Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - TheDrake

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 132
1
General Comments / Re: Trump looses again
« on: Today at 08:06:32 AM »
In trump world, they think it's good that he doesn't follow the rules. The rules are stupid and trump is a heavily muscled machine gun toting hero with an eagle perched on his shoulder. They might find maps of all our nuclear assets there, and their faith would be unwavering. The evidence was planted. They see nothing wrong with the fact that he ran the government from mar-a-Lago and discussed national security next to the salad bar.

2
General Comments / Re: Trump looses again
« on: August 11, 2022, 08:46:01 AM »
Clearly the judge is secret Antifa. Sneaky devils.

3
General Comments / Re: Trump looses again
« on: August 11, 2022, 08:02:52 AM »
But wait a minute, I thought the trumpies had the utmost respect for judges privacy and that it was criminal to attempt to protest their actions?

4
General Comments / Re: Trump looses again
« on: August 08, 2022, 07:03:15 PM »
More on the Pelosi thing. Note that it was the GOP leadership that tried to paint Pelosi with this brush, and their sycophants lap it up.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-235651652542

Meanwhile, did Mitch also refuse the National Guard, because he has Senate oversight of security. Neither of the two politicians has been involved in operational security decisions.

5
General Comments / Re: Climate alarmists are wrong.
« on: August 06, 2022, 07:11:15 PM »
Quote
pouring gasoline on a fire

What? who is pouring gasoline onto a fire, and why would it matter which spout was used?

Quote
I live in Michigan. We have more than enough water to make power flushes applicable. Why do we suffer because California has less water? There is no trade-off from my area to theirs.

Because as we have seen with other state laws, jackasses that can't get with the program would smuggle in out of code items to California, most likely. Meanwhile, there are all kinds of videos on how to convert low flow toilets precisely because people can't be trusted to sacrifice for the greater good.

Also, not everything is about water levels. It also is about treatment plant volume, local water distribution, etc. Conserving water use is a net benefit everywhere.


6
General Comments / Re: What are some things that Biden gets right?
« on: August 05, 2022, 10:30:22 AM »
Good employment numbers for July.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/july-jobs-report-august-5-2022-123238307.html

But wait, what about the myth that nobody wants to work?

7
General Comments / Re: Climate alarmists are wrong.
« on: August 04, 2022, 12:56:24 PM »
...
What has changed since then? What changed is that the alarmists stopped calling it Anthropomorphic Global Warming and started calling it Climate Change. Go back and look at the Global Cooling research that has been suppressed. It was solid and authenticated, yet vanished from most electronic archives. One of the Wikipedia founders did admit that he deleted thousands of such articles.

Wikipedia isn't an electronic archive for academic research. It's a crowd sourced and edited encyclopedia. No one is "deleting" the past editions of nature or other more specific academic journals about climate change. The Global cooling research was written in the seventies when we saw a couple decades of very small cooling in a row. The slope of that cooling if you pick the most extreme years is significantly less than the slope of the warming we're seeing now.

Let me ask you again one more time.
1) What model is predicting cooling?
2) How accurate has that model been over the last 50 years or since its creation?

How does wikipedia have thousands of articles on any topic? Of course they are shutting down advocacy pages like the "list of scientists who disagree with climate change". They also will not allow "historians who disagree with accounts of the holocaust." Or "list of deadly vaccines". Or "members of the illuminati"

8
General Comments / Re: GOP nutbag of the week
« on: August 04, 2022, 12:29:22 PM »
MTG wins this more than Ken Jennings wins Jeopardy.

Her latest is that it is no big deal killing the head of Al-Qaeda and that Biden only did it to help midterms. Implying, I guess, that he'd been holding back til now?

9
General Comments / Re: What are some things that Biden gets right?
« on: August 04, 2022, 09:30:29 AM »
Quote
I think Trump and Kirk enjoyed the same mindset.

Didn't think you'd ever admit that Trump cheats to win.

10
General Comments / Re: Climate alarmists are wrong.
« on: August 04, 2022, 09:28:55 AM »
"Carbon dioxide levels do not have any impact -I repeat, any impact- on climate," states Corbyn, "the CO2 theory is wrong from the start."

Tell that to Venus.

11
General Comments / Re: What are some things that Biden gets right?
« on: August 03, 2022, 01:13:26 PM »
Of course many of the government officials didn't want us to leave, they were wallowing in corrupt cash. You are right, it is hard to predict the future. Your solution doesn't work because it is rank colonialism. We'll take your natural resources while we are in de-facto occupation of your country.

12
General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« on: August 03, 2022, 01:07:41 PM »
Honestly, I don't see how this is confusing.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2022/aug/02/kansas-abortion-ballot-language


This article describes it as confusing, but it seems clearly stated to me.

Quote
A vote for the Value Them Both Amendment would affirm there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion...

In the articles rewording that they say is clear:

Quote
Voting “yes” would mean supporting an amendment that would change the Kansas state constitution so it no longer protects abortion,

How is that not the same thing? You don't even have to plow through all the other usual verbiage once you have that salient fact.

Now I'll grant you that people are stone dumb for the most part, which is why I am having growing misgivings about democracy on the whole. I just don't know what would be better. Now add to this the fact that there was no shortage of campaigns, and there was nothing confusing about the yard signs strewn about, religious leaders advocating yes, phone campaigns, media campaigns.

I doubt there was much actual confusion on which direction to vote. if anything, the wording encoraged a yes vote, which is why the Coalition for Constitutional Freedom (a reproductive rights organization trying to prevent a ban) complained about it. So there might actually have been more support to protect abortion than indicated by the vote.

13
General Comments / Re: What are some things that Biden gets right?
« on: August 03, 2022, 07:29:52 AM »
Afghanistan is the Kobayashi Maru. There is no "win" to be had. Both Trump and Biden actually realized this. To win militarily, you'd have to commit genocide because you'd never win the population, 20 years of trying followed by the return of the Taliban demonstrates that. Of course if you did take a "kill them all strategy" you would just become an even bigger pariah than Russia.

Wasn't the stalemate better, you might ask? Even if it was going to be perpetual? Well, that cost 300 million dollars per day. Hardship for a bunch of Americans deployed to a country that wanted to murder them, even if they weren't in active combat roles. They're still away from their family.

14
General Comments / Re: Trump looses again
« on: August 02, 2022, 10:22:16 PM »
Who knew that trying to have your followers overthrow the Government is not with in the bounds of Presidential Duty.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-dismisses-trumps-immunity-claim-181511430.html

He keeps trotting out the same defenses and he keeps losing.  He has the be the losingest President of all time.

Well, Jefferson Davis who tried the same thing?

15
General Comments / More evidence on how shady Trump is
« on: August 02, 2022, 12:47:20 PM »
Quote
Donald Trump’s first wife Ivana was buried in a gold-hued coffin at the former president’s New Jersey golf club last month, following an Upper East Side funeral service where she was remembered as a woman who was “adored.”

...

Under New Jersey law, land being used for cemetery purposes is exempt from real estate and personal property taxes, as well as sales tax, inheritance tax, business tax, and income tax.

Cemetery property is also exempt from sale for collection of judgments, with cemetery trust funds and trust income exempt from both tax and sale or seizure for collection of judgments against the company.


But the Orange Fan Club will no doubt laud him for being a shrewd businessman and delighted at any maneuver that deprives the government of taxes.

16
General Comments / Re: Climate alarmists are wrong.
« on: August 02, 2022, 12:17:42 PM »
Some people just won't be happy until we've turned our world into Arrakis or Giedi Prime.

17
General Comments / Re: Climate alarmists are wrong.
« on: August 02, 2022, 10:37:17 AM »
The worshippers of digging stuff up and burning it like cavemen are, as usual, either disingenuous or delusional or incompetent.

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44905/did-the-us-climate-reference-network-show-no-new-warming-since-2005-in-the-us

18
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: August 01, 2022, 05:21:05 PM »
Another one bites the dust. Guy Reffitt, armed insurrectionist, just got himself 7 years. Threatened his own kids, who testified against him. Brought a firearm to his "peaceful protest" then helped lead the mob in violent rebellion. Why do they keep putting all these Antifa guys behind bars?

19
General Comments / Re: Trump looses again
« on: July 28, 2022, 03:55:25 PM »
Quote
“This whole case has been about trying to shine a light on government," Bailey-Rihn said. What it revealed, she said, was that in the early days of Gableman's probe, he was being paid $11,000 a month by taxpayers "to sit in the New Berlin library to learn about election law because he knows nothing about election law.”

I thought the Republicans like to say they're the fiscally responsible party.

20
General Comments / Re: conspiracy detector
« on: July 28, 2022, 12:01:36 PM »
Sometimes I wish this was still a thing

I'd put that one in the "Crankiest" category, I think.

21
General Comments / Re: OAN Network being cancelled
« on: July 28, 2022, 11:58:20 AM »
By the way, there's your disinformation right there. The quote that gets thrown around, that I assume you've swallowed wholesale, William, is this:

"I’ve made my life’s mission to destroy the United States. I hate this country and I hate all of the people in it!"

This was never said by him.

This is the disinformation that gets a media outlet targeted, like OAN was.

Quote
We found that part of the quote was used, in bold-face type, and attributed to Soros in a 2011 Breitbart article that discusses the "looming breakdown in society," placing the blame on the "veterans" and "descendants of the Radical Left from the 1960s:

Just on the face of it, the guy you attribute as an evil genius capable of pulling the global strings, made a statement to Newsweek that he hates America, and you find this credible.

Now you go ahead and show me where CNN ever tried something as brazen as a fabricated story about Trump declaring that he wanted to become a dictator as a direct quote. They have insinuated that he wants this, inferring from his actions, in their op ed pieces. But they don't say it was his life's work in his own words.

See the difference?

22
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: July 27, 2022, 01:56:04 PM »
Quote
I am not talking about divorce.  I am talking about adultery. 

This. Remember how horrible it was that Bill Clinton cheated on Hillary? Try to look for some parallels.

23
General Comments / Re: Trump looses again
« on: July 27, 2022, 01:54:48 PM »
BTW, do YOU realize the link you poste exxonerates Trump and calls the FBI dirty? Here's a pullquote:
Quote
...As the FBI concluded its Russia investigation, specifically into former president Donald Trump, you can find an electronic document that spells out just how wide a net it gave its agents to find evidence relevant to a crime committed by a president.

As a result, this leeway was largely attributed to Igor Danchenko, the Russian-born US resident, who played a key role in the development of Christopher Steele’s dossier in the 2016 election season. Steele’s London-based research project, now widely viewed as a hoax, was funded by Democrats. It was used for months by the anti-Trump forces under the direction of Rep. Adam Schiff of California, in order to sabotage, harass, and disorient the presidential administration.

Nobody but you quotes republic brief, and the article that you're quoting from is a different one than the one you referenced about Huawei.

Btw, Pelosi also urged us allies to avoid Huawei. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/14/pelosi-warns-us-allies-dont-go-near-huawei.html

Chuck Schumer criticised Trump not for cutting them off, but for backing down. https://twitter.com/senschumer/status/1144941425047592960

On March 3, 2020: these were the bipartisan authors of a letter asking the UK to reconsider Huawei.

Quote
Senators Schumer and Sasse were joined by Senators Richard Burr (R-NC), John Thune (R-SD), Mark Warner (D-VA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Chris Coons (D-DE), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Ted Cruz (R-TX),  Ed Markey (D-MA), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Todd Young (R-IN), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Mitt Romney (R-UT), Josh Hawley (R-MO), Tom Cotton (R-AR), and Rick Scott (R-FL).

The problem, if there was one, was Trump threatening security alliances over it when this would massively have inflated the cost of 5G rollout in Europe.

I doubt you can find a single politician during Trump's four years that said Huawei was NOT a national security problem. Fabricating a partisan issue out of this when it is so easy to disprove makes it pretty clear that your much touted "research" consists of blindly regurgitating questionable sources.

24
General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« on: July 22, 2022, 04:48:14 PM »
Yes, if only we put up a westeros wall sealing off the length of the mexican border, no 10 year old would ever be raped again.

25
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: July 22, 2022, 04:37:07 PM »
Quote
White House COVID Coordinator: "The president is doing better. He slept well last night, he ate his breakfast and lunch — fully! He actually showed me his plate...I did see an empty plate with crumbs."

Well, lookit that. Uncle Joe managed to clean his plate! Quite the accomplishment. I suppose they gave him his pudding cup and let him touch a few under age girls as a reward.

I mean he doesn't have the strength yet to throw his dinner at the wall.

26
General Comments / Re: Trump looses again
« on: July 22, 2022, 04:18:34 PM »
Quote
Bannon’s lawyer, David Schoen, called the conviction “a foregone conclusion” based on pre-trial rulings, but said he would file a “bulletproof” appeal. “You’ll see this case reversed,” he predicted.

What is it with these guys? Did they somehow take an oath to never accept reality? Bannon loses again. Which means Trump loses, because Bannon has lots of information to trade if he so chooses.

27
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: July 22, 2022, 03:59:47 PM »
As usual, the transcript doesn't do Trump any favors.

Quote
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You raised some eyebrows yesterday with comments you made at your latest rally. I want to show them, relating to 9/11.

VIDEO CLIP OF DONALD TRUMP, IN WHICH HE SAYS: “Hey, I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering.”
STEPHANOPOULOS: “You know, the police say that didn’t happen and all those rumors have been on the Internet for some time. So did you misspeak yesterday?”

TRUMP: “It did happen. I saw it.”

STEPHANOPOULOS: “You saw that…”

TRUMP: It was on television. I saw it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: “…with your own eyes?”

TRUMP: “George, it did happen.”

STEPHANOPOULOS: “Police say it didn’t happen.”

TRUMP: “There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey, where you have large Arab populations. They were cheering as the World Trade Center came down. I know it might be not politically correct for you to talk about it, but there were people cheering as that building came down — as those buildings came down. And that tells you something. It was well covered at the time, George. Now, I know they don’t like to talk about it, but it was well covered at the time. There were people over in New Jersey that were watching it, a heavy Arab population, that were cheering as the buildings came down. Not good.”

Trump SPECIFIED Jersey City. Not some random part of New Jersey, besides which there were no parts of NJ with thousands of celebrating Muslims in the streets. So the police were lying? And somebody hid all this well-covered footage?

It might have been plausible for Trump to say, "I'll bet those dirty muslims were celebrating in their living rooms." But that is not what he said.

28
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: July 22, 2022, 02:51:57 PM »
and there's no cell phone footage, no security camera footage, unless you happened to film the Dearborn Muslim Riot that you witnessed? Did Soros manage to delete all the evidence?

29
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: July 22, 2022, 01:59:42 PM »
Do you have trouble with reading comprehension? Nobody has denied that Biden plagiarized. It has been suggested that it can be overlooked, just like overlooking the flaws of your orange god.

30
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: July 22, 2022, 01:10:11 PM »
Trump said these thousands of people were cheering in Jersey City, not the middle east. Everyone acknowledges that Tehran and Kabul had cheering crowds. Why is this important? Because Trump was trying to whip up anger against American Muslims, who were by and large just as horrified as other Americans. With a bald faced lie. That when he was confronted with the error of his statement, he doubled down on it.

31
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: July 22, 2022, 09:58:48 AM »
So let me get this straight, you guys have been arguing "with a straight face" that ballots that are received and that don't comply with the technical election laws must be counted because "every vote must count" and also "with a straight face" are somehow not concerned by Shenigans that literally disqualify candidates from the election.  Candidates, given their front runner status, that would have no trouble meeting the signature requirements legitimately but who fail to do so solely because of bad actors.
...

I've consistently argued that all ballots received that followed the guidelines of election officials and court rulings at the time should be counted. Even if you think the election officials and courts ruled incorrectly before the election.

I am concerned about these fraudulent actions that the campaigns purchased. Maybe they shouldn't be trusted with the powers of government if they are so easily and obviously defrauded. I'm much less sympathetic to campaigns with at least 6 figure budgets turning in fraudulent documents vs the individual who mails a ballot 3 days before the election but the post office delivers it a day late.

On a broader point I think the signature requirements and a lot of other ballot requirements are just ways to make sure only people with access to money can afford to run. Both parties support this type of stuff because it make sure only insiders or people connected with donors can get on the ballot to begin with.

There are a lot of candidates who have enough grass roots support that they don't have to buy their signatures. Signature requirements are necessary, look at the California Governor recall fiasco when they only required 65 signatures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_California_gubernatorial_recall_election#/media/File:Sample_ballot_for_CA_recall.png

32
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: July 20, 2022, 05:55:10 PM »
Who claimed Hunter was being indicted?

Not was, will be.

33
General Comments / Re: Musk and Twitter
« on: July 20, 2022, 01:50:00 PM »
Twitter is great for finding out that a thing happened in real time. A politician's statement. A goal being scored. A financial shift. A personal scandal. A supreme court decision. A celebrity out on a date. It is terrible for understanding anything about that thing. I also love following the stream of any team that is losing a game.

34
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: July 19, 2022, 09:09:14 PM »
And Lindsey Graham is going to testify in the GA probe.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/lindsey-graham-agrees-testify-georgia-192840056.html

Did you read your article?

Quote
"Graham has not agreed to testify," Bishop said. "Graham will fight the subpoena in federal district court in Georgia."

He agreed to move it to a different court and fight it there.

35
General Comments / Re: Musk and Twitter
« on: July 19, 2022, 05:18:53 PM »
It is pretty amazing to me how many people can't divorce their analysis of the legal issues from their personal like or dislike of Elon.  (Not in this thread but elsewhere on the internet).

It is like betting on a boxer to win or lose based on your liking them.  It is an approach to things I just can't fathom.

I definitely find it hard to try to keep it separate. I try to visualize, what if person X did this? But he really has no peers that would have made this kind of rash acquisition attempt, IMO. So the cognitive dissonance doesn't allow me to fully look at the facts of the case in full isolation. I try to rely on what experts are saying about it, but I can't be sure they don't just dislike Musk as much as I do.

36
General Comments / Re: Musk and Twitter
« on: July 19, 2022, 11:53:20 AM »
Right, except that it wasn't exactly a strict business investment, more like a moral investment.
Given that his reasons for pulling out are pure business ones it doesn't seem like his morals had a lot of fibre. You can't reasonably argue that he didn't know that Twitter had bots, he's complained about it often enough.

Exactly. He's making a business case that it was overvalued. Well, what's his value on his moral crusade? It's certainly true that people have paid more than market value based on less than solid business decisions. If your crusade is "I must have control of twitter, and I'm not going to haggle or try to determine value" Then don't back out. Pay the price you agreed to and create your 8chan utopia.

It's like trying to buy the ark of the covenant and then complaining that there wasn't as much gold as you thought.

37
General Comments / Re: Musk and Twitter
« on: July 19, 2022, 09:55:17 AM »
This is why rational investors perform due diligence. By waiving it, Musk was basically saying "I trust the numbers you've given me."

Now he's trying to run an audit to prove it was a stolen acquisition. But he has no proof that the bot count isn't exactly what they said it was.

I'm not really sure where I stand on this, if anywhere (I don't care as much as it may seem). But just to follow your reasoning, let's say Musk had in fact tried to do this due diligence before making a hard offer - how do you think that plays out? My thinking is Twitter gives Musk the same data it was giving everyone, and if he asks for more info or direct personal access to investigate the accounts himself, they refuse just as they would to anyone else. How else would he gain insider access to see for himself unless he had already put his foot in the door as a buyer? To be fair they did offer him a board seat first, so potentially he could have accepted it, and from within the board tried to get the board to agree to produce better data. But that process would likely be long, and even then he could potentially be overruled.

Let's assume first that he was unsatisfied or unconvinced with what he was shown, as opposed to using it as an excuse when Tesla and Twitter tanked. Part of the due diligence could be to enumerate the type of data he wants (the full user list with IPs, samples, what have you). That is definitely not uncommon.  Let's say they stonewall him, with or without an explicit request for data in contractual form. Then he walks away without penalty. Happens all the time.

Quote
"Mr Musk did not ask to enter into a confidentiality agreement or seek from Twitter any non-public info regarding Twitter," Twitter said in its proxy statement.

So he only started to care when it looked like he could no longer afford the deal. I hate fraud and deceit, so my only investment in this is that Musk make it right after completely screwing up Twitter for investors and employees.

38
General Comments / Re: Musk and Twitter
« on: July 18, 2022, 11:55:02 PM »
My layperson take on this is this.

This is why rational investors perform due diligence. By waiving it, Musk was basically saying "I trust the numbers you've given me."

Now he's trying to run an audit to prove it was a stolen acquisition. But he has no proof that the bot count isn't exactly what they said it was.

39
General Comments / Re: Musk and Twitter
« on: July 13, 2022, 09:48:21 PM »
anybody want to lay odds against a charity of your choice? I'll match reasonable bets.

40
General Comments / Re: Musk and Twitter
« on: July 13, 2022, 11:29:34 AM »
But Musk never included due diligence on the number of users. He waived that, as I understand it. He failed to take adequate time to satisfy himself that his valuation was correct. If there's something in the paperwork Twitter provided that was a factual misrepresentation, then maybe he's got a point. But if it is just that their estimate is disputed, like Musk prefers a different formula, then I don't think that's the case. I'm no lawyer either, but most of the legal experts weighing in believe this to be the case.

41
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: July 13, 2022, 11:17:24 AM »
https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/hunter-biden-facing-possible-federal-prostitution-charges-after-new-document-leaked-hunter-biden-laptop-hunter-biden-icloud-account-hacked-president-joe-biden-prostitutes-transported-across-state-lines

not censored. Somebody on 4chan claims to have hacked Biden's icloud account and published by the tabloid Daily Mail. That's a far cry from Hunter being indicted.

42
General Comments / Re: Musk and Twitter
« on: July 13, 2022, 08:33:53 AM »
He will not be able to do that. Twitter's board - their hands are tied by fiduciary duty. Nothing will be in the stockholders interest compared to forcing the deal through. If they tried to let Musk off the hook, they'd get sued by the stockholders. Not to mention being stockholders themselves, they have little incentive to break off. This Delaware court moves pretty quickly from what I understand, so it won't be years worth of legal fees only months.

43
General Comments / Re: Musk and Twitter
« on: July 12, 2022, 10:32:18 PM »
He might have been. He might not have to go through with the acquisition, but he'll still have to pay the billion dollar breakup.

44
General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« on: July 12, 2022, 10:31:15 PM »
I'll help william out on this one, since his browser apparently blocks liberal media that agrees with him.

Quote
A law enforcement source has told CNN that the assumption is that it is Hunter Biden's laptop. But the FBI is still working through the content and the integrity of what is on it, because it was not in Hunter Biden's sole possession the whole time before it was handed over to the FBI.

To date, there has been no public discussion of the contents and which portions of it have been verified. What we know for sure is that it passed from one hand to another - hands that all loathed and wanted to destroy Joe Biden. I wonder what Trumpians would say if a laptop alleged to be Donald Trump's was passed from Nancy Pelosi to Adam Schiff to Liz Cheney?

45
General Comments / Re: GOP nutbag of the week
« on: July 11, 2022, 10:51:36 PM »
Is he suggesting sentient air?

Quote
Yet these developments have mattered little to Republican officials and strategists, several of whom said in interviews that their support for Mr. Walker has not wavered.

They said he continues to have the backing of top Republican leaders in the state at a time when Democrats are bracing for bruising losses in the November midterms. Even those in the G.O.P. who are quietly wary of Mr. Walker’s tumultuous past and his lack of political experience say they are looking past all that and focusing instead on flipping a Democratic seat in the Senate.

The Republican Party has stood by numerous elected officials and candidates plagued by scandals, often choosing to break with them only when their chances of winning a race are jeopardized. For Mr. Walker — who comes with hefty investments from top conservative groups, Donald J. Trump’s blessing and a base enamored by his football stardom at the University of Georgia in the 1980s — that break has yet to materialize.

Quote
In the race for the U.S. Senate in Georgia, Democratic incumbent Raphael Warnock leads 54 - 44 percent over Republican challenger Herschel Walker, according to a Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pea-ack) University poll of Georgia registered voters released today.

In Quinnipiac's January 2022 poll, the race was very tight with 49 percent of voters supporting Walker and 48 percent supporting Warnock.

Maybe there is some kind of line, even for Georgia Republican voters.

46
General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« on: July 11, 2022, 10:45:19 PM »
Quote
Sorry, but the laptop has been totally verified by the DOJ.

I'm sorry, is that the corrupt DOJ that spied on Trump, let Hillary off the Hook, and prosecuted innocents like Flynn and Stone? That refused to expose the rigged election? And this DOJ that validated the laptop, they are now covering for Hunter's massive forays into sexual abuse of children and drug deals? This seems plausible to you?

47
General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« on: July 07, 2022, 02:59:39 PM »
Well its referred to IG now, anyway. I think that's probably appropriate, if only to correct the perception of the public. I mean it could have been two members of congress, or the media, etc. I am acutely reminded about how the right wailed and railed about IRS targeting of their charitable organizations, and I was similarly skeptical back then. It turned out that the IRS was investigating Tea Party groups, for good reason, because a lot of them were thinly veiled shady non-exempt outfits. IRS at the time also targeted groups with "progressive" in their names for similar reasons.

48
General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« on: July 07, 2022, 02:13:56 PM »
I know all about that, even from the article. I'm not an accountant, but I do have an MBA though the tax stuff wasn't really in the cards for us. I'm talking about this:

Quote
WASHINGTON — Among tax lawyers, the most invasive type of random audit carried out by the IRS is known, only partly jokingly, as “an autopsy without the benefit of death.”

The odds of being selected for that audit in any given year are tiny — out of nearly 153 million individual returns filed for 2017, for example, the IRS targeted about 5,000, or roughly 1 out of 30,600.

That's just silly. Random doesn't mean no constraints. The guy at walmart who submitted his ez form over the phone isn't eligible for the super-audit lottery. I'm sure there are other factors used to try and select the ones most likely to show problems with itemization in particular. Only 13 million returns itemized deductions that year. so we can adjust those odds down dramatically. about 1 out of 2600.

Filing season

Now, if Trump only had two or three enemies in the US, it might stretch credibility to find one selected. But between the FBI, Half of congress, RINOs, former staffers, gropees, city councils, obama administration figures, and television personalities, it would only be surprising if none of them DID wind up on the list.

Then you've got to ask if he (or a proxy acting on their own) manipulate who gets hit, would these really be the two he would pick out of his extensive enemies list? It's not Mueller? Or Barr? Or Cohen? Or anybody at CNN? Not a Clinton?

There isn't a shred of evidence, which makes it a lot like stolen election claims. I think he could do it, and I think he would do it, so it might be real, in fact it IS real!

Now if I'm wrong, and in fact 9 of 10 of these benchmark audits do in fact target people who don't even itemize deductions, then I'll grant more credibility to the concept, but it is still a smear without any evidence of tampering. And even if there was tampering, it doesn't mean Trump was involved. I suspect there are several people at Treasury who could influence the process.



49
General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« on: July 07, 2022, 11:51:45 AM »
They are criminally overstating the odds in this article, it seems to me. All the people filling ez or a would not be in the pool selected for audit. Next, even with the odds set as stated, doesn't trump have enough enemies that he would have to hit one per year?

50
General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« on: July 06, 2022, 02:56:38 PM »
To be fair, a grand jury can issue indictments in many locations. So you are actually at more risk from a grand jury than Toddler Trump is from this commission.

Good point. This commission can recommend that Justice pursue charges, which would be through a grand jury, and at which the defendants would also not be represented, and at which evidence could not be challenged by the defendant.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 132