ewsieg

No, SCOTUS is ruling of Colorado can determine if Trump is ineligible because of the 14th. If they can, Alabama has just as much of a right as well.

Alabama doesn’t need evidence that you believe in, just evidence they chose to believe, assuming Colorado can decide on Trump. He can pardon himself, but if Alabama says he can’t be in the ballot and/or be president, he can’t be president again if SCOTUS says states can determine who was is eligible to run in This Colorado ruling.

If you listen to that link I sent, the Dems absolutely overplayed Russian collusion, notice no one says that anymore (it's interference now), but listen to the link and you'll hear from Dems how we shouldn't trust electronic ballot boxes, that voter suppression is what caused Abrams to lose, which politifact and others will say 'not determined', but then point to how there was great turnout and even if every provisional ballot went to her, she still would have lost. In fact they found that Georgia had the highest percentage of registered voters in the last 40 years. Other snippets that if you didn't see them coming out of a democrats mouth, you'd assume it was from MTG.....'Numerous irregularities' , 'independent investigation needed', 'flawed voting process', 'lack of measures to ensure the integrity of electronic voting devices', 'The election was stolen from her', etc. And again because a few folks seem to think I'm trying to do a Both Sides thing here. I'm just saying that this is what will be used as an argument by MAGA folks to point at things like Police being targeted and says the left is attempting an insurrection. If what Colorado stands up, It doesn't matter if you agree with it, it only matters if Alabama or another MAGA lead state does it.

We’re talking hypotheticals because if SCOTUS upholds this MAGA members in red states are going to claim this as evidence against Biden and get him removed. In no way and I trying to make an equivalency in the argument, but if Alabama says democrats were responsible for BLM, it’s over for Biden too

So, as a whole, I agree with you. But, if you tell people that an election was rigged against them and stolen from them, quite possible that could lead them to act against the government they feel is not legitimate. Obviously Trump was blatant, which is a huge difference.

I don't think they did, but they did instill in the minds of many that elections may be rigged. I do think Trump did engage in an insurrection. And while this country would be great if we determined our laws based on my own personal decisions, it probably isn't the best idea in a republic.

Watch the video instead.... https://gop.com/video/12-minutes-of-democrats-denying-election-results/

Absolutely true when you're talking about elected GOP members of congress. But even for them, when they talk behind closed doors, they feel they have to flirt with the MAGA side so they are in power and they only trust themselves to make the right decisions for our country. If they decry Trump, a true MAGA may take their seat. There is an argument that they are staying in power, by any means necessary, to stop something should it really get to a point congress needs to stop Trump and that is the greater good. Granted, I tend to argue that they are $#@#$^ pussies, but again, there is a legitimate argument both ways. If they are lying, but deep down truly feel they have to in order to keep a true MAGA out of congress, are they heroes or traitors?

Prior to Trump winning, I can give you dozens of quotes from Hillary, Stacy Abrams, so many folks from MSNBC, and so on talking about stolen elections. They had no problem saying this and their followers had no problem believing it. Heck, i'm sure you probably still think Russia is the reason why Trump beat Hillary. Therefore, I deem you and all your side liars and hence you can't put anyone on the ballot I don't like either.

I was taking it to an extreme where states decide who can run against their party. Biden may have been elected by a handful of purple states, but he won the primary by winning a lot of red and purple states that weren't comfortable going with folks perceived to be left of him. Hopefully a bar will remain high enough that they can't. Right now though, Colorado has decided Trump did this. I'm just saying I don't think they should be the authoritative voice in determining that, I don't think SCOTUS should be either. There are laws in place, they should be pursued and I would hope justice is served, at that point, there is no question about whether he can run again or not.

I have to believe due process under the 5th which has precedence would come into play and have a role in how the 14th is interpreted. No one here is arguing that Trump isn't offensive. You laughing that Trump's supporters are too dumb to even spell his name is. It's no different than the Republicans that say African Americans are stupid because they support democrats. White trash, huh? Pretty sure when democrats had a large chunk of these folks they were called hard working, blue collar union workers that were just trying to raise a family. Once a chunk of them, who were neglected by both parties for decades, starts hearing the same words their leaders use by a political leader of what they always thought was an opposition party and they start listening, now of course they are white trash. A - I think it sets us on a wrong path if SCOTUS upholds it. B - I don't want other states to follow, particularly Texas, Florida, TN, all of whom I could see removing Biden. C - Screw a GOP split, I'm going to fight until the Trump portion is defeated. Currently, but if upheld, it'll affect other states and candidates. Eventually only blue states will elect the Democrats and only Red states will elect the GOP. So instead of the loudest from each party being the extremes, the extreme's is what we'll have as our only options.

He hasn't been indicted on any charges related to insurrection though, correct? Let alone found guilty. I mean he's right up there with OJ in terms of being guilty, but I hate to set this precedence. Honestly, isn't this also election interference by the Colorado AG / CO supreme court?

Pretty offensive, which checks out with 1984 loving this comment. Yeah, that's Trump's problem, that he loves the poorly educated.

I still listen to his podcast, he's one of the few that still investigates issues at the local/state level and he's pretty good at it. He's extremely emotional though and add in his drinking and that unfortunately has led to him being the story instead of reporting on a story. Sad to see.

I just listened to the article in case I missed anything when I read it. To me, this is exactly the type of article a right leaning media outlet would write about the police to say there is no police issue and you'd complain about. Let's not investigate if or why anything else, let's just focus on one specific estimate and once we find an issue with it, and use it to discredit everything. In the article they eventually point out the 45 billion number was originated by using the overall shrink number from several years back. Obviously incorrect and a good job identifying that. But, if a few years back shrink was 45 billion, and the number in 2021 is 95 billion it's logical to think something might be going on, even if you want to argue you can't point to it being organized shoplifting. (note, I thought you meant organized shoplifting automatically indicated it was BLM/Antifa backed, not the definition used (and explained) in the article.) So, a few quick google searches and the 2022 number is 112 billion, so roughly 2.5 times more shrinkage than just a few years ago. I can understand there could be arguments like Covid and how that might have affected lost merchandise in warehouses, but that's still a huge increase. Add in that just in a few quick google searches, you can find survey's from both small and large businesses saying 78% said organized retail crime was their main priority or 88% of shoplifters (doesn't designate organized or not) are more aggressive and violent than in the past. Maybe the issues isn't as bad as one side is making it, but the rapidly increasing shrink numbers, combined with what retailers are saying, seem to offer some credence that it is an issue.

I feel like I follow a lot of news, from a lot of sources, and I don't remember right wing leaning news reports on Target's or Walgreen's closing down or putting many of their products behind locked cases due to organized retail shoplifting, but just shoplifting in general. As far as the BLM/Antifa talk, I do remember right wing media putting some of the blame on them, but again, I don't remember it in an 'organized' aspect, but similar to a Trump is the reason why white cops feel more confident in beating people of color arguments you saw coming from the left. In looking at the article by WNYC (shout out to RadioLab), they try to dilute the overall issue by focusing on the one retraction. The overall number of 95 billion per year in shoplifted items remains and the lobbying group still believes their estimate of 45 billion of that is organized is correct, but admits that they do not have sufficient evidence to correctly assert that number so they retracted it.

I believe I remember reading that Israel had a list of 5 or so top leaders, along with a percentage of mid level leaders and felt capturing or killing them would kill Hamas. Even if true though, what if they get a couple of top leaders and before they can reach all 5 or that percentage and some new leaders get too popular, do you just add them to the list and just have the goalposts keep moving?

I know someone with a sweet John Wall assist NFT, but there is no way he's letting that go for anything under 2.50...maybe 3 bucks.

I went back and relistened to it. He says it was an in person meeting with Lon Johnson, former chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party. He also said another person was at the meeting, but he prefers not to name them. This is the first time I've heard of Nassar. Karen Dumas said he's a stand up guy and I give that some weight. But he's also running as a democrat, so lying comes naturally and he's probably not used to anyone questioning it. 😉 In the interview, he clearly indicates he was offended by the alleged offer, so if he's telling the truth about it, my guess is the other person has current Democratic ties to the party and he doesn't want to ruffle any feathers further as he needs their support, or at least an avoidance of hinderance, for his Senate run. Who knows though, it'll get interesting for sure.

Nassar Beydoun is running for the US Senate seat, he was on Charlie LeDuff's podcast last week and was told by the DNC they'd give him 20 million (10 soft money, 10 hard) if he primaried Rashida instead of going for the Senate seat. DNC wants her out bad, they just didn't realize he's a supporter of hers.

It was a great interview. He was also on Breaking Points the other day and while still talking about the same subject, they touched on some different questions.

I see wasted years and was thinking of this. youtube.com/watch?v=5XvXUD1b81k

Sad that one of Ukraine's hero's has turned into a Russia propagandist. https://nypost.com/2023/12/05/news/ukraines-zelensky-is-turning-into-an-autocrat-claims-kyiv-mayor/

I learned about 'soaking' today, which my guess was one Mormon teenager that convinced his naive girlfriend this was a thing or possibly just joked about it. The thread is pretty funny, yet you have a ton of "Miguy" type people that clearly think most Mormon teenagers do this and go to far with it. As the thread gets going, you tend to realize the joke is on the anti-religion folks that actually fall for this stuff, not on the story itself.

ok, so you're looking at an extremely high level. G2 was talking more about the chemistry of the brain. Psychologists would know less about that than Psychiatrist and even psychiatrist tend to know more about how different medicines can assist in dealing with mental illness, they would be considered experts in how certain drugs assist in dealing with mental illness, but even they are not in the labs producing the medicines in the first place as that's not their expertise. As for what G2 was talking about, how humans are able to hold and interpret thoughts and how our brain deals with them, psychologists might be good at helping a person understand those thoughts, but they aren't delving into how the chemical reactions inside the brain are related, if at all, to how a person deals with things.