ChiGoose

In defense of GOP presidents, they like to leave the economy in shambles on the way out of the office, which allows Dems to run up the score.

Probably not, but it looks bad. To the American public, it looks like the billionaire elites can buy a Supreme Court Justice. Is that something not worth at least looking into?

Should be investigated too! If justices are able to take in serious cash without disclosure, then the rules need to be rewritten. Even if taking in that kind of money is ok under the rules now, doesn’t mean that’s how it should be. For example: I don’t think there is any problem with Gorsuch selling his home to a lawyer. He’s a rich lawyer and needs to sell his house to move to DC so another rich lawyer buys it. The timing is a bit sketchy but that doesn’t necessarily make it wrong or problematic, so long as the public knows who bought it. By hiding the ultimate purchaser, he denies the American public an opportunity to evaluate his fairness and raises the specter of untoward influence. Some of the things that Thomas did weren’t against the rules but they sure as hell look shady and probably should be (ask Allen Weisselberg about having other people pay for tuition and other expenses for you). For the public to have trust in our institutions, these kinds of financial relationships need to be public.

So you don’t think the Supreme Court needs a better ethics code? If George Soros or any other leftie boogeyman started secretly funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars to the liberal justices, you would be ok with that?

I have a really hard time seeing Trump go down for seditious conspiracy. Stone, Rudy, and Eastman maybe, but I haven’t seen anything that hints that they have the goods on Trump himself. His legal jeopardy is Fulton County for election interference, and the special counsel for obstruction, mishandling of government documents, wire fraud, and probably a couple other things too.

Final verdicts in the Proud Boys seditious conspiracy trial: 31 guilty 5 not guilty 10 mistrial

Sure, there could be evidence that isn’t public that provably that ties Trump to the Oath Keepers / Proud Boys in a way that makes him culpable of seditious conspiracy as well. I just don’t think it’s especially likely.

I would be very surprised if Trump is ever charged with seditious conspiracy. You could probably get as high as Roger Stone since he was working closely with the Proud Boys, but I haven’t seen anything that directly connects Trump in a way that would satisfy a guilty verdict.

I oppose people physically attacking justices. It’s bad and shouldn’t happen. Now that that’s out of the way, Thomas had legal custody of the kid from a very young age and raised him as his own. The fact that it’s not reportable for someone to then pay tens of thousands of dollars for the tuition of someone being raised by a Supreme Court Justice is why we need a real code of ethics. I’m not saying Thomas has to resign, and it’d be dumb to try to impeach him. But you have to either be pro-corruption or just totally partisan to think that this isn’t a problem at least worth looking into. Even if only to establish better rules moving forward and not punish any actions in the past. As to the “coordinated effort,” it’s kinda of big news that there are hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of goods and services being funneled to Supreme Court justices behind the scenes. Once ProPublica broke the original story, every outlet was going to try to find more. It’d be incredibly stupid and journalistic malpractice not to.

Liberals: SCOTUS needs a code of ethics Clickservatives: Sotomayor had shady dealings! Liberals: Yes, that’s another reason why SCOTUS needs a code of ethics Clickservatives: This is an attack on the court!

Well this is certainly an unhinged rant devoid of facts or discernible point. For clarification, “‘most illegal immigrants come via ports of entry” =\= “all illegal immigrants come via ports of entry.” Didn’t realize I needed to point out that “most” and “all” are different words, but here we are. Also, I never mentioned Trump, blamed him, or even implied anything about him. He’s not germane to my argument in any way. Because most (again, not all) illegal immigrants come via ports of entry, a giant expensive wall is a terribly inefficient way to combat illegal immigration. It’s basically lighting money on fire to not solve the problem. Anyone supporting that as a solution either doesn’t grasp the actual facts or has no interest in solving the problem. A better way to police those areas of the border would be with drones and rapid response teams that could go out to the people crossing when the drones find them. But, ultimately, unless you fully fund the immigration court system, you’re just going to continue to incentivize illegal immigration. If McCarthy put a bill on the floor tomorrow that implemented smart border security approaches combined with funding and fixing the legal pathways to immigration, he’d put the Dems in a really tough spot. Most of the moderates would probably be for the bill while leadership would have to decide if they want to whip against it for political reasons even though the caucus at large would support it. Either way, it would be a big win for the GOP, make the Dems look lost, and then put Schumer and Biden in a really difficult position when it soared through the House. Or, they can continue to push for a big dumb expensive wall that won’t fix anything but sounds good to their base because they just want the votes, not a solution.

Imagine spending all day, every day, on a message board tagging the same people over and over even if they aren’t engaged in the conversation and then being so completely braindead as to claim that you live in their minds and not the other way around. If this guy stopped posting tomorrow, all that would happen is that the board would be a little less active and a lot less dumb.

God forbid we help people in need.

Or you could just look at the proposed “solutions” and you would easily see that the GOP has zero interest in actually solving the problem. They WANT to have a lot of illegal immigration. It’s a great electoral issue for them. People like to say “I’m not opposed to immigrants, but they should come here legally.” The only problem is that our immigration system and courts are so understaffed and underfunded that there’s a huge backlog of cases. It can take literally YEARS for someone to be properly processed through the immigration system. So if you have someone who may be able to get here legally, but it would take them 1-3 years to be able to do it properly, what you’re doing is incentivizing them to just come illegally instead. Additionally, the majority of illegal immigrants come through ports of entry, not through the desert or other spots on the border. So if you actually wanted to solve the illegal immigration problem, you would properly fund the legal immigration system to reduce wait times and incentivize eligible people to come legally, and you would focus security on points of entry. If you were concerned about other areas of the border, high tech solutions like drones would be an efficient and cost-effective way to deal with that. But that makes sense and would actually help to fix the problem. So the GOP will never go for it. Instead, they want a big dumb wall that will cost taxpayers billions and do almost nothing. The only explanation is either that they are incredibly stupid or, as I said, they don’t want to solve the issue because it’s too good of an election issue for them.

Man, if you think the GOP wants to end illegal immigration, I have a golf course in Scotland to sell you.

Four Possibilities for the Kremlin Attack 1. “First, it is possible that the Ukrainians or some Ukrainian team in Moscow could have used drones. But it is unlikely, because it doesn’t make much sense. An attack on the Kremlin might be an obvious symbolic move, but a demonstrative strike on an empty building at night would be a waste of already strained Ukrainian intelligence resources, and would likely annoy the Americans and NATO in the bargain. (Also, as one former U.S. defense official noted, the Ukrainians are pretty good at tracking Putin, and if reports of the event are accurate, they likely knew he wasn’t in the building.) 2. A second possibility is that Russian intelligence and military authorities got wind of a plot by some group to strike the Kremlin, and then let it happen as a way to goad Putin into using even more force in Ukraine. 3. It is also possible that the strike on the Kremlin came from Russian dissidents, especially if it was done with some sort of crude, jerry-rigged device. 4. But the most disturbing possibility is that this is a Russian government put-up job from start to finish. There are several reasons this makes more sense than other explanations. First, an attack on the Kremlin would give Putin the rationalization he’s been seeking for some kind of dramatic and murderous action that might not make much military sense, but that would destabilize Ukraine and unsettle the world on the eve of a major Ukrainian counteroffensive. The Russians, I believe, are dreading this coming operation, and want to change the narrative at home and abroad. I have no idea what Putin has up his sleeve, but even on his better days, he is prone to strategically idiotic moves. He might try to drag Belarus into the war, he could make more nuclear threats, or he could even order redoubled efforts to kill Zelensky. In any case, faking a drone attack would fit into the long-standing Russian affinity for “false flag” operations. Though conspiracy theorists in the United States often trumpet unfounded claims of false flags, professional intelligence services do conduct such operations, and Moscow has been particularly fond of them all the way back to the Soviet period.

Times today that the most pathetic and sad poster on this board who claims to have blocked me has tagged me in threads: 6

Don’t forget Gorsuch too. SCOTUS needs serious ethics reforms.

Times today that the most pathetic and sad poster on this board who claims to have blocked me has tagged me in threads: 4

Times today that the most pathetic and sad poster on this board who claims to have blocked me has tagged me in threads: 3 (I’m aware of the ignore feature, I just want to point out how sad his life must be. Hopefully someone can get him the help he clearly needs).

Times today that the most pathetic and sad poster on this board who claims to have blocked me has tagged me in threads: 1

Frankly, I’d be surprised if this was what did Tucker in, but it does show what kind of awful person he is.

Interstate checkpoints would be really difficult. Chicago borders Indiana so you’re talking about an insane amount of traffic every day. A lot of people who work in Chicago actually live in Indiana. I’m not sure how you can do checkpoints in a way that catches the smugglers without creating a massive hassle for the regular commuter. I think establishing better markers that allow for tracing straw purchasers would be a good start. If Indiana is able to (or forced to) investigate the straw purchasers and there was a way to credible establish the purchase (that can be used in a court of law), that could lead to the end buyers of the guns. Or at least start eliminating the straw purchasers from the equation, making it harder for the criminals to get their hands on the guns.