nedboy7

LOL you are beyond stupid. Almost GQP level.

Alex Jones just had to concede Sandy Hook was real. A sad day for QOP.

It’s actually your brain that is owned. I’m not the one on here quoting media and claiming it’s true. It’s clearly you who is triggered.

Listen, everything I dont like is fake news. So this has been tossed from my consciousness.

All other commentators? I must have triggered you about the turd bag Tucker. It's ok to admit Tucker is a lying POS. You dont have to instantly try to deflect to somehow defend your turdboy. I mean it's quite insane that they claim no reasonable person would take him for the truth. But pretty much all of the trumptards do. Hey did you figure out why conservative judges would not rule for election fraud claims?

If?

I heard he was a classy businessman his whole life. Now donate traitor! lol.

How about a 5 time bankrupt lunatic who changed parties cause it's easier to run for the dumber party. He was sent by GOD! Did you donate to Trump today. You dont wanna be a traitor? A top GOP committee sent a message accusing supporters who hadn't donated of being traitors: 'You abandoned Trump.' "You abandoned Trump," a text version of the message said. "We were told you were a tried & true, lifelong patriot." "But when Trump said he'd run for President if we took back the House from Nancy Pelosi...You did nothing. Was Trump wrong about you?" the statement asked.

Did you really put Tucker Carlson clips on and talk about the truth? Now comes the claim that you can't expect to literally believe the words that come out of Carlson's mouth. And that assertion is not coming from Carlson's critics. It's being made by a federal judge in the Southern District of New York and by Fox News's own lawyers in defending Carlson against accusations of slander. It worked, by the way. Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' " She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes." Vyskocil, an appointee of President Trump's, added, "Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson's statements as 'exaggeration,' 'non-literal commentary,' or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same — the statements are not actionable." Vyskocil's ruling last week, dismissing a slander lawsuit filed against Carlson, was a win for Fox, First Amendment principles and the media more generally, as Fox News itself maintains. As a legal matter, the judge ruled that Karen McDougal, the woman suing Carlson, failed to surmount the challenge.

This reminds me of when the morons whined that Trump appointed judges wouldn't rule in favor of voter fraud.

When you believe the GOP will save us from corruption you are brainwashed. And dumb.

Not my point at all but you do your thing.

And replace them with Republicans who have integrity? Sort of another draining of the swamp with even more idiotic creatures? Maybe even with some more christian nationalists? Nah.

Is Trump. Yes. Imagine where your panties would be if Biden had his kids in top level meetings. ***** Trump is still making money off lying about election fraud. Last week President Donald Trump ordered that his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, be given a top-secret security clearance, even after intelligence officials discovered problems with his background check. The F.B.I., White House counsel Don McGahn, and Chief of Staff John Kelly all expressed concerns, but Trump overruled them. Back in January, Trump had said he would never do such a thing. “I know that there was issues back and forth about security for numerous people, actually,” he said in an interview. “But I don’t want to get involved in that stuff.” After the Times report, the White House changed its tune. “We don’t discuss security clearances,” senior adviser Kellyanne Conway told Fox News. “But I will tell you that the president has the absolute right to do what was described.” Kushner’s security-clearance scuffle is far more contentious than Ivanka’s, given his numerous entanglements with Israel, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates, among others, as well as his presence at the infamous 2016 Trump Tower meeting with a Russian agent promising “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. (Kushner also has displayed an unusual malleability in the hands of the Saudi Crown Prince, who once reportedly bragged that Kushner was “in his pocket.”) Last year, The Washington Post reported that at least four countries—including the U.A.E., China, Israel, and Mexico, had privately discussed ways to gain leverage over Kushner, given his international business dealings and lack of foreign-policy experience.

Good question Ja. I am pro capitalism. But this matter is way too complicated to blame one person weather it be Biden, Putin, Antifa or Exxon. Depending on how generous you’re feeling, these explanations are half truths, at best, or bald-faced lies, at worst. High gas prices are the result of a complex set of circumstances—including the Russian invasion of Ukraine, supply chain challenges, and other market dynamics—and can’t be easily boiled down into a talking point. Of course, it’s easy enough to understand why politicians, oil executives, and political commentators have relied on such rhetoric. Elected officials are jockeying for votes and political sway in the midst of a heated election year while fossil fuel companies are fighting to secure a profitable future amid the clean energy transition. With these stakes, it’s hard to imagine any player changing course and embracing nuanced, heady positions about the economic and political factors contributing to high gas prices. But details matter as we consider the challenges of transitioning our economy away from fossil fuels and addressing the now-inevitable and already unfolding impacts of climate change. And the current debate around gas prices tells us a lot about how policymakers can miss the forest for the trees. To understand the misrepresentations around gas prices, it’s helpful to look first to Republicans, who have been using climate as a political cudgel for decades. Republicans have repeatedly used the argument that climate policy will cost consumers to deflect any and every legislative attempt to reduce emissions. So it came as little surprise that they blamed Biden and his climate agenda when gas prices started to rise, in some cases asserting that his “Green New Deal” had driven up prices. “In some parts of the country, the price has crossed $6.90 a gallon. This was not an accident,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) said during a meeting of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. “This was the result of the Green New Deal zealots in the Biden Administration.” It almost goes without saying that this—especially in the most extreme version—is totally false. Biden has struggled to implement even basic climate policy, let alone anything close to a Green New Deal. Moreover, the Administration has been working furiously to find any policy lever to reduce gas prices, understanding that high gas prices portend poor political outcomes. If there is a small kernel of truth amid the unfounded rhetoric, it is that the Administration has sought from the very first days in office to send a market signal that fossil fuels broadly are not the future. Indeed, Biden and others in the Administration have argued that such a signal is among their greatest contributions to the climate fight. This dynamic, which is loose to say the least, is hard to quantify and certainly not a primary factor in the high gas price environment we find ourselves in, but it is part of the broader global consensus that money should be shifted away from fossil fuel investment. This is an important point. As the energy transition advances, policymakers pushing climate policy will need to be able to make the case for a continued shift of investment away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy—even amid volatile fossil fuel prices.The Democratic talking points take a bit more explanation. Activists who oppose the oil and gas industry have pointed to the fact that the industry is making record profits as evidence that executives are ripping off American consumers. Many Congressional Democrats have run with that line of reasoning, introducing anti-price gouging legislation. Meanwhile, President Biden called on the Federal Trade Commission to launch a consumer protection investigation last November as gas prices began to rise even before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. “The Federal Trade Commission has authority to consider whether illegal conduct is costing families at the pump,” Biden wrote in November. “I do not accept hard-working Americans paying more for gas because of anti-competitive or otherwise potentially illegal conduct.” It’s certainly true that energy companies are enjoying record profits this year as oil prices have soared. But generating a large profit doesn’t necessarily—or even usually—equal price gouging. Oil prices have risen because demand has risen (the economy continues to grow post-COVID) while supply has fallen (Russian oil is no longer welcome across much of the world). In this environment, U.S. producers are simply maintaining the course. This, some Democrats claim, is evidence of price gouging because, they say, companies should be responding to market pressures and produce more. It’s true that U.S. oil companies could plan to ramp up their production, though it would take months to years before this affects the market. Oil companies don’t want to do that out of fear that more production could lead to too much production and drive down prices—and profits. Indeed, overproduction led to years of losses for the industry in the last decade. So while it’s obvious that oil executives are looking after their profit, it’s unclear how that adds up to price gouging. A recent report from the Congressional Research Service boils down its definition of price gouging to “unfair” inflation of prices by companies to take advantage of an emergency situation. Why am I bothering to split hairs about this rhetoric? To my mind, not only do these talking points serve as a distraction, but they also misrepresent the nature of our energy and climate challenges. The Republican rhetoric is simply wrong, suggesting that Democrats have imposed draconian climate policies when in fact the world needs far more aggressive action. The higher-level problem with Democratic rhetoric is a little more subtle. The problem isn’t that companies are violating American laws and norms by engaging in practices like price gouging; the problem is that American laws and norms haven’t adjusted to the energy and climate challenges we face today. Not only is it perfectly legal to dump carbon pollution into the atmosphere while earning a massive profit, but the government supports and subsidizes the practice. The sooner we speak honestly about our challenges, the sooner we can solve them. I disagree with the idea that the gas companies are not price gauging however. There is not a gas shortage in reality but there are record profits. One final point: Oil prices as seen at the pump are only loosely correlated to actual supply and demand, whose nexus is something of a mystery box. The prices are set through oil futures, which represent educated guesses as to where the global economy, geopolitical rivalries, and supply and demand might be going. You can judge the firmness of the information on which these are based by taking a look at OPEC’s latest analysis. Prepare to get queasy. In the event, high gas prices will become a moot issue, as demand precipitously declines with a recession that was suspended via Covid-era monetary and fiscal policy. Now that these monetary and fiscal tools are being re-boxed in an attempt to rein in inflation, the recession brought on by overproduction will express itself. The real takeaway is how an intrinsically competitive system doesn’t yield rational results. The oil industry, better than others, demonstrates how much state support and monopolization are required to keep prices stable. The free market can’t and has never been able to achieve this with oil in the United States or internationally. The additional element of heightened geopolitical tension that has emerged since the ’70s has added a huge element of danger to the intrinsic irrationality of the capitalist system, as nuclear-armed states come head-to-head in increasingly acrimonious conflicts to protect their profit shares.

Adm. Steve Abbot, Gen. Peter Chiarelli, Gen. John Jumper, Adm. James Loy, Adm. John Nathman, Adm. William Owens and Gen. Johnnie Wilson are retired four-star generals and admirals in the U.S. armed forces. The inquiry by the House’s Jan. 6 committee has produced many startling findings, but none to us more alarming than the fact that while rioters tried to thwart the peaceful transfer of power and ransacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, the president and commander in chief, Donald Trump, abdicated his duty to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. In the weeks leading up to that terrible day, allies of Mr. Trump also urged him to hold on to power by unlawfully ordering the military to seize voting machines and supervise a do-over of the election. Such an illegal order would have imperiled a foundational precept of American democracy: civilian control of the military. Americans may take it for granted, but the strength of our democracy rests upon the stability of this arrangement, which requires both civilian and military leaders to have confidence that they have the same goal of supporting and defending the Constitution. We hope that the country will never face such a crisis again. But to safeguard our constitutional order, military leaders must be ready for similar situations in which the chain of command appears unclear or the legality of orders uncertain. The relationship between America’s civilian leadership and its military is structured by an established chain of command: from unit leaders through various commanders and generals and up to the secretary of defense and the president. Civilian authorities have the constitutional and legal right and responsibility to decide whether to use military force. As military officers, we had the duty to provide candid, expert advice on how to use such force and then to obey all lawful orders, whether we agreed or not. The events of Jan. 6 offer a demonstration on how military and civilian leaders execute this relationship and what happens when it comes under threat. When a mob attacked the Capitol, the commander in chief failed to act to restore order and even encouraged the rioters. As Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified to Congress, Vice President Mike Pence attempted to fill the void by calling on the National Guard to intervene. Given the urgent need to secure the Capitol, Mr. Pence’s request was reasonable. Yet the vice president has no role in the chain of command unless specifically acting under the president’s authority because of illness or incapacitation, and therefore cannot lawfully issue orders to the military. Members of Congress, who also pleaded for military assistance as the mob laid siege to the Capitol, are in the same category. In the end, the National Guard deployed not in response to those pleas but under lawful orders issued by the acting secretary of defense, Christopher Miller. Should civilians atop the chain of command again abandon their duties or attempt to abuse their authority, military ranks can and must respond in accordance with their oaths — without a lawful order from appropriate command authority, they cannot unilaterally undertake a mission. Concurrent with a duty to obey all lawful orders is a duty to question and disobey unlawful orders — those a person “of ordinary sense and understanding,” as a Court of Military Review ruling put it, would know to be wrong. Operations on U.S. soil must also specifically comply with the Standing Rules for the Use of Force, which limit use of force but explicitly authorize it to protect people from imminent threat of death or serious harm, to defend “assets vital to national security” and “to prevent the sabotage of a national critical infrastructure.” These are essential checks on civilian officials who would make unlawful use of U.S. military personnel. Governors, who possess broad command authority over our 54 National Guard organizations, for example, may face political pressure to deploy these forces to illegally interfere with elections or other democratic processes. To recognize these threats to our democracy, military leaders must continue to develop robust training, guidance and resources for service members in accordance with these safeguards, ensuring the integrity of the chain of command and effective operation of civil-military relations. But while such preparedness is necessary, it is not sufficient. We each took an oath as former leaders of the armed forces to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” We fulfilled that oath through service to civilian leadership elected by and accountable to the American people. This essential arrangement, however, is not self-executing; it relies on civilian leaders equally committed to protecting and defending the Constitution — including, most important, the commander in chief. The principle of civilian control of the military predates the founding of the Republic. In 1775, George Washington was commissioned as the military commander of the Continental Army under the civilian command authority of the Second Continental Congress. The next year, among the grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence against King George III was his making “the military independent of and superior to the civil power.” The president’s dereliction of duty on Jan. 6 tested the integrity of this historic principle as never before, endangering American lives and our democracy. The lesson of that day is clear. Our democracy is not a given. To preserve it, Americans must demand nothing less from their leaders than an unassailable commitment to country over party — and to their oaths above all. The swamp!! So cute.

Let's not pretend you losers who hate half the country actually care about the USA. You care about your cult. Go censor some Republicans who dont fall in line boy!

Go post some more fake news boy.

That’s fake news. See how it works? This is a planted story by the GOP. convenient right before primaries. LOL.

Listen to the little pro capitalism ***** whine about gas prices.

Whining about BLM? Hey what happened to antifa?

It's amazing people think environmental issues are part of the elite agenda. The elite are the ones who can actually avoid environmental issues. It is the poor that take the brunt of a toxic environment. The elite have been setting their agenda for couple hundred years, NOT since covid began or Gates was in the picture. Glad some folks have woken up.

Yes eventually the left will learn to act like a cult and never question the supreme leader. They aren’t playing the same game as the GOP yet.

BTW what is misinformation? You claiming her quote on camera is fake news. You ######s are weird man.

You are very dumb I guess. The point is not that she won. That she wants to join state and church. So you can take your bible and stick it up there.