ewsieg

Harvard and MIT have quite a few courses you can audit for free, I'm sure many others as well. Here are a few possible links or sites to check. https://www.edx.org/learn/government/harvard-university-american-government-constitutional-foundations https://www.classcentral.com/tag/constitutional-law This one is on the US Revolution, not directly related to what you seem interested in, but I found it while digging these up and plan on watching this. youtube.com/playlist?list=PLeCFWdLZpnW97PCYqTm4e37ush6xgnJ_G https://online.hillsdale.edu/landing/intro-to-the-constitution?utm_medium=search_paid&utm_source=google&utm_campaign=online_courses_dsa_oc&utm_term=&utm_id=692119507807&utm_content=oc_course&gclid=CjwKCAjwydSzBhBOEiwAj0XN4Gpx5aGGkgQpDHBdf2FqmSSMdcUGF5r5y6g3EKHHCiiUw7CSxILQEhoC594QAvD_BwE https://www.coursera.org/

Saw these guys last night, fantastic show.

I honestly think the East Palestine issue hurts Dems more than the GOP. I know the Biden admin tried to pin it on Trump, but ultimately the train deregulation Trump did wasn't actually in play here as the train was allowed to classify itself as non-hazardous and thus wouldn't have been held to that regulation anyway. Local folks are well aware of this and I think they were more upset with the clean up efforts and the fact that they felt abandoned by the Biden administration. I don't see how this is a good issue for Biden. With all that said, based on a high level from these election results, looks like they are still turning towards Biden/Dems.

This is along the lines of what I've said before, outside the heightened view of the democrat party you have. To my original point though (and not directed at you), just don't try and gaslight me that Trump is the only one in decline.

This is just me thinking aloud based on some anecdotal evidence as well as what I remember in terms of polls/results from 2016, 2020. If I remember correctly, Hillary was expected to easily beat Trump but lost. By 2020, Biden had an edge in the polls but everyone freaked out due to the 'they will vote for Trump, but they are afraid to tell anyone they will' factor that was believed to be the big reason for the inaccuracy of the 2016 elections. Trump did better than polls suggested, but not by the margin in 2016. My mom and one of her sisters and one of her brothers are the biggest Trump fans (or so I thought) around. And by Trump fans, they admit he's crooked, but it's a 'they are all crooked, at least he's honest about it' mentality. I just found out my aunt won't be voting for Trump. If you looked at her facebook feed you would have never guessed that. She was over a few weeks ago after my daughters confirmation and I heard her tell my brother 'you'd be surprised who else isn't voting for him' and I didn't get a chance to chime in. According to my brother she never mentioned who she was talking about, but even he wasn't thinking it was our mom or uncle. That said, he mentioned our mom just a few days ago made some comments that surprised him in how she talked about Trump making him think that is who my aunt was talking about. The thing is, she's still posting facebook garbage that makes her look like a huge MAGA supporter. So, while years ago you had that voter that wouldn't say they'd vote for him but would.... I wonder if we're moving into a situation when previous Trump supporters won't vote for him, but don't necessarily want others to know they won't.

I dislike aspects of qualified immunity, but I feel like that would simply sway the pendulum too far the other way. To say there is no way to fix policing except by removing qualified immunity shows you haven't paid attention to policing in the last 10 years or so.

You're living in a bubble if you think this screw up by Trump is proof that he's in cognitive decline but there is no proof that Biden is completely fine.

Not that it would sway my vote, but I'd be more apt to vote for Trump more if I knew his chief of staff had more control than him. I don't think Trumps decline is as clear, but it's noticeable as well. Unfortunately for us, if he is elected, I think decline or not, he will be in control and will not let his administration do any 'business as usual' work.

Said no one (currently) on this forum...ever. Nice strawman though. He is old, he is in decline, there is clear evidence that it's cognitive decline, but I can't say that for sure as the administration is hiding him. From now until November, if we don't see Biden talk at all and for some reason Andrew McCarthy and Jonathan Silverman are on each side of them anytime you see him in public, I'll still vote for him. I just won't lie to myself that I'm voting for Biden or Trump, I'm voting for Biden's chief of staff or Trump and while I don't like it, it's the far lesser of two evils.

I watched Trump look presidential in one speech about 6 years ago, so obviously every complaint about him not presidential must be bunk. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/21/us/politics/biden-public-appearances-media.html

If Ted Lieu is posting something, it's either funny or skewed. And Joe Walsh is smart enough, but so anti-Trump that he couldn't see what Lieu did and furthered that skewed view with an inaccurate follow up tweet. Democrats were sourced for the article and while most did play the party line that Biden is amazing behind closed doors, several did say they had concerns. They refused to be quoted on it though as they didn't want anyone to know what they said for concerns about their job. Biden is a shell of his former self. I don't see how people can watch him, but also watch what his administration does for him and not see that. The lack of time in front of the press, is certainly not Biden's wishes. He's always loved to be in front of them.

Georgia still ranks middle of the pack in 'voting access', right with Michigan. Plus turnout went up in their last election and first since the new laws. It's definitely still in play for Biden and I see no reason to be concerned about state officials for Georgia.

It's a simple and easy criticism. She covered Trump's campaign in 2016 and made contacts that she utilized, nothing wrong with that. I think anyone that has watched her over the years at MSNBC can see she's definitely no mouthpiece for Trump. That said, this is where the ethics in journalism come into play. Nothing wrong with questioning Tur. For instance at any time did she repeat information that she would have normally questioned more, if not for the fear of losing access? I've complained about MIRS being a mouthpiece for Whitmer, but at least Tur reported on what she was given and didn't just print exactly what an administration gave them.

I prefer Tommy 'let's **** over the military' Tuberville.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/28/health/nih-officials-foia-hidden-emails-covid.html Nothing to see here, literally, because it's all been deleted.

So he got pulled over in October, which apparently led to a ticket for driving with a suspended license, and he was smart enough to get a lawyer, but they never followed through on following up with SoS to ensure the incorrect suspended license ticket was incorrect? Wouldn't that be the first thing to bring up to the judge?

True, but my guess is they got some stuff done in exchange for support should the QOP pull their ****. As stupid as the GOP is, I don't think there was any way we would have ended up with speaker Jeffries. So instead, give the GOP support that they won't deal with looking like absolute buffoons like they have already. Get something out of it. The MTG, Boeberts, and Gaetz's of the party will continue to MTG/Boebart and Gaetz, just like a Lion is going to Lion. So you still get the headlines that continues to show the GOP as a mess while still being able to show some bipartisan progress.

From a **** the GOP standpoint, I couldn't agree more. I hope the more reserved democratic decision to work with him to get some more stuff done which allows Biden to campaign on working with a hostile congress pays off with independents though.

My main complaint is that you can't question anything about Fauci without it immediately being equated to believing some jewish space laser hit epstein island which caused the illuminati to start a hoax virus. In the name of Science, Fauci wanted gain of function. That is known. Other scientists/doctors agreed with him, others tended to agree but called for more oversight. The Obama administration sided with those that called for more oversight. Fauci and many others found ways (possibly legally, but I'd be interested in knowing for sure) to redefine gain of function. We now know Wuhan was doing research on spike protein and was doing gain of function. Still, it's not a slam dunk it was a lab leak as there has been some evidence that others feel strengthens the Wuhan wet market. But if Fauci knew and allowed 'gain of function' under the belief they had proper handling procedures which would keep it from escaping AND allow scientists to defend against such a virus if it naturally happened in the wild as pretty much everyone agrees could happen, even if the intentions were for the best, than he's a heck of a lot more responsible for the deaths of millions than Trump is.

I mean Rob, who has been getting a ton of likes to his posts and is a moderator on this site said he wouldn't even bother reading the article I posted. Am I wrong to put more value in what he says then some random Twitter post?

Point taken on grandstanding, but just because the GOP sucks doesn't mean trying to understand how and why, including failed response, shouldn't be reviewed.

So I just looked it up as I was confused by your response and it's arguably not the biggest pandemic in the last 100 years, at least if you base it on deaths (HIV/aids). But I still don't see how I created a strawman argument. Was it not a big deal?

A billionaire politician didn't correctly do accounting to pay off a mistress like Clinton or Edwards and every resource available should be used to ensure he's found guilty. The biggest pandemic in 100 years occurs and there is no need to discuss anything about it. It's in the past, let it go. In fact whenever it's brought up, let's just strawman the heck out of it. 700 billion..... money apparently only corrupts people you guys politically disagree with.

We have credible data that indicates this could have come out of the Wuhan Lab. We have credible data that indicates we funded gain of function research (at least by some peoples definitely....wtf is that mean?!?!) there. If this is true, the people responsible for Covid made huge financial windfalls because their unethical behavior killed millions of people. Evidence is mounting how destructive it was to our youth as well. But yeah, let's just focus on the asshats that didn't want to wear a mask. They are the true problem.

That wasn't that recent, but he had some legitimate reasons for that too. It was new and they errored on the side of caution, additionally after his mask reversal (don't use....well, definitely use), I think they were concerned that by retreating on some additional previous decisions, it would cause folks to ignore other recommendations they felt were still important.