The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
06-15-2023, 11:34 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Maryville TN
Posts: 878
Total Cats: 79
By "fix," do you mean limiting voting rights to individuals or households who are net-payers of tax, rather than net-recipients of public money?
You'd need a dictator to make that happen. Too many politicians in congrefs right now who got there by promising free money to everyone, and / or were bought by left-leaning tech corporations who consider it their public moral obligation to ensure that the middle-class are robbed from to pay the poor and the rich.
You'd need a dictator to make that happen. Too many politicians in congrefs right now who got there by promising free money to everyone, and / or were bought by left-leaning tech corporations who consider it their public moral obligation to ensure that the middle-class are robbed from to pay the poor and the rich.
and, you are probably right re: dictator being needed. Does not make it any less of a correct answer to reducing fraud to thousandths of a percent.
Reply
1
1
06-15-2023, 12:38 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,517
Total Cats: 4,080
CNN On Topless White House Trans Activist: The 'Oppressed Have To Be Perfect 24/7'
Reply
0
0
06-15-2023, 02:36 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,517
Total Cats: 4,080
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...976884742.html
A top FBI official has admitted that the Federal Bureau of Investigation appears to have gone out of its way to politicize the raid last August on former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate to ‘obtain’ records he was entitled to have in his possession.
Steven D’Antuono, a significant whistleblower due to his pivotal involvement in the kidnapping entrapment plot targeting Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D-Michigan). This involvement led to his promotion as Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI Washington Field Office (WFO) in 2020.
Following the J6 protests, D’Antuono’s office took a leading role in coordinating the arrests and prosecutions of numerous Trump supporters.
D’Antuono voluntarily approached the House Judiciary Committee to voice his concerns regarding the FBI’s handling of raid at Mar-a-Lago.During his testimony, Mr. D’Antuono expressed strong concerns with the Department’s pursuit of the raid and noted several unusual features in the Department’s handling of the case,” said the letter.
D’Antuono testified before the House Judiciary Committee that he had “strong concerns” about several procedural violations that occurred ahead of the Aug. 2022 raid at Trump’s estate. Also outlining 4 key anomalies regarding the raid that he brought to the committee’s attention.“Mr. D’Antuono testified that FBI headquarters made the decision to assign the execution of the search warrant to the Washington Field Office despite the location of the search occurring in the territory of the FBI’s Miami Field Office. (1/2)
Mr. D’Antuono stated that he had ‘absolutely no idea’ why this decision was made and questioned why the Miami Field Office was not taking the lead on this matter,” the letter notes further. (2/2)
“According to Mr. D’Antuono, it was unusual to not have a U.S. Attorney assigned to an investigative matter, especially a matter of this magnitude. He explained that he ‘didn’t understand why and raised concerns with’ Department officials because this was out of the ordinary”.
“Mr. D’Antuono recounted a meeting between FBI and Department officials in which the Department assertively pushed for the FBI to promptly execute the search warrant. (1/2)
Based upon his over-20-year tenure at the FBI, Mr. D’Antuono testified that he believed that the FBI, prior to resorting to a search warrant, should have sought consent to search the premises,” Jordan’s letter went on. (2/2)
Mr. D’Antuono testified that the FBI sought to exclude President Trump’s attorney from the search, a move with which Mr. D’Antuono disagreed. Mr. D’Antuono believed that the FBI should have worked with the attorney to get consent for the search prior to seeking a warrant.
The committee chairman demanded Garland turn over “all documents and communications” linked to the execution of the raid, including meetings by DOJ officials prior to the search and correspondence between Washington Field Office employees and the U.S. Secret Service.
Steven D’Antuono, a significant whistleblower due to his pivotal involvement in the kidnapping entrapment plot targeting Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D-Michigan). This involvement led to his promotion as Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI Washington Field Office (WFO) in 2020.
Following the J6 protests, D’Antuono’s office took a leading role in coordinating the arrests and prosecutions of numerous Trump supporters.
D’Antuono voluntarily approached the House Judiciary Committee to voice his concerns regarding the FBI’s handling of raid at Mar-a-Lago.During his testimony, Mr. D’Antuono expressed strong concerns with the Department’s pursuit of the raid and noted several unusual features in the Department’s handling of the case,” said the letter.
D’Antuono testified before the House Judiciary Committee that he had “strong concerns” about several procedural violations that occurred ahead of the Aug. 2022 raid at Trump’s estate. Also outlining 4 key anomalies regarding the raid that he brought to the committee’s attention.“Mr. D’Antuono testified that FBI headquarters made the decision to assign the execution of the search warrant to the Washington Field Office despite the location of the search occurring in the territory of the FBI’s Miami Field Office. (1/2)
Mr. D’Antuono stated that he had ‘absolutely no idea’ why this decision was made and questioned why the Miami Field Office was not taking the lead on this matter,” the letter notes further. (2/2)
“According to Mr. D’Antuono, it was unusual to not have a U.S. Attorney assigned to an investigative matter, especially a matter of this magnitude. He explained that he ‘didn’t understand why and raised concerns with’ Department officials because this was out of the ordinary”.
“Mr. D’Antuono recounted a meeting between FBI and Department officials in which the Department assertively pushed for the FBI to promptly execute the search warrant. (1/2)
Based upon his over-20-year tenure at the FBI, Mr. D’Antuono testified that he believed that the FBI, prior to resorting to a search warrant, should have sought consent to search the premises,” Jordan’s letter went on. (2/2)
Mr. D’Antuono testified that the FBI sought to exclude President Trump’s attorney from the search, a move with which Mr. D’Antuono disagreed. Mr. D’Antuono believed that the FBI should have worked with the attorney to get consent for the search prior to seeking a warrant.
The committee chairman demanded Garland turn over “all documents and communications” linked to the execution of the raid, including meetings by DOJ officials prior to the search and correspondence between Washington Field Office employees and the U.S. Secret Service.
Reply
0
0
06-15-2023, 02:38 PM
I identify as a bear.
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,105
Total Cats: 6,640
Ideally we go back to this model where one needs skin in the game to earn the privilege to vote. All you would need to do is be a taxpaying household. If you are a net taker or pay no tax, sorry no voting privilege.
(...)
and, you are probably right re: dictator being needed. Does not make it any less of a correct answer to reducing fraud to thousandths of a percent.
(...)
and, you are probably right re: dictator being needed. Does not make it any less of a correct answer to reducing fraud to thousandths of a percent.
One is the 24th Amendment, which stipulates that "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax." (my emphasis)
The "... or other tax" bit directly forbids determining eligibility to vote based upon whether one is a net-provider or net-consumer of money to the federal coffer. It's just flat-out prohibited.
So, right off the bat, we need to amend the constitution. That requires a 2/3rd majority in both the House and the Senate (or a 2/3rd majority of all State legislatures) just to get the ball rolling, and THEN it has to be ratified by majority in 75% of all US states, in order to take effect.
And I believe there's an element of The Prisoners' Dilemma involved in that.
Let's say hypothetically, that 60% of Republican congrefspersons and 60% of Democrat congrefspersons all vote in favor of a bill which amends the US Constitution to remove the tax clause from the 24th, and replaces it with text requiring that only those who pay more in state + federal tax than they receive in state + federal benefits are eligible to vote.
The measure fails right there, and all of those congrefspersons are out of a job at the next election. Because the > 60% of US Households who are net-recipients of federal dollars, plus the not-insubstantial number of Liberals who, while net-payers themselves, believe that literally everyone (those on welfare, those in prison, etc) deserves the right to vote, will make sure of it.
You'd need to pre-arrange for at least 67% of all US congrefspersons, plus a majority of state legislators in at least 75% of US states, to all vote the same way before you could even introduce the amendment, or else it's political suicide for all involved.
And that is the literal definition of a conspiracy.
Last edited by Joe Perez; 06-15-2023 at 03:02 PM.
Reply
0
0
06-15-2023, 02:49 PM
I identify as a bear.
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,105
Total Cats: 6,640
for joe p
A top FBI official has admitted that the Federal Bureau of Investigation appears to have gone out of its way to politicize the raid last August on former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate to ‘obtain’ records he was entitled to have in his possession.
I have stated the exact opposite of this, in plain language, on numerous occasions, most recently on this very page of this thread.
I simply can see that this has no bearing on the criminal trial presently underway. So long as the law was followed, "The investigator was being mean" is unlikely to be a helpful defense.
Reply
0
0
06-15-2023, 02:53 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Maryville TN
Posts: 878
Total Cats: 79
correct. the 24th was poorly worded and / or designed to further subvert the intent of the constitution's "thou shall have skin in the game to participate" intent.
You are correct in stating that the left in general and the country as a whole has gone past this point where something such as this would be ratified, and I agree. It would take another revolution.
I mean, balanced budget amendments or calls for article V conventions have been kicked around for 50+ years, and NOTHING has happened. The hacks in the uniparty don't want it
Reply
1
1
06-15-2023, 03:30 PM
I identify as a bear.
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,105
Total Cats: 6,640
The 24th Amendment happened in the middle of the Civil Rights Movement, right alongside the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibited literacy tests as a prerequisite to voting.
They literally wanted to be sure that people who were illiterate, and thus most easily swayed by false promises, could vote.
It's all been down-hill from there, and I can see no way to reverse it short of either revolutionary violence or a literal dictator seizing absolute power (but promising to give it up once everything was fixed.)
Reply
0
0
06-15-2023, 04:41 PM
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 189
Total Cats: 35
It seems they cannot think, so why do you think putting someone other than Trump will produce a different result?
Reply
0
0
06-15-2023, 04:47 PM
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 189
Total Cats: 35
A: What purpose does it serve to show 30 boxes as "proof of documents that DJT stole/whatever" when the reality is 102 pages?
B: If it serves only false purpose (30 boxes VS 102) and non-classified documents are irrelevant, then your conclusion must be that the pictures only serve to mislead or mischaracterize?
C: Bonus, now evaluate the same situation with Joe Biden and explain how the same people are not vigorously demanding he be indicted?
Reply
0
0
06-15-2023, 04:48 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Maryville TN
Posts: 878
Total Cats: 79
I think you are missing a critical point. The people you claim feel "divided" because of Trump and his talking/actions/appearance/alleged criminal actions do not appear to have critical thinking skill at all. Otherwise, wouldn't they speak out against FBI coverup of Biden bribes and Ukraine corruption? Biden classified documents being found? FBI involvement/instigation with Jan6? Biden Admin collusion with social media orgs to censor/throttle Conservatives exlusively?
It seems they cannot think, so why do you think putting someone other than Trump will produce a different result?
It seems they cannot think, so why do you think putting someone other than Trump will produce a different result?
Reply
0
0
06-15-2023, 05:26 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Las Cruces, NM
Posts: 594
Total Cats: 114
Reply
2
2
