ChiGoose

Something to keep in mind is that DoJ investigations are generally fairly slow. Remember that Durham was appointed by Barr to investigate the origins of the Russia probe in May 2019 but didn't indict Sussman until September 2021, more than two years later. Given the sheer size of the January 6th inquiry and the difficulties with potential prosecutions of members of the Executive Branch, a lack of indictments at this time does not necessarily imply that there were no crimes by higher ups, even as high as Trump. We're mainly in "wait and see" mode to see where it leads. That's why I find the hearings helpful because, unlike before, we are getting actual sworn testimony now. It's not just people talking to the media where they can lie as much as they want.

I'm not sure it matters too much if Trump's endorsed candidates don't win if the candidates that do win are still incredibly Trumpy and believe the Big Lie.

Fair enough, it's not for everyone. Personally, I love the wonkiness.

They've honestly been pretty good about keeping the chatter from the committee members to a minimum. The first 10-15 minutes are meh. but the rest is very tightly focused on the witnesses. Each session starts with statements from Thompson, Cheney, and whoever is leading the questioning that day. After that, it's almost entirely testimony from the witnesses, video from recorded testimony from other witnesses, with just a bit of context added by staffers. Though in yesterday's session, Schiff was leading the questioning so I just zoned out during the opening statements and played Civ IV until the questioning actually started.

They are afforded extra leeway under the speech and debate clause, but that's really only applicable in the course of legislative debate. I haven't finished watching yesterday's hearing (didn't get a chance to start until 9pm), but what I saw is testimony that directly ties Trump to the fake electors scheme. That potentially could constitute fraud or other crimes. But I agree that the political structure (not the law) is what protects Trump here. "Conald" is a bit juvenile.

I don't think Biden is doing a great job, but the argument that Biden has hampered US production of oil does not match the fact that our current domestic output is near historic highs. Like I've said, there are multiple reasons why the price has skyrocketed and none of them are easily solved in the short term. There isn't much the president can do to make a big impact on prices in the short term.

Probably just to cover the summer, where there is more driving, and therefore more demand on gas.

Again?

I'm sure it would have marginal impact on prices for something like that, but I'm not going to take the word of an oil industry exec arguing that the government should help his company as gospel. Just a quick glance ate oil prices versus gas prices shows that in July, 2018 the price of oil was about $165 per barrel and gas was $4.11. In May 2022, the price of oil was $115 and the price of gas was $4.55. So even with oil being $50 cheaper per barrel, gas is $0.44 more expensive than it was during that peak. So even if Biden gave a full throated endorsement of more drilling and domestic production, it may only move the needle a little in the short term. Sources: (Oil prices) (Gas prices)

No, it's not all Putin and COVID, though those do impact it. It's also not likely to be domestic oil production: (Source) There's no silver bullet for gas prices as the current prices are driven by multiple factors. It's just hard to argue that it's primarily driven by domestic production since that's still near historic highs. This is why I do not believe there is a short-term solution. The US President cannot sign an order that fixes supply chain issues, eliminates price gouging, immediately increases production, and ends the war in Ukraine. A gas tax holiday is like spitting on a fire. That's also why I think we should be focused on more medium to long term solutions. If we cannot fix this problem immediately, let's work to make sure it doesn't happen again.

The timeline to bring new oil production online would not impact current prices. Additionally, there are thousands of permits already that are not being used. The government can issue as many permits as it wants, but if the oil companies don't drill, it won't do anything.

Which executive orders should he revoke?

From what I've seen, the Great Lakes basin will be least affected while the west will have more frequent wildfires and the south will have reduced crop yields. There are some informative maps here: https://projects.propublica.org/climate-migration/

I find this chart from The Economist to be helpful when trying to gauge some of the macro trends of climate change. It's not that all places will always be warmer all of the time; it's that, on average, places will generally be warmer. Additionally, our current extreme heat events will become more common and we will begin to experience even worse heat events. Sure, there will still be snow in the winter (though there may be less) and we will still have some nice weather in the spring and fall, but overall we are going to see more droughts, wildfires, heatwaves and other events that will negatively impact our crops, wildlife, and our lives.

White House Fact Sheet Personally, I think this is a bad move. I do not think that most consumers will feel the impact of the gas tax holiday as the savings are more likely to be gobbled up by middlemen than passed down to customers. I get that the president of the US has very few options to affect gas prices in the short term, but I would rather see strong investments in medium to long term plans to alleviate our reliance on gas indefinitely than a short term band aid that's more likely to help the gas companies than consumers.

I don’t think that’s regularly true of either party. Hillary had detractors in the Dems and Biden can’t go a week without being called out by the far left for something. I don’t think the GOP had a cult of personality around Bush or Romney, but there is something about Trump that ignites a fanatical base. The current party seems to be that you’re either fully supporting Trump or you’re a RINO. There is no actual policy, there is only Trump. It’s definitely not true of all Republican voters, but it is with enough of them to drive the party and I don’t think it’s healthy.

I think this is important but not in the way you may agree with. The committee wants testimony from those who publicly disagree but they refuse to testify. If it is all a partisan hack job, then they should testify and completely blow up the committee’s narrative, but they are doing everything in their power to avoid that. Not to mention that any time one of them has been under oath, the do not say the same things they say publicly. They evade, plead the fifth, or admit everything said publicly was a lie. And so far, basically every witness has been a Republican and many were very invested in Trump winning. They aren’t having the AOC’s of the world testify, they are getting Trump’s actual campaign manager, Ted Cruz’s mentor, and even the guy behind the plan to have Pence not certify the vote. At what point does it start to seem that those publicly arguing against the committee’s case but privately telling a different story are acting in bad faith?

Oh thank god. I thought DR stood for doctor and I was really worried we had someone dispensing medical advice without a brain.

Just another example of dumb straw man arguments from you. One of these days, you may actually post something of value here, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. I am looking at the evidence like sworn testimony. The kind of thing that people can go to jail for lying about. You can continue to trust people who lie to your face and then tell a very different story when they can get into trouble when they lie. Just doesn’t make you very convincing.

So you would be fine with your taxpayer dollars going to educate kids to join Islam? Or Judaism? Or Catholicism? Or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? If the Church of Satan established a school in Maine, do you think it would be a good idea for Maine taxpayers to subsidize it? I don’t. I do not believe the government should have a hand in religious education. I also believe that the constitutional requirement of prohibiting the government from passing laws respecting the establishment of religion is incongruous with funneling taxpayer dollars into religious education.

1. I don’t give a ***** about what CNN says and I have no idea why it would be relevant to the discussion. 2. I think there is a decent debate to be had around education but I’ve always held what I believe to be the small “c” conservative view of the government only providing public education and not getting entangled in religion. From what I can tell, there was no issue with the quality of the other schools. And even if there were, there’s an argument for making those schools better instead of continuing to move funds away from them. I have absolutely zero problem with parents choosing religious schools for their kids. My parents did that for me. What I have a problem with is taxpayer money going to religious institutions for secular education as this would be a tacit governmental endorsement of that religion.

Who gives a ***** about the media?

I may have missed it but was the issue that there were no schools that met the standards so they had to go to a religious school? It doesn’t look like that from a brief scan of the arguments. From what I can tell from the certified question is that the parents *opted* to use sectarian schools, not that they had to. That is a VERY different argument than saying the only school they could go to in the area was sectarian. In that case, they have a good argument for that a lack of subsidy would be denying their right to an education. But if it’s a just a choice (i.e. there are local schools that qualify but they preferred a religious one), then what we are seeing here is that taxpayers must subsidize religious education. That would NOT be a ruling to ensure access to education because they had access to education at a qualifying school they opted not to use. Also, the Constitution actually guarantees both freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. This ruling means that Catholics may have to pay money to Muslim schools or Jews may have to pay money to Hindu schools. And they would have no say in the matter. It also continues the entanglement of the government into religious affairs.

False. The Maine law was structured to ensure that all kids had access to education but prohibited religious schools from their program because they believed taxpayer money subsidizing religious education would be tantamount to a violation of the first amendment (which prohibits the government from enacting laws respecting the establishment of a religion). With this ruling, taxpayer money can now be funneled into religious schools. So taxpayers could now be funding Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Hindi, or any school that teaches religion. You could potentially set up a school for the Church of Satan and get taxpayer money.

Government subsidizing religion. So much for separation of Church and State.