All_Pro_Bills

Leaving it to the professionals should make everyone nervous as the recent track record on decisions to engage in foreign interventions is a disaster. And looking up and down the bench at the current administration I'd say strategic thinking is not a strength of the team. I mean, what's Washington's strategy here with Ukraine? To pump weapons into the country fueling a war of attrition down to the last Ukrainian? Because that's sure how it looks. And if you really want to invoke the 1939 analogy and some "Minority Report" approach to policy maybe we should attack China on Monday before they attempt to invade (or maybe not invade) Taiwan sometime in the future? And perhaps identify and eliminate all kinds of potential bad actors all over the world. Because they might do something really bad later.

So apply those lessons of the past to current scenarios you believe look similar and assume a similar outcome if you don't act? Kind of hypothetical based on your assessment that you can accurately forecast the future. What if you're wrong and acting now makes the future worse than if you did nothing? What if acting now leads to nuclear war that destroys humanity 5 years from now. What if not acting leads to world peace and prosperity for the foreseeable future? You can't know the answer. So its an unknown risk either way.

You can post as many ridiculous Putin references as you want. Frankly, its beyond stupid. Russia can't even beat a 3rd rate power in a direct confrontation but they've infiltrated and control aspects of the US government and the public. Who could believe such nonsense? I guess, you and lots of other mystical thinkers. And sit by idly? That's not what I said and you know it. I asked what strategic interest Ukraine represents to the U.S.? But you keep ducking the question. What is so critical to our interests that some encourage our military to become involved directly? And risk a potential nuclear exchanges if things escalate out of control. What if Russia wins here? What if the Ukrainians prevail? What happens if the mostly likely outcome occurs and they negotiate some sort of compromise? What is going to be different for Americans in any of those scenarios? Now I ask all of this with the belief that with more effort from all involved parties, a little extra diplomacy and negotiation of a mutually beneficial agreement that satisfied all interested parties could have reached that avoided this terrible conflict and loss of life. Along with avoiding all the 2nd and 3rd order consequences that have been set in motion by the war, the economic and social disaster, and the sanctions that will likely impact the entire world in a very negative way. A lot of bad events have been set in motion that at this point can't be stopped. So ring up one more in the loss column for Washington's nation building effort.

I asked about American strategic interests. What is so important to risk a nuclear exchange and the lives of our military personnel to get involved in a direct confrontation? What strategic asset or support does Ukraine supply to America? What difference in the lives of American's would it make if Ukraine was independent, or aligned with the West, or aligned with Russia?

Putin? Stop playing the village idiot here. But okay, articulate the U.S. strategic interest in Ukraine beyond the democracy myth. What is so strategic and important to put the lives of US service personnel at risk?

And taking the risk of a potential nuclear exchange to directly engage in a war for non-strategic interests isn't good policy.

Because its the best excuse they can come up with that doesn't assign any accountability for the problem to them. The bad news is prices are going even higher!

But the origins of American slavery did exist for hundreds of years in West Africa before the first Portuguese settlements appeared on the scene. And the practice was facilitated by Arab slave traders working with African tribes and kingdoms that captured and sold other Africans into slavery. With the initial Western Hemisphere market being South American and Caribbean sugar plantations. And later the U.S. south. I'm curious to know if CRT's version of the origin and practice of slavery indict both Arab and black African participants in the practice and include them in the theories oppressor/oppressed social model? Or is their involvement overlooked or does the stories timeline start later?

Well you don't know either but you're willing to engage in speculation and conjecture of wrong doing. Neither of which constitute or substitute for facts much less legal evidence or meet a threshold of burden of proof. And suggest the meeting raises suspicions of impropriety simply because one of the participants, the lawyer who first met with Fusion GPS that day was...... wait for it......Russian! Perhaps the problem here is nothing more complicated than a severe case of xenophobia?

You're saying one man's conviction on a specific charge proves everyone else is guilty of whatever you want to make up? You should learn how the law works in real life.

Meeting with foreigners is not illegal. Especially given private business arrangements. Sharing what campaign data? With what Russians? Wikileaks posted e-mails and correspondence on publicly available media. They did not direct anything specifically to any campaign or any organization or share anything privately with anyone that wasn't made public. And stated clearly Russian government or Russian nationals was not the source. Continue living in your fantasy.

Mueller's investigation, coincidentally staffed by many current or former employees of the law firm that represents Clinton and the DNC, resulted in no indictments or evidence of any such collusion. If anybody was out to get him it was these guys. But they came up empty. And yet you continue to insist you know better and that unproven accusations of collusion are equivalent to guilt of collusion.

Well, when Natalie contacted Trump campaign officials to arrange a meeting she lied to them about her intentions because she was already working with and/or for Simpson and Fusion GPS. And by extension the DNC and the Clinton campaign. And the Obama WH facilitated the relationship and knew all about it. I believe that's pretty close to what Durham is going to prove and submit for the official investigation findings and criminal charges.

I look forward to seeing your list. For amusement and curiosity, I've been watching some TV shows in the superhero genre that clearly push lots of social justice narratives in their story lines. Hollywood liberal propaganda basically with less emphasis on the entertainment aspect of the presentation. Most of these shows are on the WB but some exist on major networks and streaming apps. The characters are typically shallow narcissistic whiners and self-confessed victims, the plots are simplistic and transparent, and many are remakes or re-boots of previously released shows with members of self-defined oppressed groups as the lead character, which screams of cultural appropriation that gets a social justice violation exemption if done by woke writers. The few white heterosexual male characters in the stories are typically ignorant and evil haters with little to no moral compass that exist for the single-minded purpose of oppressing and victimizing woke defined oppressed peoples through various offensive actions and words. My assessment is they're characterized as some sort of stereotypical white person representing a "1950's Deep South Klan member" that somehow has survived to exist in 2022 America.

Musk acquiring Twitter and potentially snowballing his efforts into some free speech" counter-movement would be a massive kick in the balls for the censorship crowd. I doubt he's going to be allowed to pull this off without incurring the wrath of various government agencies and regulators along with pontificating from lots of characters and media outlets about the dangers of the world's richest man taking control of Twitter and how that's a threat to democracy. Not a threat to freedom. They won't ever utter that word. But a threat to their definition of democracy where "the people" obediently vote correctly by electing the people they support. All this while supporting the ownership of media and online outfits by all kinds of billionaires and oligarchs that align with their views on lots of subjects. Like censorship. I'm sure Musk understands all of this and is prepared for the fight. And while I don't particularly like him I admire his commitment to doing something about this problem. Everyone that values freedom and values our legal and constitutions system of rights should agree.

Given the evidence and science around viruses in general and natural mutations and the location of the lab and the epicenter of the outbreak and the inability to produce a Bat in the wild with the specific virus and the oddity of the specific mutations with COVID given known Coronaviruses, the lab leak theory seems most plausible when applying deductive reasoning or what might be basic troubleshooting through process of elimination. I don't recall any researchers or scientists publicly making a valid case that passed any sort of peer review standard for acceptance for how the mutations could appear naturally but if there is one that would be something to consider. The base Chinese government theory is the virus was brought to Wuhan by US military personnel participating in an athletic competition between military members representing their countries from around the world. That would imply a US military person was patient zero but there isn't any collaborating evidence to support that contention that I'm aware of here.

Yes, use a pandemic lockdown as justification to use executive power at State levels to establish a mail-in ballot process that will circumvent already in place controls and procedures to stuff the ballot box with illegitimate votes to win the election and then use your powers in state governments along with State and Federal judicial assets to stonewall and block audits and legal actions that might expose the scheme.

For answers I suggest you examine what both parties believe is a mutually beneficial US-Saudi relationship that has been in place since Nixon's Petrodollar deal with the Kingdom.

When engaging in these types of disagreements it's always nice when you have the power of The State in your corner. And we all know that Twitter is an outsourcing partner of the government and based on the arrangement carries out government censorship policy. Protecting all kinds of sacred narratives from scrutiny and questioning. And protecting the government from public supervision, Constitutional violations, and oversight like freedom of information requests along with providing Twitter (and Google, and Facebook for that matter) with lots of taxpayer money channeled through opaque intelligence agency budgets they book on the ledger as "advertising" revenue.

Its going to be a logistical challenge to coordinate the stuffing of ballot boxes in 435 individual congressional districts and explain how vote counting was stopped at every vote counting location at 11 PM and resumed after newly found mail-in ballots were located and delivered at 3 AM. Is the DNC up to the task this time? Can they come out of nowhere and find that extra 10% to keep them in control?

Or wander out into the hallway looking for the ice machine!

Go to Hell? I'm already living in New Jersey getting taxed to death so that might be an upgrade!

Maybe we start to hear it as soon as this morning, but I expect the same set of characters that insist that a private company can do whatever they want to insist the DOJ or some other regulatory agency "block" this takeover offer. Citing "public interest" in blocking the deal. Watch for most of the clowns in Congress and the administration that insist on censorship to be the most vocal as they attempt to bend light to support their argument that freedom is bad. In reality this arrangement was never a private company doing as they please but rather government outsourcing censorship powers to private business in order to avoid constitutional limitations and public oversight. Twitter takes their marching orders from activists inside and connected to the US government embedded in the government not to serve the people but to serve the party. We all know the fact checker set up is a complete farce. If the deal does go through don't expect it to be before the November mid-terms. I also wonder if Musk envisions himself being involved day-to-day? My guess is he'll do something like ask Joe Rogan to run the outfit. At that point you won't need Space-X to launch liberals into orbit and unhinged and agonizing protest.

Is Musk a "free speech absolutist"? My answer to Reich (I must point out an appropriate name for somebody advocating censorship) is probably not. But Musk is a lot closer to that than Reich who holds a view that free speech is a threat.

Or not enforce them and therefore ignoring the law of the land and failing to execute the duties of the office. I'm guessing some would conclude that is an impeachable offense if a certain President was still in office.