shouldn't be legislation.
Not unusual at all. It is a state issue now until the Federal
Government steps in. If an amendment is passed that clearly states
that abortion is an issue solely between a woman and her doctor then
that returns the issue to federal control. Until such time as the
Feds step in the issue is a state issue due to the Supreme Court
ruling.
So this issue has gone from a state issue to a federal issue to a
state issue and may go back to being a federal issue again after the
election. Nothing is permanent where the government is involved.
Now when you say an amendment you mean an amendment that is passed by
both Houses of Congress and ratified by the requisite number of states
right? (aka 'a constitutional amendment')
Or do you mean something else? Because I was under the impression it
took a constitution amendment to transfer rights from the states to
the feds or vice versa.
From a reductive standpoint, yes, but the devil is in the interpretation
(or the interpretors more recently). I also suspect that shawn meant
"statute" when he said "amendment."
It's worth trying, but I see this SCOTUS being perfectly willing to
strike down any federal law protecting abortion, based on some 16th
century Calvinist theory or some such drivel.
Or maybe they'd strike it down because it simply isn't one of the
enumerated powers of the federal government found in Article I, Section
8, DuPree.
That's how the federal government is supposed to work, after all. The
federal government only has the powers that are specifically granted to
it by the Constitution. Last time I checked, that isn't "Calvinist
drivel".
And what's supposed to limit a *State's* powers over citizens? Anything?
BTR1701
2022-11-01 03:03:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Micky DuPree
Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 17:33:46 -0400, shawn
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Ubiquitous
"Joe Biden will sign legislation protecting access to abortion care
into law if Democrats win control of Congress in midterm elections
this fall," the U.K. paper declared.
Wait a minute - didn't the SCOTUS just rule that abortion was an
issue under state jurisdiction?
Either it's a federal or a state issue and if its not clear then
there shouldn't be legislation.
Not unusual at all. It is a state issue now until the Federal
Government steps in. If an amendment is passed that clearly states
that abortion is an issue solely between a woman and her doctor then
that returns the issue to federal control. Until such time as the
Feds step in the issue is a state issue due to the Supreme Court
ruling.
So this issue has gone from a state issue to a federal issue to a
state issue and may go back to being a federal issue again after the
election. Nothing is permanent where the government is involved.
Now when you say an amendment you mean an amendment that is passed by
both Houses of Congress and ratified by the requisite number of states
right? (aka 'a constitutional amendment')
Or do you mean something else? Because I was under the impression it
took a constitution amendment to transfer rights from the states to
the feds or vice versa.
From a reductive standpoint, yes, but the devil is in the interpretation
(or the interpretors more recently). I also suspect that shawn meant
"statute" when he said "amendment."
It's worth trying, but I see this SCOTUS being perfectly willing to
strike down any federal law protecting abortion, based on some 16th
century Calvinist theory or some such drivel.
Or maybe they'd strike it down because it simply isn't one of the
enumerated powers of the federal government found in Article I, Section
8, DuPree.
That's how the federal government is supposed to work, after all. The
federal government only has the powers that are specifically granted to
it by the Constitution. Last time I checked, that isn't "Calvinist
drivel".
And what's supposed to limit a *State's* powers over citizens? Anything?
So long as the state is violating any guaranteed rights, no. That's why
we have states. If you don't like how your state does things, you can
move to one that's more in line with your beliefs.

In any event, the remedy for an overreach of state power isn't for
judges to make up federal powers that don't exist out of thin air.
trotsky
2022-11-01 08:54:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Micky DuPree
Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 17:33:46 -0400, shawn
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Ubiquitous
"Joe Biden will sign legislation protecting access to abortion care
into law if Democrats win control of Congress in midterm elections
this fall," the U.K. paper declared.
Wait a minute - didn't the SCOTUS just rule that abortion was an
issue under state jurisdiction?
Either it's a federal or a state issue and if its not clear then
there shouldn't be legislation.
Not unusual at all. It is a state issue now until the Federal
Government steps in. If an amendment is passed that clearly states
that abortion is an issue solely between a woman and her doctor then
that returns the issue to federal control. Until such time as the
Feds step in the issue is a state issue due to the Supreme Court
ruling.
So this issue has gone from a state issue to a federal issue to a
state issue and may go back to being a federal issue again after the
election. Nothing is permanent where the government is involved.
Now when you say an amendment you mean an amendment that is passed by
both Houses of Congress and ratified by the requisite number of states
right? (aka 'a constitutional amendment')
Or do you mean something else? Because I was under the impression it
took a constitution amendment to transfer rights from the states to
the feds or vice versa.
From a reductive standpoint, yes, but the devil is in the interpretation
(or the interpretors more recently). I also suspect that shawn meant
"statute" when he said "amendment."
It's worth trying, but I see this SCOTUS being perfectly willing to
strike down any federal law protecting abortion, based on some 16th
century Calvinist theory or some such drivel.
Or maybe they'd strike it down because it simply isn't one of the
enumerated powers of the federal government found in Article I, Section
8, DuPree.
That's how the federal government is supposed to work, after all. The
federal government only has the powers that are specifically granted to
it by the Constitution. Last time I checked, that isn't "Calvinist
drivel".
And what's supposed to limit a *State's* powers over citizens? Anything?
So long as the state is violating any guaranteed rights, no. That's why
we have states. If you don't like how your state does things, you can
move to one that's more in line with your beliefs.
Either you misspelled the word "isn't" or I have no idea what the fuck
you're talking about. What new.
Post by BTR1701
In any event, the remedy for an overreach of state power isn't for
judges to make up federal powers that don't exist out of thin air.
The Horny Goat
2022-11-12 08:14:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 05:05:05 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
From a reductive standpoint, yes, but the devil is in the interpretation
(or the interpretors more recently). I also suspect that shawn meant
"statute" when he said "amendment."
It's worth trying, but I see this SCOTUS being perfectly willing to
strike down any federal law protecting abortion, based on some 16th
century Calvinist theory or some such drivel.
As I understand the court decision it put responsibility for the issue
on the STATES. Not sure I personally agree with that but if that's the
ruling then Biden and friends are spending a lot of time in waters
they ought not to be swimming in.

"States rights" was a term used a LOT by pre-1960 Democratic party
politicians in the deep South to keep black people down so it is
highly ironic that the argument is being used at so much length in
this matter.
Adam H. Kerman
2022-11-12 15:39:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Micky DuPree
From a reductive standpoint, yes, but the devil is in the interpretation
(or the interpretors more recently). I also suspect that shawn meant
"statute" when he said "amendment."
It's worth trying, but I see this SCOTUS being perfectly willing to
strike down any federal law protecting abortion, based on some 16th
century Calvinist theory or some such drivel.
Aren't you going to smack DuPree around for misstating Calvinism? It's
religious, clearly, but both the Catholic Church and many Protestant
denominations oppose abortion so what the hell does that have to do with
Calvinism?
Post by The Horny Goat
As I understand the court decision it put responsibility for the issue
on the STATES. Not sure I personally agree with that but if that's the
ruling then Biden and friends are spending a lot of time in waters
they ought not to be swimming in.
Congress can write a law protecting interstate aspects of abortion, such
as the right to travel outside one's home state for a medical procedure.
Anything that isn't strictly interstate will likely be found
unconstitutional by the current Supreme Court.
Post by The Horny Goat
"States rights" was a term used a LOT by pre-1960 Democratic party
politicians in the deep South to keep black people down so it is
highly ironic that the argument is being used at so much length in
this matter.
Uh, the 19th century and counter-Reconstructionism and failure of
federal courts to implement much of the 14th Amendment? The 14th
Amendment eliminated certain aspects of federalism when it came to
individual liberty and specific civil rights. But unless the word
"liberty" in the 14th Amendment had to do with abortion in the Dobbs
decision, there's no longer federal protection.
The Horny Goat
2022-11-17 19:19:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 15:39:17 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by The Horny Goat
"States rights" was a term used a LOT by pre-1960 Democratic party
politicians in the deep South to keep black people down so it is
highly ironic that the argument is being used at so much length in
this matter.
Uh, the 19th century and counter-Reconstructionism and failure of
federal courts to implement much of the 14th Amendment? The 14th
Amendment eliminated certain aspects of federalism when it came to
individual liberty and specific civil rights. But unless the word
"liberty" in the 14th Amendment had to do with abortion in the Dobbs
decision, there's no longer federal protection.
You have a point. Whatever happened in the first twenty years after
the Civil War didn't have a whole lot to do with abortion.

Would you accept that the Confederacy lost the war but won the peace?
Micky DuPree
2022-11-27 04:13:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 05:05:05 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
From a reductive standpoint, yes, but the devil is in the
interpretation (or the interpretors more recently). I also suspect
that shawn meant "statute" when he said "amendment."
It's worth trying, but I see this SCOTUS being perfectly willing to
strike down any federal law protecting abortion, based on some 16th
century Calvinist theory or some such drivel.
As I understand the court decision it put responsibility for the issue
on the STATES. Not sure I personally agree with that but if that's the
ruling then Biden and friends are spending a lot of time in waters
they ought not to be swimming in.
As I understand it, the SCOTUS decision was that in the absence of a
federal statute protecting abortion, the determination of abortion
rights or abortion prohibitions devolved to the states. But if Congress
did pass such a law, then that would supersede state laws (until, of
course, there was a challenge by red states that would proceed to the
SCOTUS again).
Post by The Horny Goat
"States rights" was a term used a LOT by pre-1960 Democratic party
politicians in the deep South to keep black people down so it is
highly ironic that the argument is being used at so much length in
this matter.
Not so ironic. It's the heirs to the Dixiecrats (some of whom are still
alive) that are using Republican state legislatures, funded and aimed by
such guiding lights as ALEC, who have been waiting to pounce on the
overturning of _Roe_ to enshrine abortion prohibitions in state law.

But face it: it's not a position that can stand forever. If you're
going to claim that a fetus has inalienable human rights just like a
born, breathing human, then it's not something that those who believe it
are going to let stand as a states' rights issue, not while they have a
supermajority of SCOTUS justices who either are practicing Catholics or
who were at least raised Catholic.

-Micky
BTR1701
2022-11-27 21:28:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Micky DuPree
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 05:05:05 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
From a reductive standpoint, yes, but the devil is in the
interpretation (or the interpretors more recently). I also suspect
that shawn meant "statute" when he said "amendment."
It's worth trying, but I see this SCOTUS being perfectly willing to
strike down any federal law protecting abortion, based on some 16th
century Calvinist theory or some such drivel.
As I understand the court decision it put responsibility for the issue
on the STATES. Not sure I personally agree with that but if that's the
ruling then Biden and friends are spending a lot of time in waters
they ought not to be swimming in.
As I understand it, the SCOTUS decision was that in the absence of a
federal statute protecting abortion, the determination of abortion
rights or abortion prohibitions devolved to the states. But if Congress
did pass such a law, then that would supersede state laws (until, of
course, there was a challenge by red states that would proceed to the
SCOTUS again).
COngress can only legislate over matters its been given jurisdiction
over by Article I, Section 8. Since abortion isn't on that list, even a
federal statute would be constitutionally unsound.

The only way to (legitimately) give the federal government jurisdiction
over abortion would be to amend the Constitution accordingly.
trotsky
2022-11-28 09:13:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Micky DuPree
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 05:05:05 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
From a reductive standpoint, yes, but the devil is in the
interpretation (or the interpretors more recently). I also suspect
that shawn meant "statute" when he said "amendment."
It's worth trying, but I see this SCOTUS being perfectly willing to
strike down any federal law protecting abortion, based on some 16th
century Calvinist theory or some such drivel.
As I understand the court decision it put responsibility for the issue
on the STATES. Not sure I personally agree with that but if that's the
ruling then Biden and friends are spending a lot of time in waters
they ought not to be swimming in.
As I understand it, the SCOTUS decision was that in the absence of a
federal statute protecting abortion, the determination of abortion
rights or abortion prohibitions devolved to the states. But if Congress
did pass such a law, then that would supersede state laws (until, of
course, there was a challenge by red states that would proceed to the
SCOTUS again).
COngress can only legislate over matters its been given jurisdiction
over by Article I, Section 8. Since abortion isn't on that list, even a
federal statute would be constitutionally unsound.
Have you contacted Miss Lindsey Graham about this?
Post by BTR1701
The only way to (legitimately) give the federal government jurisdiction
over abortion would be to amend the Constitution accordingly.
You misspelled "...have a Supreme Court that isn't a fucked up right
wing mess."
The Horny Goat
2022-11-27 22:29:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 04:13:28 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
Not so ironic. It's the heirs to the Dixiecrats (some of whom are still
alive) that are using Republican state legislatures, funded and aimed by
such guiding lights as ALEC, who have been waiting to pounce on the
overturning of _Roe_ to enshrine abortion prohibitions in state law.
No no no - the Dixiecrats WEREN'T Republicans - they were definitely
Democrats who rejected the racial equality provisions introduced by
Democrat presidents like Truman, JFK and LBJ. There's no way you can
link them to the GOP.

If you want to damn Nixon for anything he should be damned far more
for his "Southern Strategy" than his relatively small part in
Watergate which while terrible wasn't as terrible as the Southern
Strategy which hurt his party more than it helped it and especially in
the way it legitimized people like Wallace and Farbus and their ilk.

1968 was one of the closest US elections in history (while 1972 was
one of the greatest landslides) and while it's possible NOT making
Nixon's devil's deal with that crew RMN wouldn't have won in 68, it
set the GOP on a very bad path.
David Johnston
2022-11-29 00:20:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Micky DuPree
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 05:05:05 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
From a reductive standpoint, yes, but the devil is in the
interpretation (or the interpretors more recently). I also suspect
that shawn meant "statute" when he said "amendment."
It's worth trying, but I see this SCOTUS being perfectly willing to
strike down any federal law protecting abortion, based on some 16th
century Calvinist theory or some such drivel.
As I understand the court decision it put responsibility for the issue
on the STATES. Not sure I personally agree with that but if that's the
ruling then Biden and friends are spending a lot of time in waters
they ought not to be swimming in.
As I understand it, the SCOTUS decision was that in the absence of a
federal statute protecting abortion, the determination of abortion
rights or abortion prohibitions devolved to the states. But if Congress
did pass such a law, then that would supersede state laws (until, of
course, there was a challenge by red states that would proceed to the
SCOTUS again).
I'm pretty confident that the court would rule that the federal
government has no authority to tell the states that they can't ban
abortion. What would be their constitutional authority to do it?
trotsky
2022-11-29 09:26:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Micky DuPree
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 05:05:05 +0000 (UTC),
 From a reductive standpoint, yes, but the devil is in the
interpretation (or the interpretors more recently).  I also suspect
that shawn meant "statute" when he said "amendment."
It's worth trying, but I see this SCOTUS being perfectly willing to
strike down any federal law protecting abortion, based on some 16th
century Calvinist theory or some such drivel.
As I understand the court decision it put responsibility for the issue
on the STATES. Not sure I personally agree with that but if that's the
ruling then Biden and friends are spending a lot of time in waters
they ought not to be swimming in.
As I understand it, the SCOTUS decision was that in the absence of a
federal statute protecting abortion, the determination of abortion
rights or abortion prohibitions devolved to the states.  But if Congress
did pass such a law, then that would supersede state laws (until, of
course, there was a challenge by red states that would proceed to the
SCOTUS again).
I'm pretty confident that the court would rule that the federal
government has no authority to tell the states that they can't ban
abortion.  What would be their constitutional authority to do it?
You'd have to read the recent SCOTUS decision overturning Roe to see if
there's any wiggle room. It's not complicated.
Ubiquitous
2022-10-25 08:30:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Ubiquitous
"Joe Biden will sign legislation protecting access to abortion care into
law if Democrats win control of Congress in midterm elections this fall,"
the U.K. paper declared.
Wait a minute - didn't the SCOTUS just rule that abortion was an issue
under state jurisdiction?
Either it's a federal or a state issue and if its not clear then there
shouldn't be legislation.
You are correct. The Feds cannot pass abortion laws, but that won't stop
something like the Constitution from stopping them from trying.

It is funny watching the Dems desperately clinging to abortion as a campaign
plank, but what else can they do?

--
Let's go Brandon!
Adam H. Kerman
2022-10-31 23:07:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Ubiquitous
"Joe Biden will sign legislation protecting access to abortion care into law
if Democrats win control of Congress in midterm elections this fall," the
U.K. paper declared.
Wait a minute - didn't the SCOTUS just rule that abortion was an issue
under state jurisdiction?
The Supreme Court ruled that the federal constitution did not protect
abortion rights. It's not a constitutional court and cannot rule, in
advance, as to the constitutionality of possible legislation that might
be introduced in the next Congress if the Democrats retain the majority
in both houses.

At the very least, if abortion is treated as an interstate matter
without an over-the-top interpretation of the Commerce Clause, such as
protecting the right to travel to outside your home state in order to
secure an abortion, then even this Supreme Court wouldn't rule that to
be unconstitutional.
Post by The Horny Goat
Either it's a federal or a state issue and if its not clear then there
shouldn't be legislation.
That's not how it works since FDR.
The Horny Goat
2022-11-12 08:17:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 23:07:09 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
At the very least, if abortion is treated as an interstate matter
without an over-the-top interpretation of the Commerce Clause, such as
protecting the right to travel to outside your home state in order to
secure an abortion, then even this Supreme Court wouldn't rule that to
be unconstitutional.
Post by The Horny Goat
Either it's a federal or a state issue and if its not clear then there
shouldn't be legislation.
That's not how it works since FDR.
Since when have American judges denied the right of Americans to cross
states lines for any cause other than committing a crime?
Adam H. Kerman
2022-11-12 15:42:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Adam H. Kerman
At the very least, if abortion is treated as an interstate matter
without an over-the-top interpretation of the Commerce Clause, such as
protecting the right to travel to outside your home state in order to
secure an abortion, then even this Supreme Court wouldn't rule that to
be unconstitutional.
Post by The Horny Goat
Either it's a federal or a state issue and if its not clear then there
shouldn't be legislation.
That's not how it works since FDR.
Since when have American judges denied the right of Americans to cross
states lines for any cause other than committing a crime?
The Mann Act has never been found to be unconstitutional, even though
the underlying crimes aren't necessarily criminal acts till one has left
the sttae in question for the purpose of conduct that's not necessarily
a crime without having left the state.

I'm sure there are other federal laws like that as well. Congress and
state legislatures are allowed to have conflicting views on what
behavior is criminal if the federal government has the ability to assert
jurisdiction.
The Horny Goat
2022-11-17 19:21:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 15:42:56 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by The Horny Goat
Since when have American judges denied the right of Americans to cross
states lines for any cause other than committing a crime?
The Mann Act has never been found to be unconstitutional, even though
the underlying crimes aren't necessarily criminal acts till one has left
the sttae in question for the purpose of conduct that's not necessarily
a crime without having left the state.
I'm sure there are other federal laws like that as well. Congress and
state legislatures are allowed to have conflicting views on what
behavior is criminal if the federal government has the ability to assert
jurisdiction.
The federal government has the right to ASSERT anything they like.

(Nobody's suggesting that's changing any time soon!)

Having their view of things upheld by the courts (including the
SCOTUS) is a totally different matter.
Adam H. Kerman
2022-11-17 20:01:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by The Horny Goat
Since when have American judges denied the right of Americans to cross
states lines for any cause other than committing a crime?
The Mann Act has never been found to be unconstitutional, even though
the underlying crimes aren't necessarily criminal acts till one has left
the sttae in question for the purpose of conduct that's not necessarily
a crime without having left the state.
I'm sure there are other federal laws like that as well. Congress and
state legislatures are allowed to have conflicting views on what
behavior is criminal if the federal government has the ability to assert
jurisdiction.
The federal government has the right to ASSERT anything they like.
(Nobody's suggesting that's changing any time soon!)
Having their view of things upheld by the courts (including the
SCOTUS) is a totally different matter.
I am discussing assertion of federal jurisdiction as limited by federal
courts. No, the federal government cannot assert anything it likes if it
has been barred from doing so by federal courts.
Ubiquitous
2022-10-20 16:38:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre isn’t the brightest bulb in
the diversity hire bunch, but she may very well be the most honest.

On Wednesday, KJP — as she is affectionately known — stated point blank that
she didn’t understand a question from a White House press pool reporter. The
truthful response was refreshing. Yet it was utterly confusing because the
query was one of the most straightforward questions possibly ever.

“Does President Biden want more migrants to come to Delaware?” an unnamed
reporter asked.

“I don’t even understand that question. I’ll move on,” a befuddled KJP
responded.

Watch here:

This is one of the most straight forward questions I have ever heard.
https://t.co/P3BFLX2lGd

— Tim Meads (@TimMeadsUSA) October 19, 2022

Arguably, that is the most articulate and confident she has ever sounded.

Usually, KJP always talks like she is being fed her lines through a faulty
earpiece that cuts out every other word and she has to guess what the next
word is.

It may not be normal, but it is typical for KJP.

The reporter was obviously referring to a large number of illegal aliens —
meaning millions of individuals — who have flooded the country since Biden
took office. In recent months, conservative governors have shipped thousands
of those people to Democratic hotbeds such as New York City, Washington,
D.C., Chicago, and even Martha’s Vineyard.

DeSantis has been threatening to send even more to Delaware.

Just a few weeks ago, KJP understood that topic. Now, she claims she has no
idea what the reporter is talking about when asked, “Does President Biden
want more migrants to come to Delaware?”

Since the press secretary seems to be unable to answer that question, this
author will attempt to do it for her from the perspective of a leftist:

What the president wants is for Republicans to end their hate, work
with him, and craft a bipartisan compromise so that we can bring
these brave men and women out of the shadows and on a path toward
citizenship so they can obtain the American dream. Maybe that means
they move to the great state of Delaware. The president certainly
loves his home state.

That fictional answer — while pretty believable, if I do say so myself — is
full of nonsense. It’s very easy to speak like a progressive — you just have
to include flowery language, attack Republicans, and accuse opponents of
being hateful.

It seems evident that the real reason the Biden administration has been
pushing mass amnesty is that Democrats feel that doing so would shore up a
new voting bloc and solidify the party’s power.

When KJP isn’t answering honestly about issues relating to illegal
immigration, it is entirely clear that she does not know what she is speaking
about.

For example, in early August, she claimed while discussing illegal
immigration that “it’s not like somebody walks over” the border. Thousands of
people do that each day.

Doocy: "Somebody unvaccinated comes over on a plane, you say that's
not okay. Somebody walks into Texas or Arizona unvaccinated, they're
allowed to stay?"

Jean-Pierre: "That's not how it works… It's not like someone walks
over."

Doocy: "That's exactly what is happening!" pic.twitter.com/mr8XE1n1oY

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) August 29, 2022

Like all White House press secretaries, she just has to repeat whatever the
White House messaging is. KJP isn’t really paid to critically think or tell
the truth.

She doesn’t really have any desire to do so either. As she has made
emphatically clear, she is simply proud to be both the first black and openly
gay press secretary in history.

Now, she can add another historical milestone to her belt: October 19, 2022,
was her most honest day ever.

--
Let's go Brandon!
RichA
2022-10-21 18:37:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Biden. Harris.
Ubiquitous
2022-10-26 17:07:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Georgia’s 2021 voter ID law was supposed to usher in a new era of “Jim Crow
2.0,” according to Democrats. President Joe Biden said it would make that
previous era of American history look like “Jim Eagle.”

Democrats at large, including current Peach Tree State gubernatorial
candidate Stacey Abrams, warned that millions of minorities would be
disenfranchised.

Except the opposite has happened.

Since early voting began on October 17, more than one million people have
voted via early voting and absentee ballots. That has smashed previous
records. When asked about that fact, White House press secretary Karine
Jean-Pierre offered up a cacophony of excuses.

“As you know, I have to be careful. I cannot get into politics from here,”
Jean-Pierre said, despite the fact she seems to slam “MAGA Republicans” in
midterms and “election deniers” every other day.

She claimed that Republicans have been promoting anti-voting laws around the
country despite not providing any examples.

“The president has been very clear that based on the ‘Big Lie’ there have
been a host of anti-voter policies forced on states that challenge America’s
fundamental right to vote, the access to voting,” she claimed. “So this is
against our most basic values, including respect for the law and the
constitution.”



The “Big Lie” of course refers to former President Donald J. Trump’s belief
that there was election fraud in the 2020 presidential election. According to
KJP, implying that American elections aren’t secure is tantamount to being a
traitor.

Of course, as documented, KJP herself is an “election denier.” Nevertheless,
she persisted — as the Beltway loves to say.

“Speaking generally of course, but more broadly, high turnout and voter
suppression can take place at the same time,” she added. “One doesn’t have to
happen on its own. They can be happening at the same time, but I will leave
it there without being able to really dig into the politics of this.”

Common sense would dictate that if voter suppression was occurring anywhere
in Georgia, then a record amount of minorities would be reporting that they
have been barred from voting.

Quite the opposite, the share of black voters in Georgia has actually
increased from 2020, according to Politico.

“At this point in 2020, Black voters made up 33 percent of the share of the
electorate, and in 2022, they’re up to 35 percent,” the outlet reported.

Yet Democrats can’t admit that a Republican voting law actually helped
increase democratic participation, so instead, they bloviate and makeup
nonsense.

The party’s entire midterm plan is to deny reality.

Up is down, right is wrong. Men are women. Abortion is healthcare. Biden is
competent. Record voting turnout is voter suppression.

--
Let's go Brandon!
Ubiquitous
2022-10-31 09:50:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
President Joe Biden (D) faced mockery online late last week after he falsely
claimed on the campaign trail that there are "54 states."

Biden made the remarks Friday at the "Pennsylvania Democratic Party
Reception" while talking about how the Democrats had success in the 2018
midterm elections by talking about health care.

"And, of course, they're going try for their 499th time, or whatever the
number is -- they're still determined to eliminate the Affordable Care Act,"
Biden said.

"And, by the way, if they do, that means -- not a joke, everybody," Biden
said. "That's why we defeated it in 2018 when they tried to do it. We went to
54 states."

WATCH:

Biden claims there are "54 states"
pic.twitter.com/eIKn9VlBPM

-- Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) October 29, 2022

Biden faced a lot of mockery in response to the comment with many expressing
exhaustion at how many times incidents like this have occurred with the
current president.

"Biden says there are 54 states in America," comedian and actor Rob Schneider
tweeted. "Next speech he will explain the 81 million votes..."

Writer Kelsey Bolar tweeted, "How much more of this are we supposed to
tolerate?"

"This Pelosi mad lib keeps getting weirder and weirder but any way you slice
it, crime is bad under Joe Biden in al 54 states," Fox News Radio Host Jimmy
Failla tweeted.

Attorney Jordan Sekulow tweeted, "The leader of the Democrat Party and
unfortunately for us, the President."

"Painful and embarrassing to watch," political commentator John Cardillo
tweeted. "IT'S. EVERY. TIME. HE. SPEAKS."

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) responded: "Joe Biden now says there are 54
states. I guess if you count the states of denial, confusion, delusion and
disaster that his Regime has caused he just might be on to something."

--
Let's go Brandon!
Ubiquitous
2022-11-02 19:47:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
President Joe Biden claimed on Tuesday that he spoke with the doctor who
invented insulin — a doctor who was so selfless that he refused to patent the
drug and profit from its use — but Dr. Frederick Banting died nearly two
years before the president was born.

President Biden spoke about what his administration had been doing to lower
health care costs for American families, touting his efforts to specifically
bring down the cost to consumers for prescription drugs like insulin — and he
claimed to have spoken with the doctor who invented it.

WATCH:

Joe Biden claims that he spoke to the man who invented insulin.
pic.twitter.com/FLjIZ1jPdE

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) November 1, 2022

“How many of you know somebody with diabetes? Needs insulin?” Biden asked as
he paced back and forth behind the lectern. “Well, guess what? And … when we
… when Debbie and I passed this law, it included everybody — not just
seniors.”

“And so, what happened was, we said okay, you know how much it costs to make
that insulin drug for diabetes? Cost,” Biden continued. “It was invented by a
man who did not patent it because he wanted it available for everyone. I
spoke to him, okay?”

But Dr. Frederick Banting, who was one of the doctors who discovered insulin
in 1921 — refused to put his name on the patent — passed away in February of
1941. Joe Biden was not even born until November of 1942 — some 21 months
later.

Banting received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for 1923 following
his discovery. His assistant, Dr. Charles Best, was a medical student at the
time and assisted with the discovery. He did put his name on the patent,
along with Dr. James Bertram Collip, who helped refine it, but the two sold
the patent to the University of Toronto for $1.

All three believed that it would not be ethical for them to take profits from
something that could potentially save thousands or even millions of lives.

Physiologist John MacLeod, who also chose not to be named on the patent,
played a role in the discovery, but had passed away in 1935. While both Drs.
Collip and Best were still living after Biden was born, he ruled them out as
the ones he spoke to because they did ultimately put their names on the
patent.

--
Let's go Brandon!
BTR1701
2022-11-02 20:23:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
President Joe Biden claimed on Tuesday that he spoke with the doctor who
invented insulin-- a doctor who was so selfless that he refused to patent the
drug and profit from its use-- but Dr. Frederick Banting died nearly two
years before the president was born.
After having developed the first insulin in 1922.

Biden really is the Forest Gump of our times, isn't he? He's talked to
every major figure or been at nearly every major event of the 20th
century. Even ones that occurred before his birth. Even Forest didn't
manage that!
Post by Ubiquitous
President Biden spoke about what his administration had been doing to lower
health care costs for American families, touting his efforts to specifically
bring down the cost to consumers for prescription drugs like insulin-- and he
claimed to have spoken with the doctor who invented it.
"How many of you know somebody with diabetes? Needs insulin?" Biden asked as
he paced back and forth behind the lectern. "Well, guess what? And... when we
... when Debbie and I passed this law, it included everybody-- not just
seniors."
"And so, what happened was, we said okay, you know how much it costs to make
that insulin drug for diabetes? Cost," Biden continued. "It was invented by a
man who did not patent it because he wanted it available for everyone. I
spoke to him, okay?"
But Dr. Frederick Banting, who was one of the doctors who discovered insulin
in 1921-- refused to put his name on the patent-- passed away in February of
1941. Joe Biden was not even born until November of 1942-- some 21 months
later.
None of this matters. He's fine. Trust us.
shawn
2022-11-03 00:03:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
President Joe Biden claimed on Tuesday that he spoke with the doctor who
invented insulin-- a doctor who was so selfless that he refused to patent the
drug and profit from its use-- but Dr. Frederick Banting died nearly two
years before the president was born.
After having developed the first insulin in 1922.
Along with two other men, both of whom were alive during Biden's life
and whom he may have talked to. The first insulin patent application
was in the name of James Collip, a Ph.D. biochemist, and Charles Best,
a medical student. Best died in 1979 and Collip in 1965.
Post by BTR1701
Biden really is the Forest Gump of our times, isn't he? He's talked to
every major figure or been at nearly every major event of the 20th
century. Even ones that occurred before his birth. Even Forest didn't
manage that!
Post by Ubiquitous
President Biden spoke about what his administration had been doing to lower
health care costs for American families, touting his efforts to specifically
bring down the cost to consumers for prescription drugs like insulin-- and he
claimed to have spoken with the doctor who invented it.
"How many of you know somebody with diabetes? Needs insulin?" Biden asked as
he paced back and forth behind the lectern. "Well, guess what? And... when we
... when Debbie and I passed this law, it included everybody-- not just
seniors."
"And so, what happened was, we said okay, you know how much it costs to make
that insulin drug for diabetes? Cost," Biden continued. "It was invented by a
man who did not patent it because he wanted it available for everyone. I
spoke to him, okay?"
But Dr. Frederick Banting, who was one of the doctors who discovered insulin
in 1921-- refused to put his name on the patent-- passed away in February of
1941. Joe Biden was not even born until November of 1942-- some 21 months
later.
None of this matters. He's fine. Trust us.
The Horny Goat
2022-11-12 08:21:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
“How many of you know somebody with diabetes? Needs insulin?” Biden asked as
he paced back and forth behind the lectern. “Well, guess what? And … when we
… when Debbie and I passed this law, it included everybody — not just
seniors.”
“And so, what happened was, we said okay, you know how much it costs to make
that insulin drug for diabetes? Cost,” Biden continued. “It was invented by a
man who did not patent it because he wanted it available for everyone. I
spoke to him, okay?”
But Dr. Frederick Banting, who was one of the doctors who discovered insulin
in 1921 — refused to put his name on the patent — passed away in February of
1941. Joe Biden was not even born until November of 1942 — some 21 months
later.
Banting received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for 1923 following
his discovery. His assistant, Dr. Charles Best, was a medical student at the
time and assisted with the discovery. He did put his name on the patent,
along with Dr. James Bertram Collip, who helped refine it, but the two sold
the patent to the University of Toronto for $1.
One presumes you know what country that discover and all the other
items you mention were done. Hint: it wasin't in the United States of
America.

Incidentally Banting wasn't ONE of the discoverers he was THE PRIMARY
discoverer and the others named were his assistants.
Bering Sea Bar & Brig
2022-11-16 00:09:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by trotsky
Tuberville, MTG, Herschel, Boebert, John Kennedy, Gohmert, Scalise,
Blackburn--the list goes on and on. Then there's the likes of Larry
Craig, Gym Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Denny Hastert, and numerous other sexual
perverts that aren't as stupid, just disgustingly perverted. Why would
anyone want to belong to a party filled with stupid assholes like this?
The obvious answer is you'd have to be a stupid asshole yourself.
How can you mention Hastert and forget his buddy Henry Hyde and his dupage County six seconds green light traffic signals???
Ubiquitous
2022-11-15 17:26:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Taliban leader Haibatullah Akhundzada has plans for harsh Sharia law in
Afghanistan, including public amputations and stoning, the BBC reports.

The Taliban had implemented harsh Sharia law in the 1990s when they took
over in Afghanistan, but promised after the United States withdrew in
2021 that they would offer “amnesty for all.”

“His Highness Amir al-Mu’minin in a meeting with the judges: Examine the
files of thieves, kidnappers and seditionists carefully. Those files in
which all the Shariah conditions of Hadd and Qisas are fulfilled, you
are obliged to implement Hadd and Qisas,” Taliban spokesman Zabihullah
Mujahid tweeted on Sunday.

Women were banned from visiting parks in Kabul, Afghanistan’s capital,
last week.

At the beginning of September 2021, just a few weeks after the U.S.
pullout, Joe Biden’s administration praised the Taliban, calling them
“businesslike and professional.”

“The Taliban have been cooperative in facilitating the departure of
American citizens and lawful permanent residents on charter flights from
HKIA,” the administration claimed in a statement after some American
citizens were finally evacuated out of Afghanistan after being left
there. “They have shown flexibility, and they have been businesslike and
professional in our dealings with them in this effort. This is a
positive first step.”

“We will continue these efforts to facilitate the safe and orderly
travel of American citizens, lawful permanent residents, and Afghans who
worked for us and wish to leave Afghanistan,” the statement continued.
“Because there is an ongoing terrorist threat to operations of this
nature, we will not be sharing details of these efforts before people
are safely out of the country.”

Prior to that, at the end of August, former White House Press Secretary
Jen Psaki pointed reporters to Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s
remarks, then boasted, “We have enormous leverage over the Taliban.”

The State Department wrote in 2001 regarding the Taliban’s history with
women when they ruled Afghanistan between 1996-2001:

Under Taliban rule, women were given only the most rudimentary
access to health care and medical care, thereby endangering the
health of women, and in turn, their families. In most hospitals,
male physicians could only examine a female patient if she were
fully clothed, ruling out the possibility of meaningful
diagnosis and treatment. These Taliban regulations led to a
lack of adequate medical care for women and contributed to
increased suffering and higher mortality rates. …

In May 2001, the Taliban raided and temporarily closed a
foreign-funded hospital in Kabul because male and female staff
allegedly mixed in the dining room and operating wards. It is
significant to note that approximately 70% of health services
had been provided by international relief organizations —
further highlighting the Taliban’s general disregard for the
welfare of the Afghan people.

--
Let's go Brandon!
The Horny Goat
2022-11-17 19:25:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
At the beginning of September 2021, just a few weeks after the U.S.
pullout, Joe Biden’s administration praised the Taliban, calling them
“businesslike and professional.”
“The Taliban have been cooperative in facilitating the departure of
American citizens and lawful permanent residents on charter flights from
HKIA,” the administration claimed in a statement after some American
citizens were finally evacuated out of Afghanistan after being left
there. “They have shown flexibility, and they have been businesslike and
professional in our dealings with them in this effort. This is a
positive first step.”
“We will continue these efforts to facilitate the safe and orderly
travel of American citizens, lawful permanent residents, and Afghans who
worked for us and wish to leave Afghanistan,” the statement continued.
“Because there is an ongoing terrorist threat to operations of this
nature, we will not be sharing details of these efforts before people
are safely out of the country.”
Which is the complete opposite of what Canada encountered when trying
to evacuate the Afghans who had served as translators for the Canadian
forces there.

If memory serves it was something like 3000 or so left behind (not
sure if that included families or not) nor any statistics indicating
how many of these either made it out to other countries or are even
still alive.

Rhino can you recall the figure?
Ubiquitous
2022-11-16 02:28:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) seemed confused about her own past
statements in an interview about her future on Tuesday.

The 89-year-old Feinstein was the prime candidate to become President
Pro Tempore of the Senate, third in the line of succession to the
presidency after the vice president and speaker of the house. But
Feinstein already stated publicly that she will not seek the position.
She seemed to forget that in an interview with Insider Magazine, and had
to be reminded of the statement by a staffer.

“Well, I haven’t thought about it, but I’ll let you know when I do,”
Feinstein told Insider’s Bryan Metzger. “I just got back, I’ve had a lot
of issues.”

“[She has] told a few reporters in the past that she’s not thought about
it, and has no intention of seeking the position,” one of Feinstein’s
aides cut in, before turning to the Senator. “That’s what you’ve told
reporters,” the aide said.

“I don’t know what you’re saying,” Feinstein told the staffer.

“This is about the Senate pro tem position,” he replied.

“Well, I haven’t said anything about it, that I know of,” she insisted.

“You were asked about it over the break, and you put out a statement
saying that you had no intention of running for it,” he reminded her.

“Okay, well then, I guess it’s out,” she concluded.

Feinstein told The Washington Post in October that she was not seeking
the position. “I’ve never thought about being the president pro tempore
and I have no interest in it at this time,” she said in a statement to
the paper. Feinstein also lost her husband, private equity investor and
former University of California regent Richard Blum, in February.
Feinstein cited her husband’s death as the reason she did not want to
accept the job.

Rumors have been swirling since earlier this year about Feinstein’s
mental fitness to serve in office. A Congressional Democrat told the San
Francisco Chronicle in April that Feinstein repeatedly engaged in
similar lines of small talk, and the lawmaker had to reintroduce himself
several times. Multiple senators, staffers, and the member of Congress
said that Feinstein’s memory was rapidly deteriorating, and that she
needed her staff to do much of the work.

In her interview with Insider, Feinstein refused to answer whether she
was fit to serve as president pro tempore. “I’m just saying I haven’t
thought about it,” she said.

If Feinstein keeps her word and does not seek the position, Senator
Patty Murray (D-WA) would most likely accept the post. Murray was
elected in 1992, the same year as Feinstein.

Meanwhile on the Republican side, Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) announced
his intention to challenge Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for
leadership of the Republican conference. “Republican voters expect and
deserve to know our plan to promote and advance conservative values,”
Scott said in a note to colleagues obtained by The Daily Wire. “We need
to listen to their calls for action and start governing in Washington
like we campaign back at home.

“They are begging us to tell them what we will do when we are in charge.
Unfortunately, we have continued to elect leadership who refuses to do
that and elicits attacks on anyone that does. That is clearly not
working and it’s time for bold change. The voters are demanding it,” he
added.

--
Let's go Brandon!
Ubiquitous
2022-11-18 11:01:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) claimed that if reparations for
slavery had been implemented, that might have helped to contain the
spread of COVID during the recent global pandemic.

Jackson Lee took to the House floor on Thursday to rally support for
H.R. 40, a bill that would establish a congressional commission to study
the potential cost and impact of reparations.

Noting that COVID infection rates among minority communities had
initially appeared to be greater than among white Americans or the
population at large, Jackson Lee cited a Harvard Medical School study
that said living conditions — and work environments in the African
American community were more conducive to the virus’ rapid spread.

WATCH:

REP. JACKSON LEE: "Reparations for African-Americans could
have cut COVID-19 transmission and infection rates both among
blacks and the population at large."
pic.twitter.com/GpgKBr2AHf

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) November 17, 2022

“There is no doubt we have been impacted, that DNA in the trajectory of
slavery to today. For example, COVID. Black African Americans have
gotten COVID at a rate of nearly 1.5 times higher than that of white
people, or hospitalized at a rate of nearly four times higher and three
times likely to die. COVID hit us very desperately,” Jackson Lee began.

She explained that reparations could have moved the needle among African
Americans by decreasing the wealth gap and allowing more people to
access better health care, better education, and potentially less
crowded living conditions.

“Reparations for African Americans could have cut COVID-19 transmission
and infection rates both among blacks and the population at large,” the
Texas Congresswoman continued. “Reparations are curative, they’re not
punishment. The analysis continued to look at data throughout the
nation.”

“Wealth is more strongly associated with familial or individual well-
being,” said study co-author William Darity, the Samuel DuBois Cook
Distinguished Professor of Public Policy at Duke University and a Lancet
reparations commissioner. He explained that black Americans have a much
lower average net worth than white Americans, adding, “This dramatically
restricts the ability of Black Americans to survive and thrive.”

While Jackson Lee’s initial data was correct — black Americans did see
higher infection, hospitalization, and death rates in the early months
of the pandemic — more recent data show that death rates across racial
demographics eventually evened out. As of October, the death rate among
white Americans — according to data evaluated by The Washington Post —
had “eclipsed” that of other groups.

--
Let' go Brandon!
trotsky
2022-11-18 22:09:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) claimed that if reparations for
slavery had been implemented, that might have helped to contain the
spread of COVID during the recent global pandemic.
Why? Would your diseased people have taken all the money and moved back
to Africa without infecting their betters?
RichA
2022-11-28 15:45:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by trotsky
Tuberville, MTG, Herschel, Boebert, John Kennedy, Gohmert, Scalise,
Blackburn--the list goes on and on. Then there's the likes of Larry
Craig, Gym Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Denny Hastert, and numerous other sexual
perverts that aren't as stupid, just disgustingly perverted. Why would
anyone want to belong to a party filled with stupid assholes like this?
The obvious answer is you'd have to be a stupid asshole yourself.
You support the Left and you have the gall to call anyone perverted? The Left THRIVES on perversion.
Perversion of human dignity, perversion of justice.
Bering Sea Bar & Brig
2022-11-28 18:13:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by trotsky
Tuberville, MTG, Herschel, Boebert, John Kennedy, Gohmert, Scalise,
Blackburn--the list goes on and on. Then there's the likes of Larry
Craig, Gym Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Denny Hastert, and numerous other sexual
perverts that aren't as stupid, just disgustingly perverted. Why would
anyone want to belong to a party filled with stupid assholes like this?
The obvious answer is you'd have to be a stupid asshole yourself.
You support the Left and you have the gall to call anyone perverted? The Left THRIVES on perversion.
Perversion of human dignity, perversion of justice.
Plus highways to boost farm land values and commuter trains built to nowhere now getting 50 passengers a station. The complete Hastert portrait.
trotsky
2022-11-28 22:41:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RichA
Post by trotsky
Tuberville, MTG, Herschel, Boebert, John Kennedy, Gohmert, Scalise,
Blackburn--the list goes on and on. Then there's the likes of Larry
Craig, Gym Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Denny Hastert, and numerous other sexual
perverts that aren't as stupid, just disgustingly perverted. Why would
anyone want to belong to a party filled with stupid assholes like this?
The obvious answer is you'd have to be a stupid asshole yourself.
You support the Left and you have the gall to call anyone perverted? The Left THRIVES on perversion.
Perversion of human dignity, perversion of justice.
I had what, at least ten examples? You have ZERO because you're a big
fat zero. Stop shitposting.
bruce bowser
2022-11-28 20:38:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by trotsky
Tuberville, MTG, Herschel, Boebert, John Kennedy, Gohmert, Scalise,
Blackburn--the list goes on and on. Then there's the likes of Larry
Craig, Gym Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Denny Hastert, and numerous other sexual
perverts that aren't as stupid, just disgustingly perverted. Why would
anyone want to belong to a party filled with stupid assholes like this?
The obvious answer is you'd have to be a stupid asshole yourself.
Or it would be friends of the oil and gas ....
Ubiquitous
2022-11-29 01:05:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Even as the sun glistened upon his thinning hair one bright Mississippi day
in DeKalb, Miss., U.S. Sen. Joe Biden stood out as the youngest of the
senators speaking at U.S. Sen. John C. Stennis' birthday party. It was Aug.
3, 1985, and the 42-year-old Biden was a rising star in the Democratic Party.
With the 1988 presidential race coming up, some hoped that he might help lead
it out of the wilderness of the Reagan years.

Despite Biden's reputation as a northeast liberal, the young Delawarean wowed
the southern crowd as he drew from the Confederate mythos to pile praise upon
Stennis, who was known for his decades of resistance to civil rights. Biden
compared him to Stonewall Jackson, a fabled Confederate military commander
known for his tactical prowess.

"It was said of Stonewall Jackson, 'He is an avalanche from an unexpected
quarter, a thunderbolt from a clear sky, and yet his character will make him
a stone wall more than any man I've ever known,'" Biden said, reciting a
quote that a 1920 book attributes to lecturer, and Stonewall Jackson's aide,
James Power Smith.

"And Mr. Chairman," Biden continued, "When you stand on the floor of the
Senate, and you point your finger, and you raise your voice, it's like a bolt
from a clear sky. And when you speak, everyone listens. And as all of my
colleagues have said here today, he truly does stand like a stonewall; he is
the rockbed of integrity of the United States Congress."

Even in the company of other segregationists like South Carolina Sen. Strom
Thurmond and Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, Biden did not mention Stennis'
storied opposition to civil rights.

Biden on Busing: 'A Liberal Trainwreck'

A decade earlier, though, Biden worked with Stennis and other segregationists
like Thurmond and Sen. Jim Eastland, Mississippi's other U.S. senator, to
fight a key segregation program: busing, which the government used to send
children across district lines to make schools more integrated.

Southern Dixiecrats and Republicans had long opposed busing in their region,
where the federal government had mandated it most heavily. But as the
practice spread, whites in wealthy suburbs like those in Delaware began
pushing back. Some had moved to the suburbs to send their kids to what they
considered a "good school," which usually meant mostly white, and opposed
their kids being bused elsewhere to make schools more equal.

"Southern politicians who had been pushing against desegregation in the 1950s
realized, 'Oh, OK, now that it's hit the doorstep of the northeasterners;
they don't like it any more than we do,'" Ralph W. Eubanks, a southern
studies professor at the University of Mississippi, told the Jackson Free
Press in April. "And these political alliances began to form. So that's why
you had someone like Joe Biden making alliances with Strom Thurmond, James
Eastland and John Stennis."

In 1973, Biden ran on a pro-civil-rights platform. Just a year earlier,
though, segregationist Alabama Gov. George Wallace had won the Florida
Democratic presidential primary while running on an anti-busing platform. As
the concern among white parents about busing grew beyond the Deep South, even
some northeast liberal Democrats like Biden began criticizing it.

By 1975, Biden thought of busing as a "liberal train wreck," as he wrote in
his 2007 memoir, and found himself huddled with a group of Dixiecrats,
planning how they might introduce anti-busing legislation that could pass in
the Senate.

"The new integration plans being offered are really just quota systems to
assure a certain number of blacks, Chicanos, or whatever in each school,"
Biden told a Delaware newspaper in 1975. "That, to me, is the most racist
concept you can come up with. Who the hell do we think we are, that the only
way a black man or woman can learn is if they rub shoulders with my white
child?"

Around that same time, all the way across the country in Berkley, Calif., a
schoolgirl and future U.S. senator named Kamala Harris was reaping busing's
benefits. With an African American father and a mother from India, Harris was
the first in her family to go to an integrated school district.

'That Little Girl Was Me'

All these years later, on a Democratic presidential debate stage on Thursday
night, Harris took aim at Biden, not only for his recent praise for the
"civility" that segregationists like Eastland and former U.S. Sen. Herman
Talmadge of Georgia showed him, but for his efforts to kill the program that
integrated her school.

"Vice President Biden, I do not believe you are a racist, and I agree with
you, when you commit yourself to the importance of finding common ground,"
Harris said. "But I also believe--and it's personal--it was actually hurtful
to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who
built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this
country."

It was not only his praise of segregationists that bothered her, though,
Harris said, but his efforts to end the very program that ensured her an
integrated school experience.

"There was a little girl in California who was bused to school. That little
girl was me," she said.

Biden deflected the criticism, claiming that his opposition to busing was
about federally mandated busing. That decision, he said, should have been
left up to states and local governments as it was in Berkley--not enforced by
the federal government.

"The fact is that, in terms of busing, the busing, I never--you would have
been able to go to school the same exact way because it was a local decision
made by your city council," Biden said. "That's fine. That's one of the
things I argued for. We should be breaking down these lines."

That "local control" argument both invoke the segregationists' "state's
rights" argument--the racist Citizens' Council's logo was designed around the
words "Racial Integrity" and "State's Rights"--even as it recalls Eastland's
opposition to "forced busing ordered by federal courts," and Stennis'
suggestion, in a 1973 letter to a constituent, that busing only existed to
satisfy technocrats in the nation's capital.

"I am opposed to the busing of schoolchildren for the sole purpose of
overcoming racial imbalance," Stennis wrote in that letter. "This
unreasonable busing is injurious to our school children and only benefits
some Washington socio-political statistician."

Stennis' opposition to busing was indicative of the mood in Deep South
states, which showed no desire to implement busing on their own terms--a
point Harris made Thursday night.

"There are moments in history where states fail to support the civil rights
of people," she said.

In April, the Jackson Free Press spoke to Millsaps College civil rights
historian Stephanie Rolph, the author of the 2018 book, ""Resisting Equality:
The Citizens' Council, 1954-1989." Even today, she said, Biden would likely
face pushback from some white voters if he apologized for his position on
busing.

"It would be excellent if Biden could recognize the political moment he was
in at that time and why he realizes that was an erroneous position. But that
sort of contextual explanation for that for someone like him at the national
level also threatens to undermine certain constituencies that would not
appreciate his apology for that, because they might not think that anti-
busing legislation was a bad thing," she said.

Thursday night was not the first time Harris has pointed to America's history
of segregated public schools. In a speech in New Orleans last year, Harris
praised the city for the election of its first African American woman mayor
as evidence that America is better than the troubles of the Trump era.

"I know we are better than this because, less than 60 years ago, about four
miles up the road, Ruby Bridges needed federal marshals to escort her to
school," Harris said last August, referring to the civil-rights activist who,
as a 6-year-old child, faced abuse and harassment when she became one of the
first African American children to attend an integrated school in New
Orleans.

"And yet today, Mayor Latoya Cantrell is the first woman--and first black
woman--in history to lead this city. That's our American identity."

'A Man Without Guilt'

On Thursday night, Biden denied Harris' charge that he had praised
segregationists.

"It's a mischaracterization of my position across the board. I did not praise
racists. That is not true," Biden said on the debate stage.

Over the years, though, Biden has repeatedly praised segregationists like
Stennis, Eastland and Thurmond.

At the 1985 birthday party in DeKalb, Miss., Biden effusively praised Stennis
without reservation.

"He's an opponent without hate, a friend without treachery, a statesman
without pretense, a victim without any murmuring, a public official without
vice, a private citizen without wrong, a neighbor, as you all know, without
hypocrisy, a man without guilt," Biden said. "A senator whom future senators
can study with profit for as long as there is an America."

Just two years earlier in 1983, Stennis had voted against making Martin
Luther King Jr. Day a national holiday--the only southern Democrat to do so.
Just three other Democrats, along with 18 conservative Republicans, had also
voted against the holiday.

JFP Editor Donna Ladd toured then-Sen. Biden around Jackson in 2006 for an
in-depth interview.

In 1982, though, Stennis voted to extend the Voting Rights Act, which he had
fiercely opposed in the 1960s.

In a 2006 interview with Jackson Free Press editor Donna Ladd in Jackson
during an earlier presidential bid, Biden recalled meeting with Stennis on
the day of his retirement. Stennis, Biden said, told him that even though he
had opposed it, the Civil Rights Movement "freed my soul."

Still, Stennis publicly admitted no remorse even as he was retiring, The
Atlanta-Journal Constitution reported after interviewing him in 1988.

"Stennis offers no apologies for once fighting the lost racial causes of his
beloved Mississippi. ... And as that career comes to a close, the 87-year-old
patriarch of the Senate feels no need to offer excuses for having 'done my
duty,'" the report reads.

Though Biden's speech, the full transcript of which Scribd user Andy William
uploaded to the site on May 22, drew little notice in the mid-1980s, not all
U.S. senators have been so lucky after praising segregationists at their
birthday parties.

U.S. Sen. Trent Lott, a Republican who took over Stennis' seat after he
retired in 1989, saw his career upended in 2002 because of comments he made
at segregationist Thurmond's 100th birthday party.

"When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him," Lott said. "We're
proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we
wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either."

Thurmond ran for president in 1948 as the nominee for the State's Rights
Democratic Party, but won in just four states: Alabama, Louisiana,
Mississippi and his own state of South Carolina. Though he first served in
the U.S. Senate as a Democrat, he switched to the Republican Party after
Democratic President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

Lott's remarks at Thurmond's party drew such a backlash that Lott, who was
the U.S. Senate Majority whip at the time, stepped down from his leadership
position.

At Stennis' birthday party in 1985, though, Biden opened with a joke about
Thurmond, then the chairman of the Senate Judiciary under whom he served.
Thurmond, he joked, might announce a second run for the presidency.

"It's nice to be here, Mr. Chairman, on the day that Strom Thurmond announces
for president of the United States of America ... I'm not sure, I think maybe
Strom had the right idea, of leaving the party when he did, because now, you
know, he's chairman of the judiciary committee, and I serve at Strom
Thurmond's bidding," Biden said.

Biden also told the crowd that Stennis befriended him shortly after he joined
the Senate.

"John Stennis, who knew little of this northern boy who was supposedly a
liberal, who in fact he had never heard of, John Stennis befriended me," he
said.

'He Won Their Hearts'

A year after the Mississippi birthday party, Biden visited Mississippi's
sister state, Alabama. There, Howell Heflin, an Alabama Democratic state
senator who had been at Stennis' birthday celebration, introduced Biden to a
Democratic crowd, telling them how he had "enthralled" the Mississippians.

"He won their hearts and proved he ... understands the South," Heflin said.

Reporting on that trip on March 2, 1986, The Morning News in Wilmington,
Del., reported that Biden "offered the crowd a bit of absolution, telling
them that they had confronted their racial problems and dealt with them and,
while everything was perhaps not perfect, apologies were no longer needed."

"A black man has a better chance in Birmingham than in Philadelphia or New
York," Biden said.

Biden adjusted his regular stump speech for the Alabama crowd. The Morning
News reported that he dropped a reference to his youthful participation in
civil-rights demonstrations in Delaware and removed a reference to Birmingham
Police Commissioner T. Eugene "Bull" Connor, who had set loose police dogs on
civil-rights demonstrators in the 1960s.

Biden continued to insist that the segregationists he worked with on busing
in the 1970s had truly had a change of heart. When Thurmond died in 2003,
Biden spoke at his funeral.

"I believe that change came to him easily," Biden told the mourners. "I
believe he welcomed it, because I watched others of his era fight that change
and never ultimately change. It would be humbling to think that I was among
those who had some influence on his decision, but I know better."

During his early years as a U.S. senator, Joe Biden counted Mississippi
segregationist Sens. Jim Eastland and John Stennis as his mentors.

In April, Eubanks told the Jackson Free Press that he does not think "any of
them really changed." Rather, he said, they responded to the changing
political climate in the 1970s and '80s.

"I think they were not as outwardly racist and I think it became less
acceptable for them to be so openly and blatantly racist," he said. "I think
their racism was sublimated. It was not expressed outwardly. I can't really
see into their hearts to know if they really changed or not. Yes, they voted
to renew the Voting Rights Act. But at that point, they really didn't have
any choice. That's not evidence of real change and atonement. It's more, 'We
know the politics have changed, so we're going to go along with it.' And
that's different. I think Biden read that as that they had changed, rather
than confronting actual evidence that they had."

Six months after Thurmond's death, 78-year-old Essie Mae Washington-Williams
publicly disclosed that she was Thurmond's daughter, born out of wedlock to a
black mother. Though Thurmond had supported her and paid for her college
education at a historically black college, the old-fashioned segregationist
had kept his daughter's identity hidden while he was alive out of fear that
it would harm his reputation if the public knew he secretly had a black
daughter.

Years later, South Carolina added her name to a list of his children on his
memorial at the state capitol.

--
Let's go Brandon!
A Friend
2022-11-29 15:28:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Southern Dixiecrats and Republicans had long opposed busing in their region,
where the federal government had mandated it most heavily. But as the
practice spread, whites in wealthy suburbs like those in Delaware began
pushing back. Some had moved to the suburbs to send their kids to what they
considered a "good school," which usually meant mostly white, and opposed
their kids being bused elsewhere to make schools more equal.
"Southern politicians who had been pushing against desegregation in the 1950s
realized, 'Oh, OK, now that it's hit the doorstep of the northeasterners;
they don't like it any more than we do,'" Ralph W. Eubanks, a southern
studies professor at the University of Mississippi, told the Jackson Free
Press in April. "And these political alliances began to form. So that's why
you had someone like Joe Biden making alliances with Strom Thurmond, James
Eastland and John Stennis."
This is a gross misrepresentation of what was actually going on. The
tipping point came when kids began being bussed from the suburbs back
into the cities, adding hours to their school day. You didn't have to
be racist to not want your kids to be the subject of a social
experiment that required them to ride a bus for up to three hours per
day when there was a perfectly good public school within walking
distance of their homes.
Loading...