The 118th Republican House
After several days, for the first time in over 100 years, the Republicans chose a speaker. But only after proving once again they don't know how to govern. In the process, the speakership was neutered, rendered essentially powerless. McCarthy gave away the farm in order to purchase his long sought speakership putting an anti-democratic vote-denier second in line for the presidency (following the vice-president).
So, what is going to happen in the next two years before the likely take over by the Democrats in 2024. Probably very little in the way of real legislation on governance. One thing that will happen, however, is a series of mostly pointless investigations that will only embarrass America in their pettiness.
* A rehash of their grievances over Hunter Biden. They claim he influenced Vice President Biden through illegal means. Problem is, the Republicans investigated that a decade ago only to find - nothing there.
* Where their savior Judge Durham failed spectacularly, they intend on wasting millions of more dollars investigating the FBI
* They want to investigate the southern border where they will find it was the Republicans who encouraged all those migrants to come to the border with false promises that it was open. In fact, Biden just carried on most of Trump's policies. So, in effect, they will be investigating Trump as well.
* Afghanistan pull out. This is another investigation into Trump, along with Biden, since Biden followed the roadmap Trump left for him. I think this is the only investigation that has merit.
* Covid-19 Origins. Who cares now that it is known that Dr. Fauci wasn't responsible."After several days, for the first time in over 100 years, the Republicans chose a speaker. " WHAT?
example --- Republican Newt Gingrich (GA 6) garnered 52.5% of votes to become speaker... 228 votes
The Speaker is elected at the beginning of a new Congress by a majority of the Representatives-elect from candidates separately chosen by the majority- and minority-party caucuses. These candidates are elected by their party members at the organizing caucuses held soon after the new Congress is elected. In cases of an unexpected vacancy during a Congress a new Speaker is elected by a majority of the House from candidates previously chosen by the two parties.
https://history.house.gov/People/Office/Speakers-Intro/
Speakers of the House by Congress
https://history.house.gov/People/Office/Speakers-List/
"But only after proving once again they don't know how to govern."
Do you feel hashing out differences, and having negotiations, shows a lack of Governing? In my view, this is highly commendable and shows Government doing the job of the people. In the end, the majority ruled, as it should. However, it ruled with a caveat from some that wanted important wishes, changes that all ended up agreeing on.
The rest of your comment is your pure view, which could be strongly debated. I choose not to ---. energy should not be wasted on views, yours, or mine.Sorry, I probably didn't phrase that right, It has been over 140 years to take that many ballots to elect a speaker. It has been 99 years since they took more than one ballot.
Negotiations? What negotiations. McCarthy gave in to 100% of the Taliban 5's demands until, how did Getz put it, "we didn't have any more demands left to make".LOL. That who process was so embarrassing and demeaning.I thought you might have. Yes, it was historical. I am not sure what was negotiated as of yet or settled on. I did see a few that I am very much pleased.
A promise for guaranteed votes on pet issues, like a balanced budget amendment, and term limits, a Texas border plan, and an end to all remaining coronavirus mandates and funding.
A new committee to investigate the alleged weaponization of the FBI against its political foes. The committee would be modeled on the Church Committee, which investigated US intelligence agencies in 1975. It would have a budget comparable to the recently disbanded Jan. 6 Committee.
More single-subject bills to allow members to vote on specific, narrow issues instead of thousand-page pork barrel behemoths.
A 72-hour window for members to read any new bill before it can be voted on.
A promise to refuse any increase in the debt ceiling in the next federal budget agreement.
I hope we see a transcript of what was settled on, all of what was settled on.
I think that perhaps we needed someone to stand up for change. Actually, most of what they wanted was pretty basic and pretty logical. I think we have all agreed that Congress is broken. Sometimes it takes a good protest to move things in another direction.
Hey, we will need to keep our eyes on this New House."an end to all remaining coronavirus mandates and funding"
Wonder if that can be construed to include title 42?I would think it would, but if Biden would end COVID public health emergency, he will not be able to ask for more and more cash under the COVID emergency. Last I heard the COVID public health emergency will be extended to April 2023.
So, much of the money already given has been misappropriated, and in many states, the money is just sitting unspent.
"Proving once again" that they are the only Party that knows what their role is, when it comes to governing.
I see I'm not the only one posting Sunday morning funnies.
You were on a roll until you hit the 'border' point. That one was so rich I think just reading it raised my cholesterol level.
Afghanistan is a tough call, relative to an investigation. It was an almost impossible situation for both administrations. The Biden administration seems to have made some really bad decisions. The military aspect of the decision process seems to have allowed politics to run the show. Both arms had the experience of Saigon as a tutorial. Our exit looks like they didn't pay attention.
I can see the need for internal investigations by all arms of the government, but I don't think a Congressional investigation is the right way to go.
GAI firmly believe it is the job of Congress to investigate the Executive branch - if they have good cause and not because they are miffed or seeking retribution.
You would think that "good cause" would have produced some results, in the way of court convictions, if it was indeed a good cause.
Instead we have a complete and total failure to have any convictions at all of their primary, and most sought after, target, Donald Trump. It appears there really was no "good cause" at all; just bad, partisan politics after some 7 years of effort.. . . miffed, seeking retribution . . . or, looking to lay blame.
I can agree with that description. Other than apparent* bad decisions and shadows of incompetence, what would be the 'cause' for a Congressional Afghanistan investigation?
*What the hell do we know beyond what media has presented.
GA
"They want to investigate the southern border where they will find it was the Republicans who encouraged all those migrants to come to the border with false promises that it was open. In fact, Biden just carried on most of Trump's policies. So, in effect, they will be investigating Trump as well."
Yeah, I bet that wall, stay in Mexico, title 42, and literally separating children, not to mention ice tossing out everyone they could get their hands on --- was all big incentive to come on down.
Seems you may not be willing to see what's good for the goose.One really does wonder how much the Republicans continual ranting about an open border actually influenced a surge. Literally, virtually nothing changed as far as immigration policy from Mr Trump to President Biden. Except for the fact that Republicans kept claiming that the border was wide open. And we have to remember that the numbers they keep touting of those that are surging the border are actually inflated by title 42. The policy doesn't count people presenting themselves but counts encounters. Title 42 allows them to be denied and turn right back around and present themselves at the border again. So the numbers are largely inflated yes we have individuals presenting themselves continually, as fast as they can. The idea that the border is open has been vigorously pushed in right wing media and therefore is most likely to blame.
"Literally, virtually nothing changed as far as immigration policy from Mr Trump to President Biden"
Well, let's see. He stopped building the wall. He told illegals, during the election process, that he would make all illegals in the country citizens. He quit putting illegals into "prison" because it separated children. He quit deporting anyone caught in the interior. He has taken thousands and spread them into that same interior, where they will be left alone. He has repeatedly tried to end title 42. He has basically welcomed illegal aliens crossing the border with open arms.
But nothing changed? I don't think so...He continues to add to his invitation, one only needs to read his new plan. It is a full "out come on down".
He has promised to -- "Biden urged migrants from Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua and Haiti to use an expanded parole system to apply for asylum from outside the United States, and said that his administration was stepping up resources to handle applications more quickly."
As part of the plan, Biden said they are also expanding some legal pathways. Those include allowing as many as 30,000 migrants from Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba and Haiti who have family or other pre-existing ties to the United States to enter the country legally."
He is adding to his invitation ... telling them they can apply from their own country. As if we don't have enough migrants just walking in, he comes up with this crazy BS.
I just hope the new congress deals with this mess.I think you mean this...
"In an attempt to limit migration at the border, the Biden approach will allow up to 30,000 migrants each month from Cuba, Haiti and Nicaragua who have U.S.-based financial sponsors and have passed a background check to enter the country legally. They would be allowed to work temporarily for two years.
"However, those migrants who do not follow those procedures and try to cross the border without authorization will be immediately expelled to Mexico."
https://indianacapitalchronicle.com/202 … -pathways/
Actually, under Trump, the money-pit, useless wall came to a virtual standstill. Biden just stopped ripping of the military (not Mexica, mind you) to pay for Trump's folly.
Illegals to citizens - quote pleas IN CONTEXT.
"He quit putting illegals into "prison" because it separated children. " - Source for that opinion, please
" He has taken thousands and spread them into that same interior, where they will be left alone." - You mean you oppose the President of the United States from following the law? I guess that is dumb question, just look at what you let Trump get away with without objection, lol
Ending Title 42 - could that be it is no longer justified or do you think the pandemic (the ONLY reason it exists) is still rampant? Further, Biden has slow rolled ending it.
"He has basically welcomed illegal aliens crossing the border with open arms." - That is pure fabricationEso, you and I both know Biden has ended much of Trump's plan for illegals crossing the border. We both know Biden is welcoming them in. We both know Trump did not.
You may not wish to acknowledge these things because it means Trump did something wrong and Biden is an idiot, but we both know they are true.That is your opinion - PROVE IT. The fact that Biden didn't end more of Trump's actions is rather upsetting to me.
"We both know Biden is welcoming them in. " - AND THAT is a perfect example of the false propaganda put out there by Conservatives that lure people to the border. I would argue that it is statements like that which creates the "open border".
My only point is that your side spent the first two years of Biden's presidency lying at the top of their lungs to anybody who would listen about the borders being "open" when in fact that was NOT the policy. Biden's policy was exactly the opposite which is why Biden kept all but the most horrific of Trump's policies in place.
Yeah - we can tell because of the huge decrease in illegals crossing the border. Not.
What do you mean nothing changed? Biden stopped the building of the wall and he ended the remain in Mexico policy!?!
I mean do they ever give up? No, really this is so ridiculous it sickens me.
Nope. They are too invested. I am just not sure if they are more invested in the Democratic Party or in hating Trump and all which that entails.
A bit of both. But I am so tired, of hashing over and over the same issues. Issues have been beaten to a very slow death. It's like they are blinded to what is happening to the country due to this administration. Many in our society carry so much hate, I would call it unhealthy. But, anyone saying the republicans put out an invitation is so unrealistic, it makes me really wonder where is this kind of thinking headed.
The democratic party is a very dangerous Democracy as we have come to know it. The Dem's hypocrisy is outrageous. And they are completely blinded when they point the finger at Republicans for doing some of the same right back at them.Isn't that what your Republicans are doing with their investigations, rehashing history? Hell, the Republicans resolved one of them almost 10 years ago with an investigation and now they want to start it up again. I agree with you, the Republicans should drop the old news and find something new to gripe about - OR - here is a thought - pass some meaningful, useful to the American people legislation.
The rest is just opinion not based on any facts.No, they are up to the plate, and will now have a chance to investigate any and all that the Democrats did not initiate.
I think McCarty said he will first be working on shooting down hiring 87,000 new IRS employees. This is a new problem that Republicans have been dealing with.
The investigations will be new. I think mostly they are going to investigate what happened in the past two years. Except for Hunter Biden.
They need to seek things worth fighting for. We have too many challenges and need to meet them. I hope they pick their fights well.Good luck with the investigations, looks like obeying subpoenas are optional now...thanks to Republican precedent. These investigations will be performative at best and at worst a three-ring circus especially with the likes of Jim Jordan as the ringleader supported by a clown car cast like Gaetz, Greene and Boebert
Unsurprisingly, that is the same way Republicans thought about the Democrat House throughout the Trump years. One can still hear the echoes if you visit a few of the archived Trump years forum threads.
That's not intended as an excuse, but simply as a speed bump.
GAThe question is, were the Democratic investigations into Trump warranted or were they for show. I go with the former because Trump left enough evidence of wrongdoing to warrant investigations.
It remains to be seen if the Republicans latch on to real issues (like Afghanistan withdrawal) or just turn them into a Revenge circus.I don't see the connection between my comment and the comment I responded to.
GAYour comment was "Unsurprisingly, that is the same way Republicans thought about the Democrat House throughout the Trump years...." - While I agree with that sentiment, I drilled down further and asked whether their beliefs had a legitimate basis or were they crocodile tears
I saw your intent but my comment wasn't to argue legitimacy, It was just to note the similarity of statements—the two sides of the same coin. It's a partisan thing. Legitimacy probably isn't an important aspect when comments like those are used.
GAI think what we are debating is akin to Trump's claim that the Charlotteville Nazi's had "good people". Personally, I find it very difficult take statements as neutral, stand-alone observations. They are made, knowingly or not put to sides on equal footing when they probably are not.
It appears you are saying someone else could have said 'there were some good people . . .' and they wouldn't be presumed to be talking about 'Nazis', but knowing Trump for who he is it is obvious that he was talking about the nazis.
As I remember the incident and our conversations that followed, I do not think it is a 'fact' that he was talking about the marching torch groups, I think it is just as reasonable to presume he was talking about some of the other non-marching attendees.
That isn't an argument to resurrect, it is just an illustration of reasonable disagreement. Pro-Trumpers insist he didn't mean what you say, and anti-Trumpers say there is no other possible explanation.
GAYou know something, Esoteric, I find the same level of difficulty putting rat droppings and pepper on the same footing.
I was astounded during that confrontation when grown men pranced about stating that "Jews will not replace us". Where does all of that come from?Your comment seems to be using misinformation. I regret having to point this out, and do so carefully. I have provided some information that leads me to believe your statement is misinformation.
"I think what we are debating is akin to Trump's claim that the Charlotteville Nazi's had "good people".
Here is the transcript of his speech on Aug 12th. The actual factual transcript of what he said for all to read in full o obtain full context to his speech, and his words.
"Here is the transcript of Trump’s first remarks on the protest. in full. Aug 12, 2017
https://www.vox.com/2017/8/12/16138906/ … ille-rally
"Thank you very much. As you know, this was a small press conference, but a very important one. And it was scheduled to talk about the great things that we're doing with the secretary on the veterans administration. And we will talk about that very much so in a little while. But I thought I should put out a comment as to what's going on in Charlottesville. So, again, I want to thank everybody for being here, in particular I want to thank our incredible veterans. And thank you, fellas. Let me shake your hand.
They're great people. Great people. But we're closely following the terrible events unfolding in Charlottesville, Virginia. We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides. It's been going on for a long time in our country. Not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, this has been going on for a long, long time. It has no place in America. What is vital now is a swift restoration of law and order and the protection of innocent lives. No citizen should ever fear for their safety and security in our society. And no child should ever be afraid to go outside and play or be with their parents and have a good time.
I just got off the phone with the governor of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe, and we agree that the hate and the division must stop, and must stop right now. We have to come together as Americans with love for our nation and true affection-- really, I say this so strongly, true affection for each other. Our country is doing very well in so many ways. We have record -- just absolute record employment. We have unemployment the lowest it's been in almost 17 years. We have companies pouring into our country, Foxconn and car companies and so many others. They're coming back to our country. We're renegotiating trade deals to make them great for our country and great for the American worker.
We have so many incredible things happening in our country, so when I watch Charlottesville, to me it's very, very sad. I want to salute the great work of the state and local police in Virginia. Incredible people. Law enforcement, incredible people. And also the National Guard. They've really been working smart and working hard. They've been doing a terrific job. Federal authorities are also providing tremendous support to the governor. He thanked me for that. And we are here to provide whatever other assistance is needed. We are ready, willing and able. Above all else, we must remember this truth: No matter our color, creed, religion or political party, we are all Americans first. We love our country. We love our god.
We love our flag. We're proud of our country. We're proud of who we are, so we want to get the situation straightened out in Charlottesville, and we want to study it. And we want to see what we're doing wrong as a country where things like this can happen. My administration is restoring the sacred bonds of loyalty between this nation and its citizens, but our citizens must also restore the bonds of trust and loyalty between one another. We must love each other, respect each other and cherish our history and our future together. So important. We have to respect each other. Ideally, we have to love each other."
PLEASE point out where Trump claimed --- "Trump's claim that the Charlotteville Nazi's had "good people"
Here are the paragraphs that Trump specks of the PEOPLE OF Charlotteville.
" But I thought I should put out a comment as to what's going on in Charlottesville. So, again, I want to thank everybody for being here, in particular I want to thank our incredible veterans. And thank you, fellas. Let me shake your hand.
They're great people. Great people. But we're closely following the terrible events unfolding in Charlottesville, Virginia. We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides. It's been going on for a long time in our country. '
Here is the press conference where the media asked questions in regard to his original Aug 12 the speech.
"Reporter: "Mr. President, are you putting what you’re calling the alt-left and white supremacists on the same moral plane?"
Trump: "I’m not putting anybody on a moral plane. What I’m saying is this: You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs -- and it was vicious and it was horrible. And it was a horrible thing to watch.
"But there is another side. There was a group on this side. You can call them the left -- you just called them the left -- that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that’s the way it is.
Reporter: (Inaudible) "… both sides, sir. You said there was hatred, there was violence on both sides. Are the --"
Trump: "Yes, I think there’s blame on both sides. If you look at both sides -- I think there’s blame on both sides. And I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either. And if you reported it accurately, you would say."
Reporter: "The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest --"
Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."
Trump clearly pointed out in his full context BOTH SIDES were wrong, both sides were violent --- but he held out the view there were in his view good people on both sides. I would think logically he was speaking about the entire crowd, that on either side there were some good people.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2019 … s-remarks/
I feel the context leading up to his words is very important, and his original Aug 12th statement very much was reflective of his feelings and views. He condemned the riot and the violence on both sides. In fact, I felt his speech was very heartfelt.
Trump gave a full presser on the matter days later, he and Biden answers questions and did not use little cards to answer questions. He was very forthright with his views. No one put words into his mouth in any respect.
So, after reading and researching all of Trump's words on the Charlottesville protest. I feel he handled it superbly, while still sharing his honest-of-the-shoulder views. I prefer this kind of transparency in a politician. I don't respect mouthpieces. I consider these types weak, and unsure.
Your statement as it stands is misinformation... He stated there were good people on both sides fatally. Not --- "Trump's claim that the Charlotteville Nazi's had "good people". Just not factual.
Good luck, hopefully, we don't follow the Democrat's idea of justice, and manner of investigating --- accuse, make a list of punishment, and finally look for the evidence of a crime --- any crime.
Hopefully, Republicans will have more success with their investigations than the Democrats have had over the past 6 going on 7 years.
I note in the past few days you have been bashing many Republican representatives. Careful your party is showing --- I find it so wonderfully funny how Liberals/Democrats can even have the nerve to be surprised that the Republicans would do investigations. Soooo odd
Many Americans are disappointed, and yes angry with the present administration, and want answers. In my view, this administration is incompetent and needs to be called on the carpet over many issues.
I mean can we just ignore what is being reported about Biden today?"Classified documents from Biden’s time as VP discovered in his private office at Biden Center?
I hope the FBI searches his several homes, and maybe Jack Smith the man that was assigned to investigate Trump taking documents can add Joe to the list.Actually, the Democrats do it this way -
1. See indications of wrongdoing
2. See if there are any facts to back that up.
3. Investigate if there are.
4. Accuse if that is the result of the investigation
5. Make new laws, if needed, as a result of the investigation.
Name me one investigation by the Democrats in recent years that didn't follow a similar process. Bet you can't.I could care less about anything the Democrats do, or how they handle anything. Period. I find the party deplorable, and corrupt to the core. I have no respect for anyone that supports such a political party.
And then there are many who would say that when you slap on the label on Republican or Democrat you are basically brainwashed. Many believe that liberals and conservatives are narrow-minded folks unable to reason for themselves beyond the rhetoric you are fed in search of some sense of belonging. Much like a cult. I believe there are probably a few handfuls of honorable politicians across the political spectrum but I think it's laughable to believe one party has the corner on purity. I don't believe politicians align themselves with a party based on ideology but rather their assessment of which label will gain them the most power and money. The labels are for the poor folks out here who somehow believe in what it supposedly stands for.
Oh but for history.....the how and the why of the formation of the Republican Party!
There's BIG differences!!!Yes. it is a real shame today's Republicans (almost all of them including the ones I respect) dropped the liberal ideas of Lincoln and wrapped themselves in the conservative cloak worn by such notables as George Wallace and Lester Maddox.
Just can't agree. I truely feel the Democratic party, as of the last maybe 10 years, has shown itself to be corrupt, and caring little about following the law.
Little would be solved by disputing our different views. However, well put.Once again you seem to be confusing the real world Trumplicans with Democrats who do great things for America. You are describing Trumpicans to a T.
Our views are at odds. I find the word Trumplicans pretty silly.
It is. It is no more than another name calling episode, for it is a very negative term in the speakers mind.
In the case of political parties, they put the label on themselves - we just use those labels
In the case of political philosophy (which is very different than parties, don't you agree), the label describes core beliefs that they exhibit.
Personally, I think most politicians get in it for honorable reasons - but become corrupted (not necessarily in the criminal sense) along the way. It is the rare individual who can maneuver through the maze and keep their ethics mostly in tact.
"I could care less about anything the Democrats do" If you care less about ... then why did you write "hopefully, we don't follow the Democrat's idea of justice, and manner of investigating --- accuse, make a list of punishment, and finally look for the evidence of a crime --- any crime."? You made a false claim, I simply corrected it.
You didn't name one investigation the Democrats did it the way you say they do. (Too much Fox, I guess)
Given the evil that Trump has visited on the world, everybody would have good reason to "hate" him.
I am fairly certain the wait in Mexico policy is currently still in effect
It is. Because a court decision cancelling Biden's orders.
That is probably Title 42, which sort of does the same thing without the inhumanity.
First there was this where a conservative judge stopped Biden from doing https://www.texastribune.org/2022/12/16 … -migrants/
And then this, which allowed him to end it. https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/29 … ico-biden/
Yes, he did stop wasting our defense money on an ineffective wall. And yes, he did end the draconian, inhumane Remain in Mexico policy - sort of. He still kept returning thousands back to Mexico using other Trump era rules.
Sort of?!?
You don't have a case!
Trump actually worked to secure our southern border, knowing full well that a wide open border is an open invitation to all who wish to do harm to us and to this Nation.
Biden's contribution has been to undo everything that the Trump Admin. accomplished and that tells me all that I need to know about this man, now at the helm, Joe Biden.
Finally, for the first time ever, he showed up at the southern border over the weekend, for nothing more than a staged photo op! What a joke of an Admin. we now have in place.Trump worked no harder than Biden is now and much less hard than Obama before him who did the best job of them all bringing down the mess that Bush left. The difference is neither Obama nor Biden broke the ethical restrictions of common decency like Trump loved to do.
"Biden's contribution has been to undo everything that the Trump Admin." - Pure fabrication!
I guess you consider one of the most effective administrations in the first two years that we have had in a very long time a joke. SAD.Besides the construction of a ramshackle wall what immigration policy has President Biden undone?? I was not aware that the Trump administration passed any immigration reform/policy whatsoever.
McCarthy is speaker, but the extremists hold the power
McCarthy faces his first test as the newly neutered Speaker as he tries to push through the ransom rules package. Already three moderates are opposed.
"CNN
—
Kevin McCarthy faces the first test of his capacity to cling onto power on Monday after he effectively gutted the House speakership of much of its authority so he could secure his dream job."
Now, the new speaker must manage his conference in his first order of business: Attempting to pass a package of House rules that is effectively a ransom on power required by his party’s most extreme elements."
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/09/politics … eaker-testI hesitate to comment, due to not having located a complete document on the " Rules Package". Most of the concessions I have seen, as a conservative, I tend to agree with. I think it is good to keep in mind the House majority will rule. The Freedom Caucus at this juncture remains a small minority. Yes, it is clear that it has been agreed to go back to only one can call to “vacate the chair,” which could force a vote of no confidence on McCarthy’s speakership.
It seems unlikely the FC would have enough votes to pull that off. Though It would be a tool to bog down Congress.
Was there any one rule you object to? Most seemed pretty common sense.How much of a "majority" rule is it when a few people put a gun to their head with a finger on the trigger demanding concessions the majority does not want to make? Contracts have been voided under similar circumstances by a judge.
Their "choice" was keep the House, and therefore gov't, shut down or accede to the demands of a very few who don't care if the gov't functions or not.
Don't you agree that the FC and the Taliban 5 think it is a good idea to bog down Congress? I wouldn't put it past a few idiots on the Left to do the same thing.
I object to the requirement of a Select Committee to investigate everything under the sun in the Executive branch. I object to the extreme ease to bring down the House. I object to giving the FC an outsized role on the Rules and other committees. I object to putting Congress in a budget straightjacket. I object to capping spending at a level from two years ago. I object to giving the Republicans the ability to fire any civil servant they get pissed at.Well, I can't predict what size of a majority McCarthy would have if a vote came to remove him.
I am thinking differently in regard to bogging down congress. Maybe we need a true stale mate to get the changes we need for all to run more smoothly. We certainly have not seen that in a long time,
I guess we will need to disagree on the rest. I just think it's time to pull the spending and change up the Congressional rules. I am for term limits, that is how radical I have become. I think we have watched a dysfunctional congress long enough.The Republicans are tyrants, civil service is under the purvue of the Executive Branch. Damnable Rightwingers need to stay in their lane. This nonsense about budget limits they conveniently bring up now, when the debt ceiling issues came up during Trump's administration was their concern so evident? No....
The Cowboys in the House need to be reined in, and quickly.
This is absolutely amazing! Brazil is again going after Trump look-a-like George Santos - R-NY (if that is his real name) for fraud and possibly embezzlement now that they have found him.
What is amazing is there is no way to remove him from the House. He can't be recalled and the Republicans consider him one of their own, so he can't be expelled. The best anyone can hope for is he is thrown in jail where he can't vote on anything.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/02/politics … index.htmlOn the PBS News hour, conservative commentator David Brooks recommended that Santos step down as the moral compass of the Republican Party has fallen askew.
But today's GOP, they will never do it.Might be right. They might follow the Democrats ignoring the despicable BS that we learned about Democrats Adam Schiff, Ilhan Omar, Eric Swalwell
Why Kevin McCarthy booted three left-wing Democrats from their House committees.
Schiff has been accused of lying about details of the alleged ties between Trump and Russia, and he was mocked after the dossier compiled by former British intelligence author Christopher Steele detailing the alleged ties, which Schiff heavily promoted at the time, was found to contain false information.
Swalwell has been sharply criticized over his ties to a suspected Chinese spy named Fang Fang, or Christine Fang, which surfaced in a 2020 report from Axios. According to the report, Fang was part of an expansive Chinese spying operation that targeted politicians to gain proximity to political power and helped him fundraise during his 2014 run for Congress. Later reports revealed that Swalwell had intimate relations with the suspected spy, but he cut ties with her after the FBI alerted him to concerns over her activities. She subsequently left the country in 2015.
McCarthy's concern over Omar stems from her past comments, condemned as antisemitic, that were sharply critical of the Israel. Omar was forced to apologize in 2019 over a tweet suggesting that a prominent pro-Israel lobbying group was paying members of Congress to support the nation. Omar has also been criticized for comparing the U.S. and Israel to terrorist groups, accused Israel of terrorism and war crimes, and minimized the actions of the 9/11 hijackers.
source https://www.foxnews.com/politics/reason … committees
Plus we have a president (Democrat) that can't get through a speech without lying.
So, maybe the moral compass of the Democratic Party has fallen askew."Schiff has been accused" - I am surprised you would go there since he hasn't been indicted.
"Swalwell has been sharply criticized over his ties to a suspected Chinese spy" - I thought you didn't repeat third-party hearsay.
"Omar has also been criticized for comparing " - Is this your new standard for guilt - someone being "criticized"?
Any chance you are being hypocritical here?
The Republicans are kicking off one of the few potentially useful investigations of Biden - what led up to the debacle we saw as Trump-Biden sought to disengage from Afghanistan.
I will be curious to see if the Republicans do as credible and honest a job as the Democrats and two real Republicans did on the Jan committee. Or, will they simply turn it into a Biden bashing circus.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/12/politics … index.html
Another investigation that MIGHT have merit is looking into what prevented the Biden Administration from being better prepared to handle the surge of asylum-seekers at our southern border. I have heard Congress will have to look at itself for not providing enough funding and not passing a comprehensive immigration bill.
On the other hand, the redundant Hunter investigation is both a waste of time and money UNLESS they can tie it directly to laws that need to be modified to prevent people like Trump from soliciting foreign money while in office.He NEVER EVER said "Nazis had good people", he was talking about the fact that there are good people and bad people on both sides of the political spectrum and that there were good people and bad people present that day in Charlottesville!!!
Get it straight or leave it be.Do you agree with this opinion about the economic fallout from Republican weaponization of gov't.
I find it immensely ironic (and projecting) that the uber-conservatives want to investigate Biden for doing that given Trump spent fours years doing exactly that.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/19/opinions … index.html??? Republicans should look at what Democrats have been doing for the past 7 years and do something different because it is now a Democrat on the hot seat?
I'm not sure that I'm following your train of thought here. Democrats have given many hard, specific lessons on how to weaponize government, and continue to do so today, but you think Republicans should ignore that and suddenly exhibit ethics in government. Just because, you know, it is a Republican House now, not a Democrat one.
Have I got that right?What lesson's have the Democrats given?? Are you referring to the very legitimate investigations in Trump's many illegal activities? That isn't "weaponization" that is good oversight. Not sure what else you might consider "weaponization".
On the other hand, Trump's use of DOJ as a cudgel against is political enemies IS weaponization. Trump's use of the IRS to go after his enemies is weaponization. Trump's attempted use of DoD to suppress his enemies and confiscate voting machines - that is weaponization. Trump's attempt to get Homeland Security to do the same thing. - weaponization.
The Republicans multiple investigations into Hillary Clinton and Benghazi, when only one was needed. When Republican investigation failed, they would start another, and another. That is weaponization. Even the Republican's impeachment investigation into something that was clearly not high crimes or misdemeanors of Clinton could be considered weaponization.
There are SO many examples of your side weaponizing gov't it is not even funny."What lesson's have the Democrats given??"
Really? You need to ask that? Well, they have weaponized the justice system to use against political opponents. They have persecuted those same opponents for years, without results except spending much needed money.
Yes, it is sad that our Congress has stooped to these kinds of things, but when you say Republicans shouldn't follow in the footsteps of Democrats, should not learn from their actions, it comes across as really partisan, without regard to anything but Democrat political power."Well, they have weaponized the justice system to use against political opponents. " - That is what your biased Right-WIng sources brainwash you into believing. Problem is, you can't give even one legitimate example about what you are suggesting.
Once you can back-up your partisan claims like I did, it is hard to take your hyperbole seriously.LOL You haven't backed up a single thing.
Then you don't read what I write - I gave a whole litany of examples, none of which you objected to (so I can only guess you agreed with).
Great. Show that the average family of 4 illegal aliens can support themselves, including all government services such as education and police protection, on the average illegal family income.
You are STILL dodging AND that is not my job. You are the one making the accusation, not me. So you need to prove what you say, especially when I offer evidence to the contrary.. Are you sure it is just not your bias showing through?
The only "evidence" you have offered is to falsely claim that illegals add more to the country than they take. That their production is more than the cost of having them.
And I ask you too look at just one specific example, taking less than 5 minutes. I asked so you would not accuse the source of being leftist and therefore worthless.
You declined to do so, presumably because you already know what you will find; that the average illegal alien family cannot support itself. and that we therefore have to do it for them. Case closed.
Still no example, btw. I am guessing you don't have any.
" I find the party deplorable, and corrupt to the core. I have no respect for anyone that supports such a political party." Ma'am, you make that obvious with every word you post. These exchanges should not be categorized as "Discussion". They are rants - and unproductive.
Kathleen -- Again you need to address your comments to the person you hope the comment applies to. I assume you are referring to one of my comments, on my quote.
This is a political forum, I shared a view... I am not sure about the full content, or the context of the comment. Due, to it not being present on this thread. When posting you either need to post a link to the comment or address the comment with a name.
I do recognize my words. I shared a view, this is a political forum. We all have different ways of expressing our views. Some are very straightforward, some mince words and are very tactful... Some get very personal and insult one person, and some get bent out of shape.
I respect your thoughts, and your right to express them. But maybe you should realize I express my views very openly, yet try to never get personal or disrespect others' views, as you have just done.
Please buff up on trying to address a comment to a given user. Comments have Permalinks to share when quoting a user it is helpful to be able to check the content of a comment."But maybe you should realize I express my views very openly, yet try to never get personal or disrespect others' views, as you have just done."
We all try. Some mistake disrespect for disagreement.I make an effort to maintain politeness and welcome diverse opinions in this conversation. If you come across any comment of mine that seems inappropriate, I encourage you to report it to the moderator. A moderator, being an external observer, can objectively assess the conversation for any issues.
It appears that you may be offended by my post. I strive to focus on the topic at hand without delving into personal opinions about individuals. Perhaps we can redirect our discussion towards the original topics (OPs) to foster a more meaningful conversation. My interest lies in the subjects being discussed, and I'm not particularly concerned about your personal perception of me.
I have always responded to any of your comments that you addressed to me. But, unless you are addressing the conversation, I will politely not respond.
First these dumb Republicans want to make it harder for the IRS to catch tax cheats and NOW they want to abolish it altogether. They are turning out to be a waste of time.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/23/politics … index.htmlAnd the rest of the story is that those same Republicans would replace the income tax (and the IRS, tasked with collecting it) with a national sales tax and monthly tax rebates to the poor. Tax to be collected by the states and forwarded to the federal government, meaning savings of billions by not having the IRS.
So...although I disagree with a national sales tax, it isn't nearly as simple, or evil, as you are trying to make it. Republicans are not demons in disguise, trying to impoverish the government.
Well they've been dubbed the "Seinfeld Congress" because they are a show about nothing. The other day they spent time passing a resolution denouncing socialism... Just what we've all been waiting for right?? When are they going to actually get busy on the issues they ran upon? All of a sudden all the issues they fear mongered on during the midterms have suddenly disappeared in favor of the culture war of the day.
This is just all sorts of crazy and look at the presumptive nominee on the right for 2024,Mr DeSantis. The budding dictator is proposing that all student athletes be mandated to submit their menstrual history to schools. This is creepy.Hmmm, haven't heard anything about this. I'd have to hear the rest of the story.
I suspect it would have something to do with protecting female students, as everything he has done, while in office, is geared toward protecting the children of this state.How is this protecting anyone? And why should the government be that intrusive into something so private??
"The Freest State in America" [Ron DeSantis Jan 11, 2022] is tracking your daughters' periods for strangers. Hmm, why exactly does Ron DeSantis need to know about menstrual cycles?? Is this really a legitimate function of government?
Florida wants to mandate that female student athletes share their menstrual history..
AT THE SAME TIME that Mr. DeSantis prohibits employers from mandating that employees share their vaccination status??
Republicans are all “YOUR body, MY choice”
I remember when Republicans would be outraged at this overreach.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/ … 20202.htmlThat was a conservative myth. They have always wanted to tell individual Americans how to run their lives.
It is us liberals who want people to Live Free, so long as it doesn't hurt others.
DeSantis is far past "budding".
Let's see, what has the do-nothing Republicans in the House done so far?
- Voted to rescind staffing the IRS to needed levels.
- HR 497 - Allows unvaccinated health care workers to treat sick people
- HR 139 - Decrease the amount of telework in the executive branch
- HR 26 - Requires doctors to follow the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm to babies born alive. (A "show bill" since doctors already do that and laws are in place to punish if they don't)
- HR 23 - Rescinds funding in the Inflation Reduction Act for 1) IRS operations, 2) the tax court, and 3) eFiling tax returns.
- HR 22 - Prevents selling Reserve oil to China (we hadn't been, but regular sales to China spiked under Trump)
- HR 21 - Prevents further drawdown of Reserve oil until Energy develops plan to FORCE oil companies to lease more oil from federal lands (oil companies let current opportunities go to waste).
That is about it other than scattered minor bills.
You may want teenage boys in your daughter's bathroom, locker rooms and taking up their spot on the girl's sports teams, but I want better for my granddaughters!
You may want explicit sexual discussions/presentations in your daughter's K-3 classes, but I don't want this anywhere near my granddaughters or grandsons' classrooms, that's their parents job.What does any of that have to do with tracking a menstrual cycle?? What about those girls with conditions that prevent a cycle? Medications that prevent a cycle or girls with certain birth control methods that prevent a cycle? It's interesting that you talk about a "parent's job" but it would seem that increasingly Mr DeSantis is taking on the parent's job.
Controlling/knowing about women's menstrual cycles is necessary now in Conservative's drive to reduce abortions.
So many personal assumptions here. Why don't you just make your point based on factual information rather than assume what I'm thinking??
Can you name me one school where sex is discussed and presented in a K through 3 classroom? Name just one. (Mentioning the word "sex" doesn't count although I suspect social conservatives would object to that as well)
While you are at it, name me one elementary or secondary school that teaches CRT, even though it is real?
If you can't comprehend what's going on, I can't help you.
Oh yes Miss AB I clearly cannot understand anything as I am just wrought with stupidity and righteous folks such as yourself surely couldn't be bothered to help. Maybe just make your point rather than a personal attack??
Since I cannot reply directly to your responses Faye. ??
I've attempted to explain what Governor DeSantis is attempting to do in this State, with these protections which have been put in place. You don't want to hear it. You continually bash his every move, while referring to him as a dictator! How am I supposed to get past those hurdles, you tell me.Wouldn't that be because his every move he makes deserves bashing?
Only a dictator TELLS the legislature how to redraw the political boundaries. - He did that!
Only a dictator TELLS the school board what they can an cannot teach in elementary and secondary school. - He did that!
Only a dictator illegally FIRES and ELECTED official - DeSantis did that!
Only a dictator TELLS private businesses how to run their business - DeSantis is doing that!
Only a dictator TELLS private non-profits how they can earn money - He did that.
Only a dictator makes it very hard for Floridians to protect themselves from Covid-19. DeSantis probably cones in second only to Trump for being responsible for the most unneeded deaths from Covid due to his policies.
Only a dictator has total control over their legislature - DeSantis does.
The list is SO LONG.Oh so this one has been opened up once again for replies - or only for the replies you deem worthy!? (There's a lot of that going around you know?)
Go ahead, I'll not interfere with your propaganda campaign, which is in the process of transitioning from the disinformation campaign against Trump to that of DeSantis.
It makes perfect sense, why wouldn't it be at full throttle?
Gotta stop all those who actually work for the benefit of the Country and for its people, so that patsies and pushovers can be inserted, how else are you going to destroy a Republic?!?
Carry on.Ab, step away... when anyone used the word "dictator ": 7 times. It is a sign that the conversation is out of control before it even starts
I saw that list. Pretty comical when the claim is that only dictators decide what shall be taught in schools...while both state and federal legislators set standards that must be met and declare that some things cannot be taught. Title 9 also comes to mind as well as "no child left behind".
Or that only dictators tell businesses how to run their business...while passing laws telling those businesses who they must hire based on race (as in affirmative action) AND only that only those declared legal to work in the country can be hired). Or that the business must purchase workman's comp and unemployment insurance. Or must supply ADA facilities. Or that it must follow OSHA guidelines as well as the health department ones. Or that they must pay a minimum amount. Also interesting when those same dictators set work rules for railroads, right?
Guess the whole country is one huge dictatorship, huh?My, you actually counted them. Have you ever heard of trying to drive the point home to someone who is clueless about it? DeSantis-Trump are both wannabe dictators. They exhibit all the characteristics.
Your context puts the list you put forth as facts. You need sources to make such claims You are really great at making lists --- work on a source list for these accusations. Or perhaps your comment was 100% your view?
"Only a dictator TELLS the legislature how to redraw the political boundaries. - He did that!
Only a dictator TELLS the school board what they can an cannot teach in elementary and secondary school. - He did that!
Only a dictator illegally FIRES and ELECTED official - DeSantis did that!
Only a dictator TELLS private businesses how to run their business - DeSantis is doing that!
Only a dictator TELLS private non-profits how they can earn money - He did that.
This appears to be an opinion, no need for a source --
" Only a dictator makes it very hard for Floridians to protect themselves from Covid-19. DeSantis probably cones in second only to Trump for being responsible for the most unneeded deaths from Covid due to his policies."
Hopefully, you will provide legitimate sources.
Opened up? Not sure what you mean. I found it closed and reported it.
It is not disinformation when it is true.
Work for the benefit of the country? That would NOT be DeSantis or Trump.
You know who Trump followers remind me of? Jim Jones followers OR those conned by Scientology or those North Koreans who are in Love with Un like Trump claimed to be OR the Russians who will follow Putin to the grave OR the Venezuelans who think Maduro is a very fine man. It really is hard to tell the difference.
Well, the season of legislative inaction and sham "investigations" is upon us in earnest! The first "show trial" up is an out of bounds investigation of almost anything executive. What makes it a "show trial"? The fact that they are ignoring anything Trump did - you know, the guy who actually did weaponize the executive branch.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/04/politics … index.htmlThat one should have made you dizzy. Those were Republican words when the Dems were running the 'show.' But now, they are the Dems' words because . . .
GAWhat were the investigations the Ds ran that you think were "show"?
Also, I do understand that not all of the investigations the Republicans are going to do are silly and self-serving. One in particular I am waiting for is the investigation into the Afghan withdrawal.
Now, I am not naïve enough to think they will be intellectually honest and include Trump's portion of that, but I am still interested in seeing what they develop about Biden.
There was one other, which slips my mind now, that I thought would be useful as well.
I guess what is good for the goose ISN'T good for the gander.
While Trump people get to defy Congress anytime they want and with most getting away with it (including the leader of the Grand Inquisition himself, Jim Jordan), a Trump judge decided all of the other judges got it wrong and immediately let's the Republican House do a very non-Republican thing and interfere with a local DA. SHAMEFUL.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/19/politics … index.htmlAre you fearful of what Mark Pomerant will say under oath? I mean he wrote a book that pretty much says it all. Will he be able to help or hurt Braggs in the end? The facts show when Ponerant and his cohort presented their case to indict Trump to the. at that time DA, the DA did not indict. As you know neither did Garland.
I am pleased to see Congress at best trying to get to the bottom of this issue.
A couple of good sources
https://abovethelaw.com/2022/03/turns-o … ey-looked/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 … emocratic/
https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/ … 1668022443I am talking about fairness, not fear. I am talking treating everybody the same way - which this judge did not.
Kevin McCarthy took the approach yesterday of that cartoon (which is appropriate) where the bad guy says "Badges? I don't need no badges". But instead of badges, substitute the word BUDGET. McCarthy decided to do a non-Republican thing and repudiate his own promise by forgoing a formal budget while replacing it with a sure-fire way to drive America into bankruptcy.
Way to go Kevin.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/19/politics … index.htmlMcCarthy may well know the Freedom Caucus will give him lots of trouble if their demands are not met. They certainly have been vocal about their intentions over the past couple of months.
The FC is wielding like three dozen votes. And we have seen them in action before, they are a bunch that is cast-in-stone conservatives.
The FC has the power of the vote, in my view. And I think it safe to say they are hell-bent on bringing an end to spending.And I would say they are hell-bent on destroying America.
BTW - what is the logical conclusion of the gov't ending spending? I guess one of the consequences would be the FC's goal of eliminating taxes since we wouldn't need them anymore.
Another consequence the FC/MAGA would love - elimination of all programs designed to help people in distress. They might not like defunding the military but even there they seem to be turning against our men in uniform.
The Republicans do a very MAGA thing and are about to bring the hammer down on part of the LGBTQ+ community. The more the public sees how hateful MAGA is, the fewer votes they will get.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/19/politics … index.htmlYour link does not address your comment
"White House escalates political pressure on GOP as McCarthy unveils debt limit proposal"
"The Republicans do a very MAGA thing and are about to bring the hammer down on part of the LGBTQ+ community. "
What is the GOP doing, and what states are involved? What proposals?Yes, you are right. Here is the story. Sorry.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/20/politics … index.htmlWhat most people miss is that Liberals believe in letting people do whatever they like, so long as it does not hurt somebody else or the environment we live in.
Conservatives, and I mean "social" rather than "fiscal", want to tell how to live your life. Further, they create laws such as what you are talking about to enforce their medieval moral code."What most people miss is that Liberals believe in letting people do whatever they like, so long as it does not hurt somebody else or the environment we live in."
It is clear many women are protesting transgender people from participating on their teams. So, do you not consider that these women are being hurt?
Why medieval, this problem has never been present before now?I was making a broad observation, but I am guessing you are talking about trans. I don't know what I think yet about trans participating on adult teams. But, I do read articles like this that argue for transgender athletes (no, it is not CNN) - Excerpts -
"Many who oppose the inclusion of trans athletes erroneously claim that allowing trans athletes to compete will harm cisgender women. This divide and conquer tactic gets it exactly wrong. Excluding women who are trans hurts all women. It invites gender policing that could subject any woman to invasive tests or accusations of being “too masculine” or “too good” at their sport to be a “real” woman. In Idaho, the ACLU represents two young women, one trans and one cis, both of whom are hurt by the law that was passed targeting trans athletes.
Further, this myth reinforces stereotypes that women are weak and in need of protection. Politicians have used the “protection” trope time and time again, including in 2016 when they tried banning trans people from public restrooms by creating the debunked “bathroom predator” myth. The real motive is never about protection — it’s about excluding trans people from yet another public space. The arena of sports is no different."
"Trans athletes vary in athletic ability just like cisgender athletes. “One high jumper could be taller and have longer legs than another, but the other could have perfect form, and then do better,” explains Andraya Yearwood, a student track athlete and ACLU client. “One sprinter could have parents who spend so much money on personal training for their child, which in turn, would cause that child to run faster,” she adds. In Connecticut, where cisgender girl runners have tried to block Andraya from participating in the sport she loves, the very same cis girls who have claimed that trans athletes have an “unfair” advantage have consistently performed as well as or better than transgender competitors.
“A person’s genetic make-up and internal and external reproductive anatomy are not useful indicators of athletic performance,”according to Dr. Joshua D. Safer. “For a trans woman athlete who meets NCAA standards, “there is no inherent reason why her physiological characteristics related to athletic performance should be treated differently from the physiological characteristics of a non-transgender woman.”"
"Trans people have the same right to play sports as anybody else. “For the past nine years,” explains Carroll, “transgender athletes have been able to compete on teams at NCAA member collegiates and universities consistent with their gender identity like all other student-athletes with no disruption to women’s collegiate sports.”
Excluding trans people from any space or activity is harmful, particularly for trans youth. A trans high school student, for example, may experience detrimental effects to their physical and emotional wellbeing when they are pushed out of affirming spaces and communities. As Lindsay Hecox says, “I just want to run.”"
https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/ … s-debunked
What I do know for a fact is that sexual identity exists on a spectrum both physically and mentally. No person is 100% male or 100% female. All people have a little bit of the other gender in their physical and mental make-up.
In most cases, it is undetectable. In other cases, it is obvious to the person experiencing it, and in some cases it is obvious to the outside observer. Hermaphrodites are the most visible example of this potentiality. So are males with what are considered female affectations and the other way around. From there the differences become more subtle and less visible - but are nevertheless real. And this is a fact that so many conservatives cannot abide by.Scientifically the sex they are born is their sex, a female with two XX chromosomes, a male, and XY chromosomes. There is no altering their genetic makeup in any respect. They can alter their physical appearance with hormones, and plastic surgery. They can choose fashions that they feel suit their new transformation. Ultimately a male human is a male, and a female human is a female.
It is clear we have human beings that find they feel they are the opposite sex psychologically and desire to be the opposite sex.
The rights of all human beings need to be respected when dealing with what some may refer to as a problem, I prefer to refer to this as an issue. An issue that needs to be addressed, and in the end an outcome where all need to feel their rights have been respected.
Transgender reformation is a very difficult issue for society as a whole. For one thing, religion enters into the equation, as well as values, and morals.
So, how do we come to support everyone's rights? This is a hard request is it not? I can respect trans individuals as human beings. My religion and my own thoughts tell me this is abnormal. My religion also has thought me to be tolerant, and kind to all human beings.
The issue does become hard when trans individuals can't step back and realize some of us have very different views, beliefs, and religious values in regard to nonconventional sexual orientation.
Do those that don't condone nonconventional sexual lose their rights to choose when and how they interact with Trans individuals?
Especially when it comes to religious beliefs.All I can say is science has shown that gender is a much more complex issue than simple XX or XY chromosomes. Those just determine (in most, but not all, cases) whether a baby has a penis or a vagina. Those are simply surface characteristics.
https://novonordiskfonden.dk/en/news/mo … lly%20men.
Brining up religion crates many conundrums. One of which is - If your religion teaches you that trans are abnormal and since God creates all things, did God create the abnormality? And, if God created this abnormality, is it really abnormal or just another manifestation of God's work?
Why should your "beliefs" and "values" (not you personally) trump (no pun intended) a person's God-given, natural, rights? Shouldn't those "beliefs" and "values" always come in second place? Shouldn't those with those "beliefs" and "values" that are in conflict with someone's rights be the ones to take a step back?
Given that Trans is as natural as being Black, let me rephrase your last question - "Do those that don't condone Blacks lose their rights to choose when and how they interact with Black individuals?" Before you jump to an answer, keep in mind, that was a real question less than 100 years ago and, in some MAGA minds, is still a valid question today.
And if you disagree that being Trans is not as natural as being Black, then you would be denying science, wouldn't you (again, not you personally)?"Given that Trans is as natural as being Black, let me rephrase your last question - "Do those that don't condone Blacks lose their rights to choose when and how they interact with Black individuals?" Before you jump to an answer, keep in mind, that was a real question less than 100 years ago and, in some MAGA minds, is still a valid question today."
The black race is not in any respect an aberration? I don't think one can compare having a non-conventional sexual preference to being born into the black race, IMO, a non-conventional sexual preference could be considered to be a departure from what many feel is the social normal. I feel all human beings should be respected, and all human being's rights should be respected. That would include one's right to follow their values, beliefs, and their religion.
"And if you disagree that being Trans is not as natural as being Black, then you would be denying science, wouldn't you"
There is no scientific evidence on why or what makes a person feel they were born the wrong sex and choose to transition into their desired gender. As for race, you are born the race of your parents, and their ancestors. It's all about genes. In my view, you are comparing apples to oranges.
https://www.onlinepsychologydegree.info … genderism/
"Shouldn't those with those "beliefs" and "values" that are in conflict with someone's rights be the ones to take a step back?"
You stuck your foot in that one... So what I understand from your statement is that someone with certain values, should take a back seat to someone else's rights -- where did the one with values rights go? I think you may need to really consider we all have rights. It is not as easy as stepping back, especially if one's values come into the equation.
I think your ideologies have gotten in the way, you don't seem to see there are two sides to this equation. That's what makes this issue so very hard."Given that Trans is as natural as being Black"
I mean really Sharlee... why do you bother?So, apparently you are one of the very few of the uninformed who believe, wrongly, that being LGBTQ+ is a choice. Do I have that right? Don't these aberrant beliefs lead to the discrimination that is so bad in America?? Just asking.
Gender transformation is a choice. Again look up the word aberrant.
It is not a choice to the person suffering gender dislocation. Do you think being gay is a choice?
I know exactly what "aberrant" means. But I have read enough and heard enough in my 75 years to know that when people use that term in normal conversation, it is a criticism. Now you may be the one to which that doesn't apply, but you would be a rarity.
To focus on the "dictionary" meaning and ignoring its normal usage is simply sharpshooting.I honest opinion. I do not feel being gay is a choice. I do beleive changing one gender is a choice. It's a choice to literally try to transform one's appearance with hormones, and if selected plastic surgery to mimic another gender to the best of one's ability.
I use the word when the definition fits the sentence, and to make sure my context is represented.Perhaps because some hope to play women's sports, Perhaps because they hope to use female bathrooms. A segment of women has objected to both. Do they have the right to continue well-established norms?
(this comment answers your question, it may not reflect my own views in regard to the subject matter)
Do you feel these women have no right to bring their complaints to the forefront?
I think they do have a right to speak up.Slavery used to be a "well-established norm"
Preventing blacks and whites from marrying used to be a "well-established norm".
Preventing people who love each other and happen to be the same sex from getting married used to be a "well-established norm" (and may become illegal again if those who object to it - some of them being the women you reference that don't want females with penises in their bathroom - win the day)
Why should this example of discrimination be retained as a "well-established norm"?
What is the main reason (besides Christian modesty) that men and women don't use the same bathroom like they do in some countries? The fear of getting sexually assaulted. So what do the women you are talking about have to fear from a fellow woman?
Certainly, they can complain about it. But when it starts to hurt others is when it needs to stop.
We were discussing Transgenders. Do straight people have the right to reject a non-traditional sexual preference that is outside of their individual values, beliefs, or religion? Or do they just not have that right? Do only LGBTQ people have rights? Should others' rights be negated due to a choice that some consider a non-traditional sexual preference?
This issue entails more than just what you feel is discrimination. It encompasses "straight people", people that have morals and or religious beliefs that regard non -traditional sexual lifestyles as immoral."Do straight people have the right to reject a non-traditional sexual preference that is outside of their individual values, beliefs, or religion? " - OF COURSE they do, just as Whites have the right to reject Blacks (and so many do).
" It encompasses "straight people", people that have morals and or religious beliefs that regard non -traditional sexual lifestyles as immoral." - THOSE STRAIGHT people have the right to feel the way they do, but they DO NOT have the right to hurt others by acting on it (which many do - just look at all the laws those religeous, conservative Whites are passing to suppress Trans.
"The black race is not in any respect an aberration? " - IS SOMEONE born with six toes an aberration? How about being left-handed?
Do you know that left-handed people have been permuted for thousands of years by religion? Even today, some quote the Bible to attack left-handed people. Your church once thought (and maybe they still do) that being left-handed was an aberration rather then a genetic trait, just like Trans is.
https://medium.com/lessons-from-history … 1f493266f2
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/ … %2Dhanded.
and even Today
https://onlysky.media/ahall/marjorie-ta … ed-people/
I hope you can forgive me if I raise my eyebrow at so-called religeous beliefs? Many of those beliefs lead to so much hate in my opinion.First, I must explain my comment, so that others might read this context, might understand how I used the word aberration. (I spend more time here explaining context than I hope to)
The comment reads -- I don't think one can compare having a non-conventional sexual preference to being born into the black race, IMO, a non-conventional sexual preference could be considered to be a departure from what many feel is the social normal. I feel all human beings should be respected, and all human being's rights should be respected. That would include one's right to follow their values, beliefs, and their religion."
"Do you know that at one point, not that long ago, the American Christian church thought left-handed people were an aberration and were punished for it. This "belief" followed thousands of years of persecution by one religious group or another"
It is clear you may not understand how I used the word aberration. I was pointing out that the black race, in my view, should in no respect be taken as being different from any other race. A race is not a departure from what is normal.
" IS SOMEONE born with six toes and aberration?"
Yes, that is a biological aberration in regard to science --- The biology of human science.
BIOLOGY
a characteristic that deviates from the normal type.
This link will help you understand the word aberration and its nuances.
"Do you know that at one point, not that long ago, the American Christian church thought left-handed people were an aberration and were punished for it. This "belief" followed thousands of years of persecution by one religious group or another"
I think that sentiment would be the societal problem of discriminating against a person with a biological aberration. One that shows a racist attitude toward the black race is racist toward a biological race, not a biological aberration.
Do you feel the black race in some respect is a biological aberration?
I don't...
Do you feel a human being that decides to change their gender is an aberration? I feel they are in every sense of the biological definition of a biological aberration ---
The biology of human science.
BIOLOGY
a characteristic that deviates from the normal type.
I do not feel discrimination against someone with a biological aberration is fair or just.
I respect views in regard to religion. My religion leads me to understand and have a goal to work to become a person that is non-judgemental, more understanding, and giving of kindness to those I come across in life. It gives me a place to land in such hateful times. A place hate can't touch.
.No, you really don't, unless you have that much time to waste, I knew who made the comment: "Given that Trans is as natural as being Black"
Not that I read Esoteric's threads, but your comments show up in my feed and when I saw that sentence I just had to look.
My bad.You know, It does get old, trying to explain the context of my comments. I used the word aberration purposely feeling it was the perfect word to simply get my point across.
It is clear how ECO and I have such different mindsets when it comes to a simple word.A wise man knows he is not always right.
A wiser man knows there are always others that know more than him about any given subject.
The wisest men of all, know neither of those things, because they know they are wiser than everyone else... and they let everyone they interact with know it.Are you suggesting "aberrant" has a neutral tone to it? To me, and I think most people, "aberrant" is meant to denigrate someone because they are different.
"Are you suggesting "aberrant" has a neutral tone to it? To me, and I think most people, "aberrant" is meant to denigrate someone because they are different."
OMG yes, maybe you had better reread my comment. I find nothing wrong with differences in human beings. I pointed that out clearly. The word clearly points out the difference. A person born with six toes or a person that writes with their left hand. There is nothing in my view that is derogatory in those human differences, but they are an aberration.
Look up the definition of the word aberration. I have not penned the word aberrant in our conversation.
Aberration - https://www.google.com/search?q=aberrat … 12l4j46i51
"aberrant" is meant to denigrate someone because they are different."
Where in the world did you get your definition of Aberrant to include or denote it denigrate? Different yes in some way, but the definition does not indicate any form of denigration due to a difference.
Please reread my comments, you have twisted context. I was very clear race is not an aberration. Non- traditional sexual choices are very different from the social norms. There is choice involved not science.
Am I right to assume you feel the word aberration always carries negative connotations?Yes, in non-scientific conversation, "aberration" carries a negative connotation in my opinion.
Remember where this all started. You asked Trans to take a step back (from asserting their rights to live a life that God gave them).
"The issue does become hard when trans individuals can't step back and realize some of us have very different views, beliefs, and religious values in regard to nonconventional sexual orientation."
My question is, why do THEY have to take a step back when those that oppose them are the ones with "aberrant" beliefs.Please offer a proper dictionary definition of Aberration. (if there is one thing I understand is you think that word is a derogatory word, not sure why)
I never asked trans individuals to step back in any respect from asserting their rights to live a life that God gave them. My words confer --- the issue becomes when trans individuals can step back and take into account others have rights too. The right to follow their own values, religions, and morals in regard to dealing with the aberration of non-traditional gender reassignment. I think the context of my comment is very clear.
That is untrue, and you have twisted my words as well as the context of my comment. One must read an entire comment to obtain context. You either did not or you are being very dishonest in repeating something IDID NOT SAY or intend.
The comment
Scientifically the sex they are born is their sex, a female with two XX chromosomes, a male, and XY chromosomes. There is no altering their genetic makeup in any respect. They can alter their physical appearance with hormones, and plastic surgery. They can choose fashions that they feel suit their new transformation. Ultimately a male human is a male, and a female human is a female.
It is clear we have human beings that find they feel they are the opposite sex psychologically and desire to be the opposite sex.
The rights of all human beings need to be respected when dealing with what some may refer to as a problem, I prefer to refer to this as an issue. An issue that needs to be addressed, and in the end an outcome where all need to feel their rights have been respected.
Transgender reformation is a very difficult issue for society as a whole. For one thing, religion enters into the equation, as well as values, and morals.
So, how do we come to support everyone's rights? This is a hard request is it not? I can respect trans individuals as human beings. My religion and my own thoughts tell me this is abnormal. My religion also has thought me to be tolerant, and kind to all human beings.
The issue does become hard when trans individuals can't step back and realize some of us have very different views, beliefs, and religious values in regard to nonconventional sexual orientation.
Do those that don't condone nonconventional sexual lose their rights to choose when and how they interact with Trans individuals?
Especially when it comes to religious beliefs.
"My question is, why do THEY have to take a step back when those that oppose them are the ones with "aberrant" beliefs."
How I see it is that we all have rights, and need to work to respect one another.
It is clear you feel only the transgenders need to be considered overall, and that the great majority of society that may have an issue due to beliefs should just not be respected. Oh well... We totally disagree. I am one, as I told you to have a problem with some of the issues that have arisen with trans wanting to insert themselves in female sports, as well as using female bathrooms... At this point, these are my only grips.
Otherwise, as I said, and repeat, they need to can live and let live.
The conversation is bordering on silly. I am done. As always mindsets are soooooo ---- far apart. You just seem to dwell in the negative. Even turning a common word like aberration, which just means actually a departure from what is normal, into having a negative meaning.You can write all you want to try to explain away what you said but I maintain that "
"The issue does become hard when trans individuals can't step back and realize some of us have very different views, beliefs, and religious values in regard to nonconventional sexual orientation."" IS CLEAR as a bell. Are you now denying your wrote those words?
Your rephrasing as "the issue becomes when trans individuals can step back and take into account others have rights too. " HAS AN entirely different meaning than you original statement.
Again, I maintain, why should Trans step back and take into account biased and wrong beliefs?
Your comment started out on a false premise that " Ultimately a male human is a male, and a female human is a female." - AS I proved to you with my links, that is not necessarily true.
"It is clear we have human beings that find they feel they are the opposite sex psychologically and desire to be the opposite sex." - TO ME that is straightsplaning to Trans about how they "feel".
"For one thing, religion enters into the equation, as well as values, and morals." - AND WHY should that enter into the equation when we are talking about somebodies life that others are trying hurt?
"Do those that don't condone nonconventional sexual lose their rights to choose when and how they interact with Trans individuals?" - WHAT I am saying is that while those people have a right to hold those beliefs, whether right or wrong, they have NO right to act on it in a way that hurts others.
"How I see it is that we all have rights, and need to work to respect one another. " - A PERSON has a right to think slavery is OK but they deserve no respect for thinking that. Likewise, a person has a right to believe Trans are the scum of the earth (and believe me, some feel that way), they deserve no respect.I am done with your ongoing repetitious conversation...
It would seem I have said over and over, I believe in live let live, alls rights need to be respected. ALLSorry for being repetitious but when you claim you believe in "live and let live" but then go on to write things which support those who do not want to "live and let live" (a liberal view, btw) or write that the oppressed need to "take a step back' in order to consider the feelings of the oppressor, which one am I to believe?
I don't respect woke ideologies. I will converse about all aspects of any issue.
I believe that trans need to respect that they are a minority, and that are trying to change social norms of using restrooms, and women's sports competitions. Some women are having a problem with Bathrooms and sports being infiltrated by transgenders.
I feel all biological women have every right to protest both issues. That's my view. Don't like it --- that is your problem.Your point is well taken. It is a small group. However, I don't agree anyone has the right to threaten other's social norms such as men using women's bathrooms or entering their sports teams and leagues. This is the issue we were discussing.
The problem with that is they are not men other than they happen to a penis. Nothing else about their make up is male.
What you are implying or outright saying is that the ONLY thing that determines gender is one gene (the SRY gene) out of thousands, all interconnected in a mind boggling way. That none of the other 25,000 genes we possess have any bearing on gender.
I am sorry, I can't buy that.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpa … ation-314/
"I don't respect woke ideologies. " - THIS IS what you are saying you don't respect - aware(ness) of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)
"I believe that trans need to respect that they are a minority, " - ONCE AGAIN, what you are ALSO saying is that you "believe that Blacks need to respect that they are a minority,
And let me finish off the thought "I believe that trans need to respect that they are a minority and should therefore do what the majority wants"
That is EXACTLY what the White majority wanted the Black minority to do, but fortunately the minority fought back until they some modicum of equality.Whatever... I have repeated myself over and over. Believe whatever you feel suits you. LOL
Castlepaloma posted a thread the other day and shared a link in regard to wokeness. I think the speaker in the clip shared a pretty good description of today's wokeness that some have adopted these days. It is very much different than your view. But I found it more to match my own view of what I see in today's far leftists.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?extid=C … 0985485563Castle's was the conservative view of "wokeness". Mine is the accepted dictionary definition. I'll go with one that doesn't have political spin attached to it.
And along those lines, as a liberal, I recognize that God made all types of people from straight white people with five toes to Black Trans people with six toes (don't know if there are any, but who gives a damn). Each of those people have a natural right not to have others tell them how to live their life and to someone else's moral code.
I do not respect those people who impose their moral code on others just because they wrongly think it is superior to someone else's. So long as our society sees fit to have two bathrooms, one for each gender, then women with vaginas need to suck it up and let all females use the proper facility for their gender. Forcing a trans female to use a male facility is no less harmful than forcing a female with a vagina to use a men's bathroom."To be anti-woke is to be anti-American."
Thank you for sharing your wokeness. This certainly is good to know. I respect your honesty in admitting you are one of the woke.Woke is all turned inside out,t upside down, and the opposite of rational thought. So awake is actually asleep. I am with her -- https://www.facebook.com/watch/?extid=C … 0985485563
Under the descriptions given by Brooklyn, you know something? I am Woke as well, and proud of it. That anti-American stuff is just more rightwing mumbo-jumbo.
I must reply with raised eyebrows -- whatever.
Though, I am so glad to see some here admit they are woke. Pretty much explains their mindset.
I am in much agreement with this woman's concept of Woke. Not completely, but at least 95%, I feel she pretty much nailed it..
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?extid=C … 0985485563Well, Sharlee,
"The GOP is united in their crusade against "wokeness" which to me is consciousness. They say they are serving a patriotic ideology. For them it's an ideology that will deliver America from the scourge of Black history, diversity, equity, inclusion, trans rights, homosexuality and women"
Why would anybody think that I could be for any of these things?" For them it's an ideology that will deliver America from the scourge of Black history, diversity, equity, inclusion, trans rights, homosexuality and women""
I see all of this Democrat propaganda, that has well taken hold with liberals. Keeps a base, but will more Democrats truely wake up to see they are being somewhat had?All one has to do is point to King DeSantis to know the truth of what Credence says.
I recently read where his MAGA vassals in the Florida legislature are starting to chafe under his authoritarian rule.
As MAGA has made it clear by there actions and words (assuming you define America as a democratic, non-autocratic state).
Your entire comment has the sound of superiority LOL. Maybe you have noted after all our go-arounds I don't respect those that push their personal moral codes on others, or preach from a pedestal.
You have shared your view, and I have shared mine. It is obvious we don't agree. So preach on, to hear yourself preach.
Again a male is a male his entire life if he carries that XY o his chromosomes, he will carry the male chromosomes no matter what he does. In my view, God made men and women.And God made Trans. Did He make a mistake with them?
Sorry, it is not in me to fight against science.No, actually that decision is left to a male or female that makes the decision to remake themselves outwardly into another gender. Those pesky gender chromosomes are just scientifically what makes a human a man or woman.
No fight, science is science. I realize with this issue it is an inconvenience. I mean liberals love to use science in many of their disputes. But, this issue, the science is craved in stone.
" I don't think one can compare having a non-conventional sexual preference" - AND ISN'T this where you are making an assumption that it is a "preference" and not a genetic fact?
Preference can be read two ways. One is that it is a choice, which Trans isn't. The other is a sort of "leaning toward". I am left-handed so I have a preference in using my left-hand.
So, which "preference" are you taking about?
"" IS SOMEONE born with six toes and aberration?" - Yes, that is a biological aberration in regard to science --- The biology of human science." - That definition suggest to me that a "biological aberration" is somebody who is not in the plurality of a given characteristic. So, by that definition the following are "biologically aberrant":
- Six-toed people
- Left-handed people
- Blue-eyed people
- People born with heart defects
- Blondes
- Black people
- White people worldwide (the most common race is Asian)
Most of those "biologically aberrant" (by your definition) people are not singled out as socially deviant, why are Trans?"I respect views in regard to religion. My religion leads me to understand and have a goal to work to become a person that is non-judgemental, more understanding, and giving of kindness to those I come across in life." -
Is your religion non-judgmental about atheists? How about communists? If you are Protestant, how about Catholics and Jews? Is your religion willing to get along with any of those and not try to covert them? If the answer is yes, then you belong to a rare religeous group (which do exist, but are normally not Christian).I gave you a view into my faith, and have more than shared my own values. I look at atheists as human beings that desire the same respect I give all... I try to find good in all... I try to stay above the hate I see today. I try not to point the finger at anyone, and I am very proud to say I work daily at this.
I don't share your opinion of religion, just due to finding religion so rewarding in my life. I don't think I can explain it any other way. I keep the good in my heart, and head, it really keeps out the bad.
" So what I understand from your statement is that someone with certain values, should take a back seat to someone else's [NATURAL] rights -- where did the one with values rights go?" - YEP, I sure do. Where would they go? Same place you wanted Trans to go when they took your "step back".
From past experience, I bet you have something you say supports that trans/black statement. But, consider it from what many pundits call '30,000 feet.' As in before you zone in on any details.
First you (generic) say that physical science doesn't have it right when it comes to sex/gender, but it is right when it comes to transgender being natural. A man can be a woman if he feels like it and it's as natural as inheriting the skin color of your parents.
Sure, that's the ticket . . . sell that to America. Geesh, what's next?
OK, I think that this bill addressed an important issue.
Many women in organized sports are complaining about the issue. I honestly think Congress has not had the need to address what some consider problems that the LGBTQ community poses for straight people... You do realize straight people have rights too? I think we are on a precipice, that we have not addressed. Rights of all.
This in my view is not cut and dry. Yes LGBTQ community should have every right provided to all citizens. But not at the expense of others' rights. It appears women in sports feel their rights have been disregarded., in many respects. Many feel the opportunity for a scholarship has been diminished, they feel the odds of winning in a given physical sport are diminished, and they simply do not want biological men in their locker room. And more. These are all issues in the past they did not have the need to be concerned about. Do we disregard their rights due to all of a sudden biological men's hope to compete in their leagues and teams?
Perhaps Transgender people need their own teams, and leagues to compete.
This is my view.
The MAGA war on women has impacted where people want to go to college - and it ISN'T to a state where women are second class citizens.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/20/health/r … index.html
THIS dynamic is carrying over to where newly minted doctors want to serve their residencies. It isn't in Red States with restrictive abortion laws. This is doubly true of those wanting to go into fields that focus on women's health
https://www.axios.com/2023/04/18/aborti … -residentsThe Manhattan DA and Jim Jordon settled and the prosecutor that resigned because the DA wouldn't press charges against Trump early on will testify. What are the chances this will blow up in the face of Jordon's war on the states?
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/21/politics … index.htmlNot sure where to stick Hunter Biden stories, but since Republicans in the 188th Congress seem to have a personal vendetta against him, this is as good as place as any.
Biden's lawyer goes on attack asking for the Treasury Dept IG to look into the violations of the Bank Secrecy Act by Trump aide Garrett Zeigler for publicly releasing SARS reports he got illegally from a bank employee. He is also asking the Congressional Ethics Committee to look into the unethical, vitriolic personal attacks made by Marjorie Taylor Green about Hunter Biden and thereby bringing disgrace on the chamber.
Also, it seems the Trump-appointed prosecutor has narrowed the charges against Hunter Biden to two misdemeanor charges for failure to file taxes, one count of felony tax evasion related to the overreporting of expenses, and a false statement charge regarding a gun purchase.
Where is the human trafficking the Right is accusing him of?? Not a word about China, either, LOL.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/24/politics … index.htmlWhat a pack of clowns who only have their interests in mind and not America's.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/26/politics … index.htmlWhen will Repulsons decide it is not a good idea to threaten YOUR standard of living and America's future? Every time they try to bring America down, be it by not increasing the debt limit or shutting the gov't down at Christmas, they get burned badly.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/27/economy/ … index.htmlHere is the Biden budget --- always positive that if one comments on this budget they read it.
Perhaps we have not even put a dent into the spending this president truly desires. See where your tax dollars are headed. I mean if you really care. Or maybe just wait to see it all play out, and be very surprised.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/u … fy2024.pdf
My view --- the republican House had better do its job, and chip half of the BS out of that budget.Do you agree to Republicans liking the budget to America defaulting on its debts? It is ironic they didn't pull this stunt under the biggest spender ever, Trump. I wonder why that is?
After reading the budget, I feel there is room for good negotiation. I am not sure I can answer why they did not pull this under Trump. I will be honest I did not read all of Trump's budgets.
I can say Biden's budget has perhaps what could be considered unnecessary spending at this time. I won't argue his hopes to push his agenda, this is just not the time we need tons of overspending.
I hope many here will read it or at best some of it.
I certainly hope that both sides will get a budget that is acceptable. I have a feeling this will not go smoothly for McCarthy. The Freedom Caucus will stand by their demands on clawing back some cash from Biden's previous bills.
First, Biden brags about deficit reduction while adding nearly $10 Trillion in
New Spending Biden says he cut the national debt by $1.7T — when he actually increased it by $3.84T.
The president made an error — he confused the terms “debt” and “deficit” — while bashing House Republicans as irresponsible for demanding spending cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling later this year.
“You know you hear ads with the big-spending Joe Biden?” Biden claimed during a speech in Virginia Beach, Va. “In two years, I reduced the debt $1.7 billion — $1.7 billion.
“It’s the largest deficit reduction in American history.”
Biden also said he intends to propose tax increases on higher earners when he releases his annual budget proposal on March 9, though that plan stands absolutely no chance of passing.
“I want to make it clear, I’m going to raise some taxes,”
“If any of you are billionaires out there, you’re going to stop paying at 3%, not a joke.”Joe Biden
The term “federal deficit” refers to the annual amount of government spending that is unfunded while the national debt — currently clocking in at more than $31.58 trillion — is the amount owed to holders of securities like Treasury bonds.
Biden frequently mixes up the terms “debt” and “deficit”. In December while he was touting the nation’s financial health under his stewardship — while the president incorrectly stated earlier this month that the worst inflation since the early 1980s was already there when he took office.
Bidens Quote -- Do I take any blame for inflation? No," Biden told reporters.
"Why not?" Biden was asked in return.
"Because it was already there when I got here, man. Remember what the economy was like when I got here? Jobs were hemorrhaging. Inflation was rising. We weren't manufacturing a damn thing here. We were in real economic difficulty. That's why I don't."
https://wpde.com/news/nation-world/bide … i-got-here
This is just not true --- Since he took office, the rate of inflation rose from figures of 1.4% in January 2021 to 8.3% in April 2022, peaking at a more than 40-year historic highs of 8.5% in March 2022.
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-has … cy-1712159
At this point, Republicans say massive spending legislation passed during Biden’s first two years in office caused high inflation and unnecessary debt, and hope to claw back unused COVID-19 stimulus funds and curb discretionary spending. They also hope to chip at some of the Green Deal spending. These could be something that Dems will not agree on in this budget.
The $3 trillion the Freedom Caucus wants to cut from nondefense spending over 10 years is largely targeted at what members call a “woke” bureaucracy. They estimate the fiscal 2024 savings would be $131 billion.
https://rollcall.com/2023/03/10/freedom … 20billion.
In my view, we need to really stop spending on anything but our necessities. This kind of spending may not be sustainable. Congress needs to work on that budget and come to some form of sensible agreement."First, Biden brags about deficit reduction while adding nearly $10 Trillion in
New Spending" - APPLES and oranges. Unless, the Deficit goes negative (meaning we take in more than we spend) the Debt will continue to grow. The last president (and only the second one in history) to achieve that goal is Bill Clinton.
Reducing the size of the Deficit is a great achievement, which Trump failed to do in his four years, so long as it isn't done on the backs of the lowest three quintiles.
For comparison, here are the deficits, in constant 2023 dollars from the end of Clinton on;
- 2000: + $ 414,088,000,000 Surplus Clinton Budget
- 2001: + 218,769,000,000 Surplus Clinton - Bush Budget
- 2002: - 264,686,000,000 Deficit Bush
- 2003 - 619,395,000,000 Deficit Bush
- 2004 - 659,481,000,000 Deficit Bush
- 2005 - 492,004,000,000 Deficit Bush
- 2006 - 377,571,000,000 Deficit Bush
- 2007 - 233,929,000,000 Deficit Bush
- 2008 - 642,851,000,000 Deficit Bush
- 2009 - 1,987,536,000,000 Deficit Bush - Obama GREAT RECESSION
- 2010 - 1,791,688,000,000 Deficit Obama
- 2011 - 1,743,866,000,000 Deficit Obama
- 2012 - 1,415,318,000,000 Deficit Obama
- 2013 - 880,756,000,000 Deficit Obama
- 2014 - 618,106,000,000 Deficit Obama
- 2015 - 562,826,000,000 Deficit Obama
- 2016 - 735,264,000,000 Deficit Obama
- 2017 - 819,422,000,000 Deficit Obama - Trump
- 2018 - 936,543,000,000 Deficit Trump
- 2019 - 1,161,262,000,000 Deficit Trump
- 2020 - 3,653,200,000,000 Deficit Trump Covid
- 2021 - 3,091,498,000,000 Deficit Trump - Biden Covid
- 2022 - 1,419,090,000,000 Deficit Biden Covid
- 2023 - 1,400,000,000,000 Deficit Biden CBO Projection
- 2024 - 1,785,000,000,000 Deficit Biden PB Projection
- 2025 - 1,545,000,000,000 Deficit Biden PB Projection
Now, can you honestly say that Biden has done poorly, given what Trump left him with? I certainly can't.You're right. Excluding Covid, Biden has increased the deficit every year, including the projections that we all know will not be met.
But he is reducing the deficit. Right.I guess you missed what happened between two Covid years, 2021 and 2022. Take another look. $3.1B down to $1.4B.
"Excluding Covid, Biden has increased the deficit every year, including the projections that we all know will not be met."
The numbers are those you gave - I assume they are factual.
- 2019 - 1,161,262,000,000 Deficit Trump
- 2023 - 1,400,000,000,000 Deficit Biden CBO Projection
- 2024 - 1,785,000,000,000 Deficit Biden PB Projection
- 2025 - 1,545,000,000,000 Deficit Biden PB ProjectionAnd again, why exclude Covid? Your side never excluded Bush's recession when criticizing Obama.
Probably because a once in a lifetime expenditure should not be considered when looking at Biden's spending habits. If nothing else you will point to it and shout out "See? He lowered the deficit!", without mentioning that the cause was the end of COVID, not Biden exhibiting spending restraint.
I wonder what "woke" spending is, other than a made up term? They are saying that about 1/3 of the non-defense discretionary budget is for awareness of social and environmental justice. SO, how do we get to their $131 billion cut.
Transform Behavioral Health - Let's wipe out the woke mental health initiatives the conservatives claim will go a long way to reducing gun violence by improving people's mental health - $0.7B - $0.7 B
Strengthen Public Health and Combat Disease - Another woke program. Let's eliminate that as well. $ 9.1 B ;$ 9.8 B
Increase Food Security - A favorite conservative go-to for cuts. Kill it. [$0.2 B: $10.0 B[/b]
Out Compete China Initiative - Let's hope the Freedom caucus likes that one and leaves it alone.
Dept of Agriculture - End subsidies for single family homeowners and Extend Pandemic Crop Insurance Program. GONE. $1.1 B: $11.1 B
Children and Family Initiatives - Those are clearly "WOKE". Killing those will save a bunch. $0.6 B: $11.7 B
Homeland Security Initiatives - We don't need those either $1.7 B: $13.4B
My eyes are drooping and we are only 10% there. I hope you are getting the picture of how ridiculous the FC is being.This is just not true --- Since he took office, the rate of inflation rose from figures of 1.4% in January 2021 to 8.3% in April 2022, peaking at a more than 40-year historic high of 8.5% in March 2022. LOL
Biden killed out the economy period. Too bad he could not have had the knack for problem-solving Trump had, he may have averted ruining America.There you go again blaming Biden and the Democrats for something they have LITTLE TO NO control over Sort of getting tired of reminding your side of that. Whey are you going to start blaming him for the moon setting because it is happening on his watch.
"Biden killed out the economy period." - FALSE, and you know it. Where is the recession? Where are all the people losing their jobs? When are consumers going to stop spending so much (driving up inflation)? When are all the signs of a good economy going to disappear so that your claim can be true.You certainly have a right to cop out like that and provide zero proof to back up your false claim.
Just sick of offering the same links, from economists that do not agree with your view.
I think it is very obvious we disagree.I looked at the few links you offered that were from trustworthy sources. What I found was they made no real case that Biden CAUSED inflation. AT BEST, they could show that there was a TEMPORARY (something I have pointed out more than once which you apparently ignored) and SMALL increase in inflation due to the necessary American Rescue Plan. A small price to pay for helping millions of people. (The caps are intended to highlight important points).
I am guessing you didn't read the links I posted that proved conclusively that Biden (nor Trump for that matter) was not responsible for inflation.
Yes, we disagree but there is a difference between your opinion and my facts.Your posts make little to no sense. My own research tells me differently. It is apparent you believe whatever the media tells you to believe. The majority of your links are from CNN. I have no real regard for this form of comment. It shows real arrogance, one in my view, that is not backed up by knowledge of the subject.
You're wasting your time with me... I don't buy into anything from CNN -- Zero. I feel they are almost like a virus that is capable of affecting the minds of those that ascribe to groupthink. Sorry, but this is my honest view.
Well, it seems that the Republican attempt to extort America in the self-made debt ceiling crises is coming to a close much faster than they anticipated. Sec Yellen announced late today that the gov't will fail to pay its bills as soon as June 1, IF Republicans keep up their sick extortion.
Why is it ONLY Republicans that do this to this extent. Sure, both parties have put up an occasional fuss as the debt limit gets close, but they generally back down before it gets dangerous. Only the Republicans have brought us the brink of Default in the past and were responsible for the lowering of America's credit rating.
ONLY the Republicans have, in other self-made crises, forced the gov't to shut down for more than 2 days. Trump holds the record at 35 days!
What have Republicans got against pay the debts that they are partially responsible for.? Most good Americans try not to go bankrupt. Here, the Republicans are using national bankruptcy as a "bargaining chip". They must really hate America to keep doing this.
If they force us, AGAIN, into the loss of our credit rating or, heaven forbid, actual default, that will make the results of the 2024 election a forgone conclusion in the Democrats favor.
Of course, the other side will ask, why doesn't Biden just cave and give in this extortion attempt. Because god-fearing Americans don't give in to extortionists. Because he says enough of this unAmerican nonsense, it has to stop, and it is going to stop here.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/01/politics … index.html
Biden invites Congressional leaders to show up to talk about the Debt Ceiling. I wonder if the Republicans will bother to show up if Biden isn't going to give in to their stupid demands.Seems like Hunter Biden is almost as dumb as Trump. He is paying $20,000/mo in child support. He asked the AR judge to lower it because he claims is income is drying up.
Obviously, that opened him up to a whole set of questions about his finances - the same questions the Republican witch hunt is asking. The answers will also be available to the federal prosecutors to cross-check with what they already know.
Who knows, maybe he and his lawyers are still on drugs, lol.
In any case, from what I read, the mother is asking all the right questions. (By the way, she also wants her and Biden's child to have Biden as its last name. I think that is appropriate.)
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/01/politics … index.htmlAny bets on whether America's credit rating will be downgraded before this Republican manufactured "crisis" is over?
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/10/politics … index.htmlWell Folks, it looks more like MAGA is going to drive America into default.
"President Joe Biden issued a stark warning Sunday that congressional Republicans could use a national default to damage him politically and acknowledged time had run out to use potential unilateral actions to raise the federal borrowing limit, a sharp shift in tone days before the deadline to reach an agreement."
Biden tried to play nice with these miscreants, but what did they do? Screwed the pooch.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/21/politics … index.htmlWould it help if Republicans issued a stark warning that congressional Democrats and Biden could use a national default to damage the country and acknowledge time had run out to use potential unilateral actions to raise the federal borrowing limit?
Republicans tried to play nice with Biden but what did he do? Screwed the pooch.
This thing is not one sided - neither side is going to give in easily. Democrats demand (demand) open purse strings, Republicans demand closed ones. The more rational people can discern which is more beneficial to the country, and have already decided what unlimited spending, and borrowing, by Biden and Democrats is NOT the way we should be going.Here is the problem with your statement - MAGA DIDN'T try to play nice with Biden, did they? NO, they refused to compromise at all.
It is the MAGA that is breaking with precedence, isn't it? They happily passed debt ceiling increases while Trump was spending money hand-over-fist. So what changed? Oh, oh, I know - BIden, a Democrat, is president so now hypocrisy takes over and they want to play games with America's credit rating.
So YES, it is one-sided.
" Republicans demand closed ones. " - BS! When have they EVER done that while in Power? Answer - ONCE, with the help of a Democratic president, i.e. Clinton. They spent money like it was water while Reagan, Bush II, and Trump were president and they had Congress.
So please, join us in the real world.
American's know this, even if you don't, and will vote accordingly in 2024.MAGA is not the Republican caucus, no matter how you pretend it is.
And the Republicans DID offer a compromise; raise the ceiling...with spending caps. Biden refused to play and the game ended. Again, you can pretend there was no offer, that Republicans simply refused to raise the ceiling (as Biden refuses a cap on his spending habit) but, again, it doesn't suddenly become true because you pretend they did not.MAGA absolutely IS the Republican caucus. Haven't you been following the news? The non-MAGA Republicans were largely voted out of office in 2022.
What has putting caps on spending habits have to do with paying your bills? Why are the MAGA Republicans being so hypocritical??
" Again, you can pretend there was no offer, that Republicans simply refused to raise the ceiling" - IT IS you saying that, not me.Why is Biden and Democrats being so hypocritical? They all know the plan is to raise the ceiling...and then spend up to it and cry they have to do it again. There is certainly no proposal or even thought of cutting spending. Not to Biden and not to most Democrats.
Of course, they could raise taxes (the perpetual "solution" to overspending), but the same thing happens. More taxes = more to spend as far as they are concerned - never is there any attempt to actually reduce the debt. Just keep increasing it. Time - long past time - to stop that nonsense. Live within our means and quit selling the US to foreign interests.How are they being hypocritical, unless you are simply projecting? They, after all, want the same treatment MAGA gave Trump.
As to "no proposal", you probably ought to read more MSM news. The Biden proposal was all over it.
Raising taxes - it worked for Clinton, he got a surplus. Then Republicans came along and cut taxes on the wealthy and there went growth and the deficit.
The support behind Trump is somewhat surprising for sure.
Roughly half the country would vote for him vs. Biden (or Harris) if the election were held today according to a Harris-Harvard poll.
https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-conten … esults.pdf
Considering it is a Harvard poll, I suspect those polled have a slightly more favorable slant towards Democrats, despite their efforts to be impartial and objective.
If my suspicion is correct, Trump is now enjoying more support than he has ever had and could likely swing 80+ million votes in the next election.Yes, with each new indictment and guilty verdict, the more MAGA likes him.
What does THAT tell you about MAGA's ethics and morality?
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-b … -deep-cuts
Republicans can kiss my ass....
Mr. President, the GOP gets nothing, don't surrender. Go to Defcon 1, use every weapon in the arsenal to resist. Do you hear me, Mr. President, absolutely nothing? But again, do give them 100 percent of the blame for the impeding default and any result from the aftermath.
I look at their cuts, they are Republican priorities, increasing defense, giving the fat cats even more while decimating the domestic side of the budget. It the stuff Republicans have always been about. But, They lost in 2020, the people put Biden at the helm. I did not vote for him to have his agenda highjacked by Republicans too dastardly to use their voting power and not extortion to get their way.
I don't care what anyone says, they are the hypocrites extraordinaire. They run up these financial obligations under "pumpkin head's" administration and now they expect to punish Democrats and our programs as a result.Now that's a fine political agenda! Never give in, never compromise, and blame someone else for your failings!
The very first question to ask about this "whistleblower" is if he is MAGA? If not, then he becomes a whistleblower. If he is, he comes a so-called "whistleblower", not to be trusted.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/24/politics … index.htmlSharlee, "paranoid", obsessed, easily triggered...TDS is, apparently, incurable.
I must agree. In all my long years on earth, I have nothing to compare to this level of obsession. The article was very straight offering information from the whistleblower himself in an interview with CBS and quotes from the WBs lawyer. I am not sure anyone has the right to set judgment on this man one way or the other --- scary times when one can even assume an entire group of people are bad and need to be ostracized.
Hey, you know I believe good will win in this battle of ideologies America will wake up to the danger of going down such a historically destructive road. When one group feels they have the right to set judgment and punishment on another group. Like I said scary.It isn't scary but an exercise in utter immaturity. One would expect adolescents to act a certain way but not supposedly mature adults. Really, now. There is a saying to act one's age instead of one's shoe size.
It is sad really. The majority engage in INTELLIGENT, MATURE discussions while there are some people who resort to adolescent histrionics.
It really does seem that the Republicans want a default,, Otherwise, they would compromise rather then INCREASING their unrealistic demands.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ … index.htmlThey want the whole enchilada. They talk about compromise? It is nothing more than bull sh*t. I get angry with Biden and the Democrats for allowing the right to too often define the narratives of this controversy. Biden needs to get on television and tell the country what this is all about and what is at stake, so that the media wont continue the "6 of one and half dozen of the other sort of comparisons".
What would you consider a reasonable "compromise"? To increase the debt ceiling to 40T while allowing spending to rise only 20% per year?
I will work with an idea, but what cuts are necessary cannot be just the ones the Republicans want. If there is to be compromise both oxen are to be gored. Military spending and tax cuts have to take a hit before any domestic programs can be considered. Otherwise, no deal.
The point is, the two aren't linked. The Republicans are simply trying to extort America to get their own ridiculous way. They have proven time and again they only care about "cutting" spending when they think it might be politically advantageous. In reality, they spend as much as they claim the Democrats do.
For example, how much did their tax give-away to the rich raise the debt?Spending and credit are not connected? Only to a liberal that thinks the American tax base is unlimited.
Biden made the give-away, not Republicans that brought the taxes paid by Americans more into line and more fair.So it is the conservative view not to pay legal bills when they come due. Is that what your saying? That is the only issue here. Does America pay its bills on time or not.
It would certainly be nice to not pay my bills that have come due while I argue with my wife about future spending.Can I presume that you are smart enough to understand that unlimited borrowing will lead to an involuntary failure to pay debts? Because our legislature isn't, and if that's what it takes to prevent a much larger failure, so be it.
Wilderness, the word budget is such a foreign concept to some people. In order for a nation to run efficiently, there must be a proper budget. Things have to be balanced. There are necessities & non-essentials. If one doesn't have the money then one can't spend it. It is elementary. A mother of 10 children can create a better budget than the government in Washington D.C.
How do you explain that conservative administration have added just as much to the debt as liberal ones?
While that metric is equal, who causes Recessions, Depressions, and Panics is not. Conservative economic practices are responsible the a large majority of the large ones.
As to that last opinion, only conservatives think that is true. Objectively, the Trump tax give-away hurt America badly.
Conservatives are therefore the only ones that understand the basics of an economy, and that increasing demand while decreasing supply is the biggest cause of inflation?
I would have thought better of liberals - they understand it but simply don't care if they can just buy their votes.Thank you, Conservatives or so-called are the intelligent grown ups while Liberals are the eternal adolescents who haven't progressed beyond the adolescent stage. It is sad really. Liberals are the Alices in Wonderland who refuse to see the reality of the situation. How adolescent/immature can one be-REALLY NOW.
Conservatives are just as fast and loose with the public purse as the liberals they point their fingers toward. Their "waste" simply involves differering priorities.
So you think that Conservatives are so morally pure inviolate that their candidates are not bought and sold just from a different constituency?
I certainly don't buy that.If they are so good, then explain why the economy consistently suffers under their leadership? SOURCE: A Short History of Significant American Recessions, Depressions, and Panics: Why Conservative Economic Theory Does Not Work.
Let me ask again - :"As to that [your] last opinion, only conservatives think that is true. Objectively, the Trump tax give-away hurt America badly.
It is clear now that MAGA wants America to fail.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ … index.htmlI say, screw the Republicans, it was gracious enough for Biden to consider negotiating under these circumstances in the first place.
Kevin McCarthy the and Rightwings had better change their tune. Because there can be no more concessions from our side.They won't. They will continue until America is no more that a bunch of squabbling states going to war with each other. That is obviously MAGA's goal - do away with the Constitution and return back to the Articles of Confederation.
Keep on spouting, say what makes you feel good.
"Articles of Confederation"
You are far too kind, they are looking for a far more authoritarian structure and a relatively greater tyrannical form of government as the final outcome.
Oh yeah, the Democats sure know how to govern. Look at the UTTER MESS the Democrats are creating. A blind man can see what the Democrats are doing to America. Continue to live in Fantasyland & Utopia. The Democrats are destroying America; however, you refuse to believe it.
For a black woman, you certainly do parrot the very worse of the drivel from the worst of the far white and Right conservative agenda.
Gotta wonder....
Gracious enough to deign to negotiate with the plebes? Well, bless his heart. And yours too for saying the quiet part out loud.
GACredence, your side has a resounding win.
I have been reviewing the recent "accomplishments" passed through Congress the last couple of years, I had only skimmed them up until now, as they had yet to secure funding.
And you may recall I have been critical of his EOs, especially the Equity and labeling of Transgenders as people that needed special rights and protections.
There is also the little known parts of America that are now no longer parts of America, basically any area around a major airport, along the southern border, a few other areas the UN targeted. The UN is also giving US-bound migrants money.
The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) which receives billions from US taxpayers, is giving hundreds of thousands of US-bound migrants cash debit cards and other funds for prescription medication, lodging and travel.
And you wondered why they were coming... they are being paid to.
Anyways, here is the result of the budget "negotiations":
Your side won.
I was pretty certain that Biden's election was the end of America. His Administration would be all that was needed to irreversibly change our nation.
Study up on China's Social Credit system, their facial recognition and bio-identification technology, and how they are using CBDC.
By 2025 that will all be part of your daily lives here in America.
So... kudos Credence, your side has won, the battle is over, its just a matter of a little time and some manufactured events to get it all to fall in place over the course of the next couple of years.Ken, there are those who parrot what the Democrats state although it is inherently illogical in its premise. Some people won't wake up.....UNTIL IT IS FAR, FAR TOO LATE.
I don't know that we have "won", seems like my side has made quite a few concessions.
BTW where does your chart come from, it appears already biased on its face?Certainly is, biased that is, because it is based on the Republican/Conservative perspective of what they wanted negotiated.
For myself, I am somewhat realistic, I didn't expect a whole lot other than for them to take out those 87,000 new IRS agents.
Any American that doesn't think those new agents are going to be used against us, really does not understand how intrusive big government gets.
Hey, just fall in line with the brainwashing and propaganda and you'll be fine. Register as a Democrat and blend in. Maybe put a rainbow flag up in your front yard.
A warning to all you MAGA Republicans... you are the ones those 87,000 new agents are going to be unleashed on. Better make damned sure you pay the US Treasury EXTRA and not try to sneak in a deduction that doesn't belong there.Well it can't be any worse than the Confederate flag or the "Let's Go Brandon" flags I see in yards here in Red Florida with far greater frequency.
The compromise allowed conservatives to call off the Additional IRS agents, you all should be happy with that the fat cats getting fatter without limit.
The hard Right in the House will probably nail McCarthy to the wall for "capitulating" to Democrats.Those agents will be there, they are still funded.
It really isn't a big deal, besides, the chances of us getting to November 2024 without being in WWIII are slim... very slim.You can't do anything about paranoia, Credence.
The MAGA Republicans in the House and Senate have infected so many things with their bigoted culture wars, now they are sullying our national defense with it.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/14/politics … index.html*shrug* It is the way of our legislature today - to get what is wanted you simply tack it onto a bill that you figure will pass. It isn't as if Democrats don't do the same thing - virtually every bill that stands a chance of making it through ends up with such nonsense.
Not the DAA, everybody kept their hands off of it -until MAGA decided to bend everybody to their bigoted beliefs.
Now, because of a desire to make evangelical beliefs the law of the land, we have no high ranking promotions in the military and the DAA will probably not be passed.
So much for the Republicans being the party of national defense.Yep. And when we needed to increase the debt ceiling Democrats filled the bill with pork spending.
As I say, both parties are guilty of doing this kind of thing - it is so common place as to be accepted as just how business is done any more.How did they do that? Aren't the Republicans (who also love pork) in charge?
Tell that to Biden - that the Republicans are in charge.
He doesn't need to be told. He is fully aware the Republicans of the House and most in the Senate are working to fulfill Trump's agenda and that of the Christian evangelicals rather than what is good for the country.
Another fine example of #MAGAites. Belief that Biden died years ago while currently living in California. My Gawd.
https://twitter.com/RpsAgainstTrump/sta … 08706?s=20The Republicans open a new phase in their weaponization of the House against anything democratic or Democrats. This time they are going after a black DA in Atlanta who had the audacity to try to hold Trump accountable for easily provable felonies.
Didn't they also open an investigation into another Black DA trying to hold Trump accountable for felonious fraud?
But, what do you expect from an almost all white Republican House whose sole purpose is NOT to govern but to BASH Democrats?
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/24/politics … index.htmlMAGA is taking another step closer to securing a 2024 win for Democrats across the board as they seek revenge for the righteous impeachments of their authoritarian dictator, Trump.
Is it fair to say now that McCarthy is the Freedom Caucus's bitch?
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/12/politics … index.htmlDid you truly expect anything different? Not one but two fake impeachment efforts, neither one with any facts to back it. Some Democrats at least honest enough to admit it was purely political, an effort to keep Trump out of the White House.
And you thought there would be no repercussions? Every thinking person in the country recognizes that false impeachments are going to be the way of partisan politics for years or decades to come; Democrats sealed that into stone with their ridiculous efforts.There was absolutely nothing fake about Trump's two impeachment. This is PROVEN in the second impeachment by the fact that a MAJORITY of senators voted to convict Trump - a point you apparently do not want to accept. In that trial, if only three more Republicans had found their spine, Trump would have been convicted. As it was, he got off on a technicality.
The kangaroo court by the MAGA Republicans is a disgrace to democracy (but then MAGA seems to enjoy disgracing democracy)
As I pointed out before - there has been only two impeachments that had a grounding in actual crimes - and those two were Trumps. Had Nixon been impeached, that would have been the third.
Andrew Johnson's was basically on trumped up charges, in this case the liberal Republicans created (not that Johnson didn't deserve impeaching for his killing of reconstruction). In this case, the liberal Republicans passed, over Johnson's veto, the Tenure in Office Act in 1867 which prohibited the president from firing a cabinet officer (specifically, their friend and Secretary of War Stanton), Johnson, a conservative slave sympathizer, didn't like anti-slavery Stanton and fired him anyway. In February 1868, the House impeached him for high crimes and misdemeanors which comprised his disobeying the law they created to protect Stanton.
In 1999, conservative Republicans in the House impeached Bill Clinton. Their so-called reasons were perjury and obstruction of justice. The problem is, his perjury was related to a civil case and not with his duties as president or abuse of presidential power. During pre-trial discovery, Clinton said he didn't have "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky. Technically true, he didn't have intercourse with her, he lied because he had consensual sexual relations that stopped short of intercourse. That is not the high crime and misdemeanor the framers of the Constitution had in mind. Apparently the "obstruction of justice" was the perjury itself. In NEITHER charge, could Republicans muster even a Majority of senators to convict. Compare that to Trump's second impeachment.
What should have happened with Clinton is the be tried civilly or criminally AFTER he left office. Unlike Trump where he abused the power of the presidency so that everybody could see, Clinton's crime was not related to the office.
McCarthy is fulfilling his duty, plain and simple. No one, including Biden, is exempt from the law. If any wrongdoing is found, he should be held accountable and potentially removed from office. If no wrongdoing is proven, he should be cleared of any charges. I anticipate that Congress will carry out its responsibilities diligently, leaving no avenue unexplored.
Just as you held similar expectations regarding Trump, I share a similar stance on what must be done concerning Biden.McCarthy doesn't want to lose his speakership, plain and simple. He is a coward. He even broke his own promise he made a few days earlier to hold a floor vote on whether to hold an inquiry. He saw 1) that he didn't have the votes - too many Republicans know how bogus this is and 2) Goetz was going to call for his removal if he didn't kneel before them.
You overlook the huge difference between Trump and Biden. With Trump, in both cases, there were mountains of evidence showing his guilt. With Biden, there is no evidence at all, only innuendo, guilt by association, and high levels of right-wing propaganda. Most Americans can appreciate the difference.
This is clearly a case where the Republicans want to impeach and they are trying desperately to find something, anything to pin their hopes on.
It will backfire and will help them lose big in 2024.Trump was acquitted in both impeachment trials as I saw no relevant evidence presented to convict him. Your perspective seems to be exaggerated and filled with strong emotions, which is typical of your usual comments. In contrast, my viewpoint is based on common sense and logic.
Again --- McCarthy is fulfilling his duty, plain and simple. No one, including Biden, is exempt from the law. If any wrongdoing is found, he should be held accountable and potentially removed from office. If no wrongdoing is proven, he should be cleared of any charges. I anticipate that Congress will carry out its responsibilities diligently, leaving no avenue unexplored.
Just as you held similar expectations regarding Trump, I share a similar stance on what must be done concerning Biden.
The impeachment of President Biden was Predictable - especially with Trump pulling the levers. The MAGA Republicans would have impeached him even if he had been Mother Theresa or Bob Hope. Nothing was going to stop them from getting their revenge.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/13/politics … index.htmlLike Sharlee, I agree. This was absolutely predictable (and I DID predict it) - it is a direct result of the Democrats putting out not one but two faux impeachments all in the name of politics.
Actually, I agree - save for the "faux" part. Everybody except brainwashed Trumpers know those were well justified impeachments that were non-political. The idiot deserved being impeached for what he did. It is just unfortunate you have a lot cowardly Republicans in the Senate.
Again he was acquitted in both. As he was dedicated to the Russia hoax. And well COULD be in the many upcoming trails.
That only means that the most Republican senators were partisan and had no backbone like Mitt Romney did. There vote does not PROVE INNOCENCE, it only proves they didn't have the courage to declare an obviously guilty man guilty.
I have a different perspective on this. Having closely followed the impeachment trials, I found Trump's defense to be highly effective. On the opposing side, there seemed to be an abundance of hearsay and unverified information. My hope is that at the impeachment of President Biden, the GOP will ensure thorough preparation and attention to detail to present factual evidence, that can't be disputed. Such as first-hand testimony, and clear documentation, such as bank and financial records.
I watched the actual impeachments where it was clear the Democrats provided all the evidence needed to convict in both cases. The ONLY reason Trump wasn't convicted is because of weak-kneed Republicans beholden to Trump. It was a rigged jury from the get-go.
Maybe you didn't, but I saw the video tapes, I heard the audio tapes, I heard the first-hand accounts, I heard all the SWORN testimony. I am not sure what bank and financial records have to do with Abuse of Presidential Power, Obstruction of Justice, and Insurrection.
Or it proves that Democrats were in lock-step, concerned only with party power rather than truth.
Personally, I'll take that one, especially as it was so obvious (and admitted to) being a political ploy rather than an honest attempt at "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".Democrats are in "lock-step" with the Truth. It is the Brainwashed MAGA that don't even know what the term means - as they prove time and time and time again.
Until they can admit a SIMPLE TRUTH that Biden won the presidency legitimately, they forfeit any hope of being taken seriously and are unfit to hold any office.
Any criticisms made about the Democrats rings hallow.
"Everybody except brainwashed Trumpers know those were well justified impeachments that were non-political."
Yeah. They went exactly nowhere because they were justified and non-political. No one in the country actually believes such fol-de-rol.You keep believing in the tooth fairy if it makes you feel good. The people say otherwise.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/2 … 0approved.Yep! "The people" (meaning you and other Trump haters) do not need a trial to declare guilt. I, and most Americans, believe in the justice system enough to disagree with that.
You still harping on that illogic. I don't need a trial to tell me the guy I just saw run a red light is guilty of running a red light. I don't need a trial in front of parisan, biased Republicans to tell me Trump is guilty of what I saw with my own eyes, heard with my own ears, and read sworn testimony.
You just keep on insisting that Putin is not guilty of murder. and see how many people take you seriously.
How Ironic.
Trump provided Biden the playbook to ignore this illegal (according to DOJ) impeachment inquiry. The DOJ legal opinion that Trump's DOJ created says that because there was no floor vote to authorize the inquiry, it is illegal and carries no legal weight.
That opinion resulted from Pelosi doing the same thing as hypocritical McCarthy just did. (She isn't hypocritical because she didn't say, as McCarthy did several times, that she wouldn't start the inquiry without a floor vote.) She complied with the opining several weeks later. It didn't make any difference of course - Trump stonewalled everything anyway, as should Biden.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/14/politics … index.htmlOMG, what a clown act the House Republicans are, throwing F-Bombs at each other as they stumble their way to shutting down America. ROFL.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/14/politics … epublicansWOW, the MAGA Revenge Squad (otherwise known has MAGA Republicans) finally PRESSURED the Trump-appointed federal prosecutor to indict Hunter Biden on three gun related charges: making a false statement on a federal form, making the same false statement to the licensed gun dealer, and possessing a gun while adducted to drugs.
It is interesting to note that had Hunter's last name not been Biden, chances are high he would not have been indicted.. Why do I say this? Because in 2017, Trump's DOJ prosecuted only TWELVE of 112,000 people found to be lying on their forms. TWELVE!!! And that is TRUMP'S DOJ.
So please explain to me why the Republicans chose Biden, out of over 100,000 people to focus on if this wasn't a political hit job to get at President Biden.
The same is going to be true if they indict Hunter on the tax charges. The gov't simply does not prosecute people who have paid off their tax bill like Hunter Biden has done.
Clearly, the ONLY reason Hunter is in MAGA's cross-hairs is to exact political revenge.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/14/politics … index.html
https://www.jbsimonslaw.com/practice-ar … a-firearm/
I wonder if a couple of commentors will decry Hunter's innocence like they do Trump's. Or is it only Trump who is allowed to get the benefit of a doubt.
Given I have just seen the evidence, I will declare Hunter guilty. Now, I expect a couple here to give a full throated defense of Hunter because he is innocent until proven guilty. I bet I will get crickets.Hunter falsified a document to obtain a gun. It would seem this document would be a solid piece of evidence.
"Biden is accused of lying about his drug use when he bought a firearm in October 2018, a period when he has acknowledged struggling with addiction to crack cocaine, according to the indictment filed in federal court in Delaware."
In regard to paying taxes, hopefully, you watched the two IRS agents say differently.
"Shapley, who led the Hunter Biden tax fraud investigation for more than three years, told Baier, “The true number is $580,000 of failure to pay for 2017. It’s under $620,000 for 2018. Yet this document puts it close to $100,000.”
“The relevance to 2018 tax years — that doesn’t even include the false business expenses that he claimed and that the prosecutors refused to charge,” he added. “So there’s still outstanding tax… above that $620,000 that because of this deal, they’ll never recoup.”
“I mean to this day, there’s still around $400,000 of unreported income from Burisma [Holdings] in 2014,” Shapley went on. “Hunter Biden was told by his partner, Eric Schwerin, that he needed to amend his returns, and he never did.”
https://nypost.com/2023/06/28/hunter-bi … tleblower/
Weiss as special council is weeding through Hunter's taxes. It would seem the two well-versed IRA whistleblowers gave clear evidence that Hunter owes a lot of cash to the IRS. Hopefully, Weiss will do his job, and be diligent.
IRS documentation as well as two very respected IRS agents giving firsthand evidence will be very hard to dispute. The Bidens were very sloppy.
In regard to Hunter paying his back taxes, I believe the two agents, over you or the media.So, are you saying Hunter Biden is guilty?
Read my words, the context is precise and very clear. I clearly offered what he has been charged with, information that is public in regard to what could be used as evidence. I also said the Bidens are sloppy, Isiad this due to the amount of documentation, and firsthand testimony that has come to light in regard to Huter Biden.
I made no claim in regard to his being guilty. He will have his day in court. I will leave it up to the judge. And I will respect the verdict.Then since you won't say you think he is guilty and you HAVE said that he is innocent until proven guilty, one has to assume you currently think he is innocent.
That is indeed how the system works. Or at least how it is supposed to work; innocent until proven guilty by a jury of peers.
Which means you consign people to being braindead and unable to form opinions on their own based on the evidence you see. I simply refuse to not use my brain and accept such a naive view of life. If I see a person run a red light then I KNOW they are guilty of breaking the law.
The difference between you and i is I have the right to say so and you don't think I do.
Based on the evidence I have seen, Hunter Biden is guilty of falsifying an official record. I'll let the court catch up. Now, whether he should be prosecuted or not, it doesn't seem he should be since DOJ effectively doesn't prosecute anybody of such a crime. He is ONLY being prosecuted because of the political pressure applied by a revenge-focused MAGA Republican House.
Ditto with Trump. The evidence is overwhelming of his guilt in all four indictments (and the two impeachments). Unless the trial produces new evidence that counters that which is publicly available, then he is guilty of the crimes he committed. That would be true even with a hung jury if one Trump acolyte happens to slip through voir dire and unreasonably finds in favor of Trump.
In that case, he is TECHNICALLY not guilty and can't be punished, but that DOES NOT absolve him of the guilt that any thinking person can see.We certainly disagree on the requirements to declare guilt!
Your comment lacks coherence. I want to emphasize that when I shared my view, I was careful not to make any assertions regarding his guilt or innocence. It's essential to acknowledge that he will have the opportunity to present his case in a court of law, and I trust the judge to make a fair and just decision.
I admit that I haven't had access to all the pertinent evidence, which I believe is crucial in both Hunter's and Trump's cases. To me, it's a matter of common sense to refrain from passing judgment on someone without sufficient evidence.
In the past, our society upheld the principle that individuals are considered innocent until proven guilty. Sadly, it appears that this principle is not universally upheld today. I'm proud to say that I still hold this value dear and do not succumb to the prevailing mob mentality.I realize you have been careful not to express an opinion. But I am asking, do you have an opinion of guilt or innocence?
Personally, I can't disengage my brain so as to not form an opinion.In my opinion, it's a legitimate question. I've been closely monitoring the allegations, primarily through information available on the Judiciary and Ways and Means Committee's website, which they update regularly and provide supporting documents as they release them.
The documents, emails, and transcripts I've reviewed on the website are quite compelling. At this juncture, it appears that the Biden family may have benefited financially from their connections to various foreign nations during VP Biden's tenure, thanks to his appointment by President Obama. I've noticed that there are approximately 20 LLCs that Representative Comer alleges provided minimal real services yet received payments. The committee claims to have scrutinized about 150 flagged bank transactions, among other things. However, none of this information directly links Joe Biden to profiting from his family's business ventures.
Considering Joe Biden's experience as chairman or Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for 12 years and his subsequent pivotal role in shaping U.S. foreign policy when appointed by President Obama, it's possible that he played a role in his son's financial dealings with the nations he was working with, and Hunter has reportedly profited from these countries. Which included China a long-time advisory.
So, is there a possibility that Joe Biden engaged in pay-for-play activities? The mounting evidence does raise concerns, and the ongoing impeachment inquiry is a positive step in clarifying these matters. While I can't definitively assign guilt at this point, it would be unfair and premature to make any judgment.
In regard to the Hunters gun charge guilt, well if he signed the document and lied he is guilty. If he can prove he did not, he is innocent. I think that said it's cut and dry.The documents, emails, and transcripts I've reviewed on the website are quite compelling.
They are stand-alone pieces of information though, with absolutely no context.Willow
As I mentioned earlier, I've been closely monitoring the Congressional investigation involving the Bidens. Below, I'll provide a link to a website that not only covers all the information reported by the media but also provides a more comprehensive view by presenting documents and in-depth information. The website is impressively well-organized.
I respectfully disagree with the assertion that the documents lack context. In fact, these documents shed light on the recipients of funds and the individuals or entities who paid money to Hunter or a Biden LLC. The transcripts of witnesses are particularly intriguing, often revealing damning evidence. For instance, the testimony from the two IRS whistleblowers is quite eye-opening. I strongly recommend more people take the time to read through these transcripts.
https://oversight.house.gov/landing/bid … stigation/
IRS whistleblowers testimony
https://waysandmeans.house.gov/smith-te … connected/For the Ways and Means reference - until Weise testifies (which he has offered to do with DOJ approval), you only have half the story by agents who felt dissed by the prosecutor.
That is the way I see it also. Additionally, the oversight committee's report, for me, feels like it relies on a lot of logical fallacy. The report seems to be based on the assumption that if events occur in any sort of proximity that they must be related or connected but the hard connections are never provided. I, for one, cannot draw the conclusions they declare from the info they've presented so far. Too much conjecture.
You really need to read my comments. I never made the claim that I have the entire story. I simply shared a website I have followed for information on all the accusations. being directed to the Hunter, and his family.
Again - As I mentioned earlier, I've been closely monitoring the Congressional investigation involving the Bidens. Below, I'll provide a link to a website that not only covers all the information reported by the media but also provides a more comprehensive view by presenting documents and in-depth information.
I have shared my thoughts on the subject. I have by no means appointed guilt in regard to Hunter or Joe. I have referred to the allegations as information or allegations. I share my major source. I feel you need to look back on my comments in regard to this conversation.
You reading a false narrative into what I have very clearly shared.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/357 … ost4307434
From the first link.
FIRST Memorandum. This lists a series of payments for "something" allegedly to people associated with Biden by a Robert Walker. They made reference several times that these transfers took place "a few months after Biden left the VP office". I guess that makes them illegal. Anyway, the fatal flaw here is there is no indication what the payments were for. The way it is worded is designed to make you believe it was nefarious. No Smoking Gun
SECOND Memorandum: Here is a good example of innuendo: Biden family members and business associates created a web of over 20 companies—most were limited liability companies formed during Joe Biden’s vice presidency. - In the context of the memo, the implication is that all of this is illegal. It also doesn't say directly that Biden family members formed ANY company. Of course, if it is an LLC, it must be illegal.
Or this [/b]The Biden Family Received Millions of Dollars from Foreign Sources:[/b] If that is true, why aren't then investigating Trump and his kids who received much more from foreign entities? It is clear the ONLY reason they are investigating Biden is for political revenge.
The Second Memorandum covers a lot of the same territory the First one did. It offers a "business proposal" to prove something, I am not sure what. In any case, it does show this "proposal" went anywhere. Again, innuendo and no hard evidence of what the money supposedly paid for.
THIRD MEMORANDUM: Same as the first two with the same fatal flaws. All innuendo, no connection with Joe Biden (other than he was VP or had been VP during the time), no hard evidence of what the transactions were for or even what was illegal about them.I don't think you got the point of my comment --- I offered two links that OFFER INFORMATION in regard to the Hunter Biden investigation. I certainly have not claimed he or anyone else is guilty of anything. You had asked me to share an opinion -- I did, and it was very lengthy and had very clear context.
To make my view more clear, and precise in regard to the links --- They represent what information has been reported thus far. No indictments have come into play. This site clearly just has all the accusations under one roof.
"Or this [/b]The Biden Family Received Millions of Dollars from Foreign Sources:[/b] If that is true, why aren't then investigating Trump and his kids who received much more from foreign entities? "
You can be assured Trump's taxes as well as his children have been gone over very
carefully. As have his businesses been scrutinized.I am sorry but wasn't the conversation about what hard evidence the Republicans have developed. I claim they have none, but you seem to disagree with that. I take my lead from statements like this The transcripts of witnesses are particularly intriguing, often revealing damning evidence.
I counter that with what I read of what you provided, there was nothing "damning" about any of it. Just a bunch of innuendo with not hard evidence.I did not in any respect use the words "hard evidence". You once again stated something I did not say or even imply. I reiterate --- The transcripts of witnesses are particularly intriguing, often revealing damning evidence. In my view, The whistleblowers provided very damming evidence of what they found in regard to Hunter Bidens evading paying taxes.
"The Ways and Means Committee recently voted to make public transcribed interviews of IRS employees assigned to the Hunter Biden investigations who are blowing the whistle on misconduct at the IRS and the Department of Justice surrounding that investigation. Click here for a fact sheet. Here are six key findings in those transcripts.
1. IRS officials recommended that Hunter Biden be charged with tax crimes, including felonies, starting with tax year 2014.
From 2014 to 2019, about $17.3 million flowed to Hunter Biden and his associates from Ukraine, Romania, and China, among other global entities. $8.3 million of that went to Hunter Biden specifically.
During that period, Mr. Biden FAILED to pay well over $1 million in taxes he owed.
Biden’s alleged criminal activity includes attempts to evade or defeat taxes, fraud and false statements, and willful failures to file returns, supply information, or pay taxes.
2. Whistleblower testimony pointed to Hunter Biden’s $8.3 million income that includes foreign payments in the form of a large diamond valued at $80,000 and a Porsche worth at least $142,000. A large part of the income came from Chinese entities.
According to whistleblowers, here’s the estimated breakdown of Hunter Biden’s $8.3 million income:
$100,000 – Total transfers from CEFC China Energy.
$664,000 – Total transfers from State Energy HK from Rob Walker, a business associate of Hunter Biden.
$80,000 – Large diamond.
$142,000 – Porsche.
$2.6 million – Burisma total net payments to Devon Archer, a business associate of Hunter Biden.
$1 million – Transfers from Romania company via Rob Walker.
$2.3 million – Total transfers from Hudson West III LLC net payments to James Biden.
$325,000 – Capital contribution made into Bohai Harvest for Hunter Biden.
$859,000 – W-2 payroll receipts."
https://gop-waysandmeans.house.gov/six- … anscripts/
In my view, Hunter will be charged with several tax crimes. The two Whisleblowes clearly pointe out he avade paying taxes.You are simply playing semantics.
"Several Tax Crimes" - Hyperbole - they are misdemeanors, all two of them, for something that NOBODY else is indicted for since he paid them back. That is what I am talking about.
When you present one-sided information from other sources without presenting the opposing points of view to make a point, you assume ownership of that information and it becomes your information expressing your thoughts. Trying to distance yourself from what you offer in opposition to what others present simply doesn't fly. It is yours. That is the way the world works.
If the IRS agents released his personal tax information to the public, it seems to me they are guilty of some crime or another. The fact that you have those numbers is proof of that - it is illegal to divulge that information to the public unless by Court Order. Did they have a court order such as the one the Democrats got for Trump's taxes?
As to the numbers themselves - if it were someone else, anyone else (and I am sure there are many examples of such largess, Clarence Thomas
comes to mind, are they guilty of crime? If not, then why is Hunter Biden.
It is nice they dig up all of this innuendo and they haven't really accused him of a crime that I know of. What crime resulted from receiving those things is Hunter supposed to have committed?
Is it a crime to say my father is the Vice President of the United States hoping to impress someone in a business dealing? I don't think so. Where is any evidence, innuendo or otherwise, to show he say laundered money? None that I have seen. I simply haven't heard what the revengeful MAGA Republicans are investigating other than having the last name of Biden.
Tell me, how does Biden’s alleged criminal activity includes attempts to evade or defeat taxes, fraud and false statements, and willful failures to file returns, supply information, or pay taxes.
Have anything to do with
2. Whistleblower testimony pointed to Hunter Biden’s $8.3 million income that includes foreign payments in the form of a large diamond valued at $80,000 and a Porsche worth at least $142,000. A large part of the income came from Chinese entities.
I am guessing the "evade or defeat taxes" and "failures to file returns" are the same event - a failure he corrected with penalties and interest (I notice you keep omitting that) and the "fraud and false statements" is the gun-related charge. I am forced to point out again that absent other criminal activity, DOJ, except in extremely rare circumstances does not indict people. Why are the revengeful MAGA Republicans wanting DOJ to do that to Biden???
Face it, what your side is doing is pure political vendetta since there is no substance to it like there is with Trump.The whistleblowers were careful about what they offered and offered any and all answers that could be given behind closed doors. Plus they were under oath, and protected by the fact they were before Congress. They were two well-versed individuals and knew what they could say and what they could not say. The testimony was cut and dry. Backed by documentation that they gave to Congress. Perhaps you need to watch them testify before entering into this type of conversation. THey dotted ever I and crossed every T. It is that simple. The IRS is funny that way --- LOL
Nothing hyperbolic. I followed the testamonys ---
Two whistleblowers told Congress that IRS investigators recommended charging Hunter Biden with attempted tax evasion and other felonies, which are far more serious crimes than what the president’s son has agreed to plead guilty to, according to transcripts of their private interviews with lawmakers.
The IRS whistleblowers said the recommendation called for Hunter Biden to be charged with tax evasion and filing a false tax return – both felonies – for 2014, 2018 and 2019. The IRS also recommended that prosecutors charge him with failing to pay taxes on time, a misdemeanor, for 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, according to the transcripts, which were released Thursday by House Republicans.
It appears that this 11-count charging recommendation also had the backing of some Justice Department prosecutors, but not from more senior attorneys, according to documents that the whistleblowers provided to House investigators.
In a deal with prosecutors announced earlier this week, Hunter Biden is pleading guilty to just two tax misdemeanors.
The allegations come from Gary Shapley, a 14-year IRS veteran, who oversaw parts of the Hunter Biden criminal probe, and an unnamed IRS agent who was on the case nearly from its inception. Shapley approached Congress this year with information that he claimed showed political interference in the investigation. He and the entire IRS team were later removed from the probe.
“I am alleging, with evidence, that DOJ provided preferential treatment, slow-walked the investigation, did nothing to avoid obvious conflicts of interest in this investigation,” Shapley told lawmakers.
David Weiss, the Trump-appointed US attorney in Delaware who oversaw the Hunter Biden criminal probe, eventually reached a plea deal where the president’s son will plead guilty to two misdemeanors for failing to pay taxes on time. The plea agreement will also resolve a separate felony gun charge if Hunter Biden abides by certain court-imposed conditions for a period of time.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/22/politics … index.html
As I said, more charges will come. The IRS is not going to be sullied in Biden's attempts to weaponize the agency. I don't feel I am wrong to go out on this limb.
I simply see you have not really followed this issue. I have nothing more to say. I do not deal in conjecture.
I am more than sure, the three investigations being conducted will weed out if crimes were committed. So, believe what you please. I intend to just follow the many leaks as I have been doing.
As to Trump, I am not assured of anything of the sort given the stonewall put up by his allies and himself. Besides, there were a lot more important crimes to focus on.
Did you find what was being talked about? I couldn't. Just a bunch of partisan "reports".
I searched all around the Ways and Means Committee website and found nothing on the Hunter - Joe issue. Just a lot of hyperbole. I did find mention of the IRS whistleblowers allegations. But, until Weise testifies and provides the COMPLETE story, with context, all you have is unsupported allegations. It seems that the Trump-appointed prosecutor did a credible job and he clearly has knowledge the IRS guys don't. Until then, I can't pass judgement.
I did find some stuff on the Judiciary's website.
New Testimony Reveals Secretary Blinken and Biden Campaign Behind the Infamous Public Statement on the Hunter Biden Laptop - no hard evidence, just innuendo. They mentioned emails but didn't show any.
Biden campaign, Blinken orchestrated intel letter to discredit Hunter Biden laptop story, ex-CIA official says - I question the veracity of that claim. Need to see the transcript from CIA agent (couldn't find)
Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad - No emails or mention of authenticating them.
I stopped looking after the fifth page of reports. Is there something specific you are referring to besides the one you post quite awhile ago (one that did not do what you claimed it did)?
I see four potential outcomes for the Hunter Biden gun charges.
1. They get dismissed because the plea agreement regarding the gun they all signed is still valid even though the entire agreement fell apart.
2. The gun lobby will file suit to block the trial because what he is charged with is unconstitutional. There has already been one case that was decided in favor of the gun owner because it is unconstitutional to prevent a drug addict from owning a gun. That is working its way to the Supreme Court.
3. Jury nullification because at least one member of the jury (I bet more) will find Hunter is being persecuted by the Republicans.
4. He will be found guilty.
In all cases, he IS guilty of falsifying a federal form. Doesn't make any difference if he is found guilty or not. He did the crime, just won't do the time.
I bet if he is FOUND guilty, he won't serve any time. Why? Because he would be singled out for punishment when 99.999% of those caught lying on a federal ATF were never even prosecuted and Hunter is SOLELY because his last name is Biden. So Unfair.I certainly agree - anyone carrying that name should be immune from prosecution or from punishment if they ARE found guilty of something.
Legal experts have weighed in saying the charges brought against Hunter Biden are rarely prosecuted. It's a rarely used statute that was actually struck down by an appellate court as unconstitutional ( drug users cannot be prohibited from owning guns). The statute is making its way to the Supreme Court which we all know what will happen there. Seems to me that Weiss was pressured to do more. As a result it looks like his case is going to go the same way as Durham. Meaning no conviction and just humiliation for the Trump appointed prosecutor. I do not feel he'll be found guilty but I also feel that the case won't even make it to trial. I feel that Weiss will try to save himself the humiliation and a deal will be cut. That is of course unless Republicans nail him down as they did Durham.
?? It is clear as day, if you have the last name Biden, you WILL be persecuted by the MAGA Republicans.
Hunter Biden Sues IRS - as well he should. As I mentioned before, what the Whistleblowers released to committee conducting the witch hunt of President Biden was protected information. I haven't heard that the committee voted to make the IRS divulge that information like the Dems did on Trump. Were they in too much of a rush to find dirt that they forgot?
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/18/politics … index.htmlIt is apparent by your comment you did not watch the whistleblower hearings or read the transcripts of the testimony. They by no means made mention of Joe Biden being involved in his son's neglect to pay his taxes.
When the Jan 6th committee produced their sti- show that was televised they certainly did not protect Trump's rights to privacy. They pulled up one witness after the other that offered second-hand information.
I can only hope Hunter's lawsuit will be dismissed by a judge, and as I said in a previous comment I feel we will see more indictments on Hunter Bidens due to tax crimes. The whistleblowers certainly offered proof of Hunter's disregard for paying taxes.I have read their testimony, but that is beside the point isn't it? The IRS is being charged with illegally releasing privileged information without proper authorization. I wonder why he didn't include the two agents in the lawsuit.
Unless the IRS shows the judge proof they had proper permission beforehand, I don't see the judge dismissing it.Which congressional act provided protection for whistleblowers?
Congress passed the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (WPA), which, among other things, was intended to strengthen and improve protections for the rights of federal employees and to prevent reprisals.
"In a statement, Shapley's legal team said neither they nor Shapley had "ever released any confidential taxpayer information except through whistleblower disclosures authorized by statute. Once Congress released that testimony, like every American citizen, he has a right to discuss that public information.”The Whistleblower Act does not protect whistleblowers if they commit a crime while whistleblowing.
"The agents “targeted and sought to embarrass Mr. Biden” with the sharing of confidential tax information in press interviews and testimony before Congress, the suit said. His lawyers argue that whistleblower protections don’t apply, but a lawyer for one agent said any confidential information released came under whistleblower authorization and called the suit a “frivolous smear.” - Of course each lawyer is going to say that. I jury needs to determine which is right.
Well, well, well, now the Republicans need to investigate whistleblower Shapely misheard Weiss or lied; I go with misheard,
It seems the others in the room have no memory of Weiss saying he "was not the deciding person" to prosecute Hunter; one said they would remember something like that.
Very Illuminating!
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/19/politics … index.htmlCNN? I will wait for the hearings live on the tube.
I think he misunderstood due to the intricacies and complexities involved in the prosecutor's job. I don't think he understood the contingencies.
If I read the article correctly, others in the room also that he was confused. One or two of them suggested he be removed from the case. One even wrote Shapely's boss recommending that course of action. The boss decided to keep him on.
Whistleblower Shapely is contradicted again, this time by the supervisor who removed him from the Hunter investigation.
Shapely said he was removed "as a direct result of his decision to criticize the way IRS and Department of Justice officials handled the high-profile tax case."
His boss, Michael Batdorf, claimed he had made the decision to remove him months earlier based on Shapely's deteriorating relationship with Weise over "“investigative differences, prosecutorial differences.”
He also said that Shapely was a "fantastic agent" but that there had been worries over Shapely's behavior for months. He said Weise said, " “It was David Weiss’ moment of: I’m not talking to him anymore. He’s harassing me,”
Batforf also said "“Gary has a tendency to go to level like grade seven, five-alarm alarm fire on everything” Batdorf testified. “He has a mindset that if you don’t agree with him, I mean, you’re just incompetent,” Batdorf said.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/20/politics … index.html"Whistleblower Shapely is contradicted again, this time by the supervisor who removed him from the Hunter investigation."
Please offer where Baddorf contradicted Shapley. I saw nothing that indicates Baddorf's contradicting anything Shapley shared It's also clear Shapley was removed after he had already given his testimony to Congress.
I note that Batdorf did not comment on Shapley's under-oath testimony in front of our Congress. This appears to be an unnecessary smear on Mr. Shapley's reputation. Wonder if this could be defamation of character. IN FACT, HE SAYS THIS I QUOTE
"Batdorf said that he was well aware of Shapley’s concerns that the Hunter Biden criminal probe was being slow-walked and mishandled and tried to support him. Batdorf agreed that there was PLENTY OF EVIDENCE to charge the president’s son. His decision to remove Shapley, he argued, ultimately stemmed from his desire to get the case over the finish line.
Batdorf also testified that he supported Shapley’s decision to become a whistleblower.
“When he told me that he was a whistleblower, I offered support,” Batdorf said. “It’s your right and your role. You don’t need to take leave. You can – it’s your right as an agent to go do what you need to do. So stuff like that, that was the support.”
Please offer what Badorf offered to contradict Shapley.
As I stated Shapley was under oath, and I fully trust he was truthful.Let me counter with these excerpts from two reports:
"three witnesses from the F.B.I. and the I.R.S. have contradicted key assertions made by a whistle-blower who claimed there was political interference in the Justice Department’s tax case against Mr. Biden’s son,
Same three witnesses - "At least three other witnesses — while confirming key aspects of Mr. Shapley’s account — have contradicted some of his other claims, including that David C. Weiss, the U.S. attorney for Delaware overseeing the case against Hunter Biden, told a roomful of senior F.B.I. and I.R.S. investigators on Oct. 7, 2022, that he was “not the deciding person on whether charges are filed. If he would have said that, I would have remembered it,” Thomas Sobocinski, the special agent in charge of the Baltimore field office of the F.B.I., told lawmakers of Mr. Weiss’s comment, adding: “I went into that meeting believing he had the authority, and I have left that meeting believing he had the authority to bring charges.”
"Investigators also asked Ryeshia Holley, assistant special agent in charge with the F.B.I., whether Mr. Weiss had stated that he was not the person who would decide whether charges were filed in the Hunter Biden case.
“I don’t remember him saying that,” she testified.
The witnesses also testified that while they agreed with Mr. Shapley’s concerns that the investigation into Hunter Biden moved too slowly, they did not believe it was because of political interference. “I did not think anyone involved in the ongoing matter was politicizing it,” Ms. Holley said.
"Mr. Shapley’s former boss, Darrell Waldon, the special agent in charge of the Internal Revenue Service’s criminal investigation division, also told lawmakers on the Ways and Means Committee that he did not witness any political interference. Asked if the case had been politicized, Mr. Waldon said flatly: “No.”
"“My understanding is that the U.S. attorney stated that he would not be talking with Mr. Shapley henceforth, as they were going through their deliberative process,” Mr. Waldon said, adding: “I recall more vividly him stating he was not going to be responding to Mr. Shapley’s emails
anymore, and at some point, he said he would be talking to me.”
With Mr. Weiss refusing to work with Mr. Shapley, Mr. Waldon ultimately recommended Mr. Shapley be removed from the case, “primarily due to what I perceived to be unsubstantiated allegations about motive, intent, bias.”
“Gary has a tendency to go to level, like, Grade 7 five-alarm fire on everything,” Mr. Batdorf said, adding: “Gary is a fantastic agent. He’s a bulldog. He will get to the bottom of it.”But he said that attitude could rub others the wrong way if they disagreed with his approach.
“He has a mind-set that if you don’t agree with him, I mean, you’re just incompetent,” Mr. Batdorf said.
"He was asked, “So it’s fair to say, had the whistle-blowers not come forward, this case may still be dormant?” “It could be,” Mr. Batdorf replied. Which would be true, it "could" be. But he could have as easily replied "maybe" not.
'In closed-door testimony obtained by CNN, IRS Director of Field Operations Michael Batdorf told a House committee last week that it was his decision to remove the whistleblower, Gary Shapley, from the criminal probe into Biden’s son in December 2022. But Shapley wasn’t informed of that decision until May, the same month he brought his claims to Congress." - Baldorf says elsewhere that he waited until he knew the investigation was going to proceed; no need to ruffle feathers until then.
"Batdorf, who testified at the behest of House Republicans, directly contradicts Shapley’s claims that he was removed from the investigation as a direct result of his decision to criticize the way IRS and Department of Justice officials handled the high-profile tax case."
"Batdorf testified that he removed Shapley from the Hunter Biden probe due to Shapley’s deteriorating relationship with US Attorney David Weiss, over what Batdorf said were “investigative differences, prosecutorial differences.”
According to Batdorf, by November 2022, Weiss had decided to stop talking to Shapley. “It was David Weiss’ moment of: I’m not talking to him anymore. He’s harassing me,” Batdorf said in describing an email from Weiss." - That is in agreement with how Shapley's character has been described.
"Batdorf also took issue with Shapley’s decision to characterize Justice officials based on the president that appointed them.
“It’s unusual” Batdorf testified. “We’re supposed to be a nonpolitical organization.”
"Shapley was finally informed he was off the case on May 15, according to Batdorf, eleven days before he would first testify behind closed doors to the House."
As mentioned above - "Several FBI and IRS officials brought in for closed-door testimony by House Republicans in recent days said they don’t remember Weiss saying that he lacked the authority to decide whether to bring charges against the president’s son, or that Weiss said he had been denied a request for special counsel status."
"Batdorf said that in December he was on a phone call with Weiss and Waldon to discuss how to overcome roadblocks preventing the investigation from moving forward and Weiss raised Shapley as one of his concerns.
“At a very general level, David Weiss had concerns with Gary Shapley’s ability to remain objective in the investigation” Batdorf said of the December phone call.
According to Batdorf, Weiss “never specifically stated” that Shapley and his team had to be removed and acknowledged that he does not control IRS resources.
“I don’t want to speak for David Weiss. It was not my impression that he was retaliating. It was my impression that Darrell and I were doing everything we could to move the case forward” Batdorf said."
What does a FAIR and IMPARTIAL and UNBIASED reading of the above tell us?
1. The investigation WAS moving along slowly, too slowly many thought.
2. Contrary to Shapely's assertion, it was moving slowly for other than political reasons.
3. Nobody backs up Shapely's claim that Weise "slow-walked" the investigation for political reasons.
4. Nobody backs up Shapely's claim that Weise didn't have full authority to indict Hunter.
5. Shapely was an obnoxious person and Weise could no longer work with him; that Shapely was counterproductive to the investigation.
6. Weise DID NOT request Shapely be removed
6. Everybody contradicts Shapely's claim that he was removed for political reasons.
Source for the initial quotes: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/15/us/p … hment.htmlNone of your long diversions shows where Batdrof contradicted Shapley's testimony. We were concentrating on the Bardorp testimony.
I am well aware of the two other IRS employees who "don't remember the conversation in regard to what Weiss said. I will await the quote where Baatdorf contradicted Shapley's testimony.Two IRS agents AND a FBI agent with one saying "he would have remembered such a statement by Weise.
Shapely testified that he was retaliated against.
Batdorf specifically contradicts that with According to Batdorf, Weiss “never specifically stated” that Shapley and his team had to be removed and acknowledged that he does not control IRS resources.
“I don’t want to speak for David Weiss. It was not my impression that he was retaliating. THAT contradicts Shapely.
The other contradictions are from his other boss, Waldon, and the other IRS and FBI agents.
Given Shapely's aggressing, obnoxious behaviour when he is not listened to, I am not longer surprised he has done what he has done. I am not saying Shapely lied, but he clearly has "misremembered" a lot in his zeal to get his way.
IMO, Shapely is not a credible witness.None of your comments shows Batdorf contradicting a word Shapley said in his testimony or interviews with Shapley.
Actually the two other IRS agents did not contradict the account -- both claimed they did not "REMEMBER"
"According to transcripts provided to CNN, several FBI and IRS officials brought in for closed-door testimony by House Republicans in recent days said they don't remember US Attorney David Weiss saying that he lacked the authority to decide whether to bring charges against the president's son, or that Weiss said he had ." CNN
This is not in any respect contradicting Shapley's statement.
In regard to the FBI agent -- "WASHINGTON — The FBI agent who oversaw the agency's investigation into Hunter Biden disputed a claim by IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley that the Justice Department gave preferential treatment to President Joe Biden's son, according to a transcript of an interview obtained by NBC News.'
AGIAN --- "Sobocinski, who oversaw the FBI’s work on the investigation when he became the special agent in charge of the Baltimore field office in July 2021, said he did not remember Weiss making that statement."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justic … -rcna10480
He certainly is credible, no one has stood up and made any statement that what he has shared is false. Not remembering is a way of saying "I don't know and have no memory of the words. Context matters. You have read between the lines and added your own bias to this issue.
Thus far no one has actually contradiction his testimony. Weiss needs to be pulled in under oath. However, the weaponized DOJ appointed him (conveniently) special council over Hunter Biden's investigation. So he is off limits. Slimy bunch all around.I guess how you interpret the English language is much different than mine or Willowarbor's. It is perfectly clear that their SWORN testimony is at odds with Shapely's.
From my understanding of English, there is only one way to interpret - “I do not remember – I don’t – he didn’t say that. In my recollection, if he would have said that, I would have remembered it,” Thomas Sobocinski, the special agent in charge of the FBI’s Baltimore field office, told the committee. -
Shapely said Weise said he was “not the deciding person” on whether to bring charges.. On the other hand, Sopocinski unequivocally says that Shapely has it wrong (meaning Shapely is being contradicted by Sopocinski) because Sopocinski was adamant that Weise said no such thing and had he said such a thing, Sopocinski would have remembered it. I think in ANYBODY's book but yours, that means Sopscinski said Shapely was got it wrong.
In addition to Sopocinski refuting Shapely's claim, two other people didn't remember either. So we have one FBI agent affirmatively saying Weise said nothing regarding not having the authority to prosecute and two others saying they didn't remember Weise saying such a surprising thing.
BTW. when you said "in July 2021, said he did not remember Weiss making that statement." - YOU DIDN'T report that Sopolinski ALSO said “I do not remember – I don’t – he didn’t say that. In my recollection, if he would have said that, I would have remembered it,” I understand why you omitted that, but you shouldn't have.
I could produce just as clear evidence of SWORN testimony being given that contradicts (actually, I already have) Shapely's claim that the Weise [b](a TRUMP appointee) was politicized, but I am not going to bother.
Obviously, nobody can stop you from believing in a fantasy world where the Biden DOJ has weaponized everything under the sun and Trump has not. Fortunately, most of us understand the real world where Trump weaponized not only DOJ, but the IRS, DOD, STATE, and several other departments. while Biden has restored normal order of letting those organizations do their job without presidential interference.
The pro-Russia MAGA forces in the House give President Zelenskyy a cold shoulder as they seek to help Russia win its invasion of Ukraine. So un-American of them.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/21/politics … index.htmlI found the article a fluffy propaganda piece. Altogether bias and offered nothing of anything of value. Just more kibble for Bidunces.
Actually, it just reported the facts. Not a false statement in it, therefore it is not lying-Fox News-style propaganda.
CNN is an honest network as the polls show. Much more honest that the ones on the right.
It is a shame it is a Democrat that got indicted, but I am sure those on here who give Trump the benefit of the doubt will do the same for Menendez.
Personally, this seem a much stronger case than the last one, and he should be removed from his chairmanship. He should also resign from the Senate, just as Trump should quit his campaign. I doubt either will do the right thing.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/22/politics … index.htmlHere is what will be affected by the MAGA government shutdown and what some members of the MAGA House WANT you to suffer through:
TRAVEL - Significant delays and longer wait times that are worse than they already are.
ECONOMY - A recession. Republicans have been praying for one for a while now, maybe this is how they force one to happen.
PUBLIC HEALTH and SAFETY - Most public health functions will operate on a reduced capacity. FDA will Delay most food and other inspections thereby increasing the risk of you getting sick. OSHA will cut back on most safety inspections thereby putting you at risk at work. EPA rolls back safety inspections putting your drinking water, among many other things, at risk and causing illness.
ESUCATION - Ten percent of public school districts receive 15% or more of their funding through the Dept of Education - pooph, gone. 10,000 children across the U.S. lose their Head Start benefits.
FOOD ASSISTANCE - Here is one MAGA won't mind going away. After October, if it goes that long, SNAP may lose funding. WIC may be cut back as will assistance to Food Banks and Meals on Wheels.
HOUSING ASSISTANCE - Thousand my face the possibility of evictions if landlords don't have the reserves or simply don't want to help.
Those are the biggies, but there is more.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/24/politics … index.htmlMillions of people denied a paycheck, I hope that people will remember and hold Republicans accountable for this inane affair...
Cred
As I write, there are several significant challenges affecting our nation.
Our nation is increasingly reliant on foreign countries, including Russia, for a substantial portion of our energy needs. This reliance is great. (Source: link) https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafH … _1&f=M Inflation is on the rise and is subtly impacting the cost of essential goods like food and energy. Our open border policy is not only a financial burden on taxpayers but has also resulted in the influx of drugs and a recent surge in life-threatening diseases such as TB, polio, leprosy, measles, chickenpox, and HIV/AIDS. Crime rates are increasing across the country, posing a growing concern for public safety.
This president has the U.S. involvement in a proxy war. That is challenging, as we often find ourselves constrained by conducting this war with one hand tied behind the back
We have become accustomed to a pattern of unnecessary spending, even proposed new social programs that will further increase our debt and reliance on money printing. Such as paying off school loans, and tax goodies for those that have children. (Although this most likely would cut down the need for abortion, and create welfare children, in my view.)
Lastly -- The current occupant of the White House appears to be facing governance challenges associated with aging. Yet he is being supported by the Democratic party presently, polls are showing at present that the moderate majority do not support him due to his age, as well as poor job performance.
So, for the moment things are looking up, perhaps Americans have realized all the problems I have offered. One can continue to have faith in the innate ability Americans have when it comes to good old-fashioned common sense.
So, do we need all of this to come to a head, and be dealt with, faced up to, or do we need to continue down the same path that has led us to our current deficit, and a budget that is filled with unnecessary spending?
Is it well overdue, that we demand cutting spending that will most definitely turn into greater problems down the road?
People read some of what is in this budget! My God, it's clear to me that most are mimicking the media in regards to what happens if we shut down. Maybe think about the budget, and YA might agree we have a great big problem.
Shar"US Reliant of Foreign Oil" - Sorry, I have a hard time believing that is a serious statement after I read, Crude oil imports of about 6.28 million b/d accounted for about 75% of U.S. total gross petroleum imports. In 2022, the United States exported about 9.52 million b/d of petroleum to 180 countries and 4 U.S. territories. Crude oil exports of about 3.60 million b/d accounted for 38% of total U.S. gross petroleum exports. - It looks to me like the world is reliant on America, who exports more oil than it imports. That is the correct picture you get when you use ALL the facts.
"Inflation is on the rise " - NOPE, wrong again.
"Crime rates are increasing across the country, " - NOPE, wrong again: https://counciloncj.org/mid-year-2023-crime-trends/
"Our open border policy is not only a financial burden on taxpayers but has also resulted in the influx of drugs and a recent surge in life-threatening diseases such as TB, polio, leprosy, measles, chickenpox, and HIV/AIDS. " - You could have just as EASILY have "TRUMP's open border policy is not only a financial burden on taxpayers but has also resulted in the influx of drugs and a recent surge in life-threatening diseases such as TB, polio, leprosy, measles, chickenpox, and HIV/AIDS. " - IT IS THE SAME POLICY minus ripping children away from their parents; Biden got rid of the inhumanity of Trump's
"This president has the U.S. involvement in a proxy war. " - I THINK we have been over this before. You do know, don't you, that by saying that (in order to blame Biden for something - anything) you are also saying America should have sat on its hands and let Putin have Ukraine.
Why weren't you worried about the debt when Trump was growing it so fast? Sorry, hard to believe you are really upset about it now when you weren't before.
"The current occupant of the White House appears to be facing governance challenges associated with aging. " - NOPE, wrong again.
What do you think will happen when Trump is sent to a Georgia jail (if Chetkan doesn't put him in one in D.C. first for intimidating witnesses)?My source was added to prove the amount of Russian oil we are importing. I gave no stats or sources on the total oil we import from foreign nations. My point was that we are buying oil from a country we are at war with. The EU also purchases energy from Russia. Combined we are supporting Russia in the war financially.
I am not arguing any of my points with you. It's a waste of time. Believe whatever you please. Thank God you are in the minority at this point in regard to your view of Biden's job performance.My source was added to show that your source represents a drop in the bucket. America imports, according to your source, 10,795,000 barrels per month (as of April 2022, your last data point). Compare your cut off data to the 186 million barrels a month America imports from all sources AND the 285.6 million barrels a month America EXPORTS to the world.
So how do you figure America is purchasing oil we are at war with. That is simply not true in any meaningful way.
If you would have looked further, you would have found that we have imported ZERO barrels of oil since April 2022, just after the war started at least according to this source: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafH … bld&f=
I can understand why you don't want to argue the point because the data makes a lie out of what you are implying.
ALL the Facts Matter.
The alternative may be millions of people losing their lives.
It would be a good thing to stop this government from continuing to fund the escalation in Ukraine and the migrants coming to America; not to mention the wasteful spending elsewhere that only dilutes the dollar's value.
Ukraine will not take Crimea from Russia, it never could. If this wasn't clear 579 days ago, it should be clear to all who comprehend military strategy and logistics today.
Unfortunately, we have a President that I doubt has a firm grasp on what is real.
On Aug. 29, 2023 the BBC reported that new leaked reports suggested Ukrainian battle deaths exploded since the offensive started. Whereas Ukraine was reported to have lost 17,500 troops in the first year of the war, it is presently assessed to have lost a breathtakingly high 50,000 additional deaths, for a total of 70,000 dead and 120,000 wounded.
This from the BBC, which I assure you is woefully under reporting the casualties Ukraine has suffered.
Washington has spent nearly $113 billion over the course of this war, provided Ukraine with an astounding volume of modern arms and ammunition, and delivered an impressive array of training and intelligence support. It hardly dented the Russian lines.
There is no realistic basis to believe that Ukraine can attain its stated strategic objective to reclaim all its territory, including Crimea.
It's time to acknowledge objective reality and employ policies that can work. This Administration will never do that, so the next best thing is shutting them down, and hoping the next President can save us from WWIII, the very thing Biden seems to want."The alternative may be millions of people losing their lives." - It seems to me that that is what is called a non-sequitur.
Hunter Biden is on the attack again - finally. He is suing Giuliani and those who hacked his computer. Don't you find it interesting that few IF ANY people are tried for the alleged crimes the Republicans are accusing Hunter of? So why Hunter - oh yes, because last name is Biden and the Republicans are on a desperate WITCH HUNT to smear a good man.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/26/politics … index.htmlFor many weeks I have been researching Hunter's laptop. It is very much astounding. I am sure Comer and his team are deep into researching it very carefully. It is amazing more on social media are not posting the many incriminating information that can be viewed on the laptop. The laptop has so many problematic emails. This website has the content of the laptop. Hunter was very sloppy. I am sure we will see much of its content once the hearings start --- Sept 28th
https://bidenlaptopmedia.com/
Why the world would Hunter not be prosecuted on not only his gun charges but the many tax crimes that Whisleblower Zeigler shared?
"Joe Ziegler, a 13-year Special Agent with the IRS, testified how the Bidens were given preferential treatment during the Justice Department’s investigation:
“In the Criminal Tax Manual, Chapter 10, found on the Department of Justice website, Tax Division policy states, ‘Cases involving individuals who fail to fil tax returns or pat a tax but who also commit acts of evasion or obstruction should be charged as felonies to avoid inequitable treatment.’ In early August of 2022, federal prosecutors from the Department of Justice Tax Division drafted a 99-page memorandum. This memorandum recommended approving felony and misdemeanor charges for the 2017m 2018, and 2019 tax years. If the Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss followed DOJ policy as he stated in his most recent letter, Hunter Biden should have been charged with a tax felony, and not only the tax misdemeanor charge. We need to treat each taxpayer equally under the law.” https://oversight.house.gov/release/hea … %EF%BF%BC/
Hunter committed tax crimes. Why in the world should he not be charged?
Well, the Biden inquisition witch-hunt released 700 pages of IRS documents provided by the whistleblowers. What do they prove? Apparently nothing, other than the whistleblowers may have broken the law again. Democrats question how the whistleblowers could access documents pertaining to the case when they were removed from it.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/27/politics … index.html
Related Discussions
- 67
House votes to approve impeachment inquiry into President Biden
by Castlepaloma 11 months ago
1 day ago — House approves impeachment inquiry into President Biden as Republicans rally behind investigation.Sounds too good to be true. Considering Three presidents have been impeached, although none were convicted: Andrew Johnson was in 1868, Bill Clinton was in 1998, and Donald Trump twice, in...
- 105
Biden Impeachment Inquiry - The Logical Next Step
by Sharlee 9 months ago
I'd love to hear your perspective on this current political matter. It's worth noting that the topic doesn't revolve around Trump, but it's intriguing because President Biden is seeking re-election for another four years in office."Fox News Digital has confirmed House Speaker Kevin McCarthy,...
- 18
So All You Republican's We Won A Majority In The House - What Now?
by Sharlee 2 years ago
Now that Republicans are set to take the majority of the House, I think it is safe to say that the Democrats are becoming fearful about all the investigations Republicans have threatened to proceed with if they won the majority. It would appear Republicans could move ahead with revving up all kinds...
- 73
The Biden Crime Family
by Readmikenow 16 months ago
Note: This is from a left-wing publication.FBI Document Reveals Biden Family’s International Bribery SchemeIn a stunning turn of events, an unclassified FBI document has been released, implicating President Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, in an alleged international bribery scheme. The document,...
- 37
A clean sweep. The big Trifecta. Republicans win the House!
by Tim Mitchell 4 weeks ago
Republicans win House in major boost for Trump's agenda by BBC (Nov 14, 2024)https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2n9g21xqyoOr, pick and choose. Google landing page for search phrase, 'Republican win House'https://www.google.com/search?client=fi … win+house+A surprise?Thoughts, criticisms,...
- 97
Don't be fooled by Biden's pardon of Hunter
by Readmikenow 6 days ago
Did the democrats actually believe this wasn't going to happen? Did they actually believe biden and other democrats saying nobody is above the law? How could democrats be so wrong about so much""Were you surprised?When President Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter Biden, many...