snafu

We didn't boycott Berlin in 1934. Appeasement sucks.

Sanctions have been imposed. You're right that there should be more pressure. But to dismiss a boycott of the Olympics begs the question: some actions are acceptable and other actions are less important? Whatever actions we take, or statement we make to China needs to be consistent. Even though the Olympics have probably lost their luster, in the uniglobal world the Olympics are a big deal. To the Chinese they represent legitimacy. I see your point the opposite way. Allowing participation says "we hate your oppression and expansionism, but we will overlook that for a couple weeks to we can watch our figure skaters." What about people from other countries who ask "why isn't the US participating?" In order to answer that question, China must admit that there is an issue with what they do and it forces them to see that everyone else thinks what they're doing is unacceptable. It also forces other countries to question whether they should ignore the Chinese issues to play amateur sports. Nobody said anything in 2008 and China got bolder and bolder, and that will continue if no consistent message is sent.

Yes, people knew Biden is fading and still voted against Trump. That isn’t too difficult to see.

Concentration camps, mistreatment of Tibetans, breaking international treaty in Hong Kong, threatening Taiwan’s existence, expanding territory by land and at sea, technology theft, belt-and-road sovereignty grabs, etc., etc., etc. There are lots of reasons to boycott.

I bet the UK boycotts. They're still fuming over Hong Kong.

And he was playing the best hockey on the entire team.

Absolutely. Rivers experience and mental ability overcame the fact that he had no mobility. Maybe a better line protecting Wentz will slow thing down for him. Maybe being back with Reich will help, too. But you’re right that Rivers >>> Wentz when it comes to experience and smarts.

This is the way is see it, too. I don’t think the Colts got better with this move vs. who they had at QB last year.

I’ve got: My Cosino owns-a da ristorante anna makes-a some-a good ravioli! Or: They turned the Cosino into covfefe.

And the comet had that one thin metal bar across your lap to hold you in. Two friends and I went to Crystal Beach on the last day it was open. The line for the Comet was immense — to ride facing forward. No waiting for facing backward. We rode it backward, twice. I’ll never forget those two rides, had to hold on for dear life.

This is very true. I don't think the owners understand that.

Or you can be neutral to either one, or both, and dislike the specific decisions they've made. And it is certainly fair to have an opinion on their respective reactions to being criticized. The politicization of Covid from both sides is really unfortunate. Looks like Cuomo is catching a lot of heat, both for his decision to return patients to nursing homes and for his covering up a federal investigation. And he's catching a lot of political heat from members of his own party in the State legislature. I've always maintained that Cuomo is lucky that people aren't tracking and reporting the illnesses and deaths of nursing home employees and their immediate families. His policy could easily be connected to those cases.

Prior to Covid regulations, my day-to-day existence hasn't changed much. The only dramatic and disturbing change I see in the past 15 years is a rabid political party tribalism on both sides. It used to be a fiction to think that one party was out to destroy the other. Now, not so much. And it gets worse by the month.

The house managers connected a lot of dots, but not the important ones that actually addressed the Atricle of Impeachment. They made a great case for whomever is in charge of security to have been negligent. They made a great case for dereliction of duty, but there was no article of impeachment which addressed that. Haste makes waste. The House must have thought that the Constitutional jurisdiction question should have gone the other way because they were super hasty in banging out the one Article. This case would have been stronger if it wasn’t messed up in preparation. Haste makes waste. The Constitution gives the government powers and the Amendments chip away at those powers. The defense was right in that the first amendment controlled. As far as witnesses, the one witness that both sides stipulated to was well known, yet the managers didn’t see fit to present her words during their 14 hours of their main case? Haste makes waste. Trump could have been convicted in my eyes, but not following the charge and the applicable law.

NYT article got the message out abut NYC de-funding the police last year. $1Billion was transferred from the Cops to other spending. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/nyregion/nypd-budget.html#:~:text=New York City officials on,billion from the Police Department. And most major crimes were noticeably up in 2020 over 2019. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/news/pr0902/nypd-citywide-crime-statistics-august-2020

Yet by several accounts, it is being investigated. Here are three links. So I'm not sure what you're saying there about a message getting out. There's news reporting, and there's editorializing/opining. Too many times the two lines get blurred these days -- both ways. I wouldn't single out one source of opinion. https://www.businessinsider.in/international/news/the-lapd-is-investigating-a-valentines-day-image-of-george-floyd-that-was-passed-around-with-the-phrase-you-take-my-breath-away/articleshow/80912296.cms https://news.yahoo.com/lapd-investigating-george-floyd-photo-143100107.html https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-lapd-george-floyd-breath-photo-20210214-7bnju4jmcvdslp6q3mb2tfx66a-story.html I agree with this. And the LAPD incident you pointed to was called out. None of us would have heard about it if it wasn't called out. Seems like the LAPD is investigating and probably the people involved will be disciplined. At least they should. I'm sure there are a lot of people looking for something to come of the investigation.

I’m not sure you proofread your initial post. Then you wasted a lot of effort explaining bi-partisan. A word you didn’t use.

What should be done about this?

What should be done about this?

That cant be true. Their attendance is mandatory. I’m pretty sure they voted against Trump.

This is my last post on this matter... Computer counting mechanisms count the ballots that are put into them. They don't feel. They're machines. The machines aren't the issue. People who handle the ballots are the issue. I already said that the newly implemented voting absentee and mail-in methods were SO new that the election boards that had to implement them were not likely ready to handle the changes. I said that way before the election. It was obvious that States weren't ready. It took Pennsylvania months to count primary votes. Same with NYS. It is very difficult to go to court with evidence that's not available to you, even though you ask for it. It is very difficult to compile evidence in 30 days (between election and certification). State legislatures held hearings (albeit Republican-dominated hearings) and took testimony of people with boots on the ground during the counting. These people were dismissed as kooks, and some may have been -- but the messenger was killed and the message wasn't probed. Headlines from the media on November 5th all immediately claimed that Trump was lying. Why would they editorialize in their headlines? Why not say "Trump alleges", instead of "Trump falsely claims". What made the reporters of facts so factually certain? People like to claim that Trump lost "x" lawsuits, and he (or people challenging results) certainly did, but it seems as most of those were lost on procedural grounds and not substantive grounds. Take the Texas Case in the Supreme Court. Did you read their brief and the briefs of the Respondent States? The substance was never addressed, though it was laid out pretty clearly. They had no standing, the alleged deficiencies never saw the light of day. Why NOT ask these questions (I'm referring to November, 2020)? What is the harm in answering? We saw the harm in dismissing the questions out of hand on January 6th.

Yep. Except he had every right to question the results. He's not the first politician to do so. His complete screw up was not to have his legal team in place well prior to the election. Every deadline he had was missed and every complaint he made wasn't ripe. Those are technicalities that got him bounced out of court after court. There are several States which do all mail-in balloting and have done so for years and are good at it. I don't believe that ANY state which wasn't set up for it was ready to handle a covid-19 election in a proper and efficient way. They have a year to get things right, if they keep their newly altered rules. Pennsylvania (for one example) saw the legislature pass laws regarding voting, and then saw their Secretary of State change the law midstream. That's actually a Supreme Court Case that hasn't been argued yet. What pipe burst in Atlanta that shut down their vote counting? Why would someone lie about that?It just seems like there are questions that need better answers than "the big lie"! I already said that I believe Trump lost. I believe that EVERY vote cast for President was about Trump. Not one had to do with Biden. Go look at the votes cast in certain states. You'll find that total votes cast for Republican Congressional Candidates per State was higher than those cast for Trump. That is statewide and has nothing to do with gerrymandering. And if Gerrymandering was actually the explanation, then how would you explain the 2018 midterms?

I don't think the results of congressional and State elections prove your point. Trump lost and the R's picked up seats in the house, and R's aren't losing ground in State races, either.

I clearly disagree with you. Not anything more to be said. I disagree with you. They were calling for transparency and they said they would abide by the results of an inquiry. I saw the Senate re-convene that night AFTER the riot, and if I recall, there were Senators from both parties that said they wouldn't have objected if the riots hadn't occurred. Or at least said, that was Cruz and Hawley's right to inquire. I don't know of any statement they made before the riot that would tie them to it. I think to do so is dishonest and dangerous. Hell, there were members of Congress in 2016 who disputed the vote. Were their objections "the big lie"?

What I'd like to say is yes, and I didn't take Trump's statements as a call to action and I never would, just to make you freak out. What I believe is that Trump lost. What I believe is that States had better tighten up their voting systems and be more transparent for the next election. What I believe is that if someone is going to hold an election, it is good to show the world how fair it is, instead of just flat out dismissing questions about it and marketing it ad "the big lie". There appear to be some serious ***** ups along the way to certifying a winner, and none of those were ever explained. If it's such a lie, then show everyone. I don't think that has happened yet.