ewsieg

https://elkodaily.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/elko-county-health-board-wont-ban-vaccines/article_aeb0a9d6-97a3-11ed-88e5-ef87ca77d410.html So what is likely a very red area, voted unanimously against a request by a single member of the community to ban several vaccines, not just Covid, because of the chemicals in the vaccine. The crazies talking about chips in the vaccine = right wing weirdos, but the crazies that bring up chemicals, that space has been owned by left wing wackos for decades. But hey, don't mean to break up the narrative each of you feed off of each other with to further differentiate yourself from all those 'crazies' on the right.

I kind of feel Biden is turning up the pressure for negotiations. Instead of “how about you go home and stop embarrassing yourself”. It’s that plus, we might take Crimea too, how ‘bout that?

I thought if a democratic country wants to defend itself, we have no choice but to help them.

True, but also note they didn't say weapons would be exhausted, they said supply chains. As you know already, i'm an idiot, but I hope those guys have more of a pulse on what is needed. Two years ago if I said there would be a chip shortage, would you have assumed it would be tougher to get a laptop or a car? Maybe it's nothing but what you're saying it is, but the comments from the Fleet commander made some news and forced a response from the Navy Secretary whom I'm sure had some comments from the White House to help force a response. Still it wasn't a complete walkback.

I'm not going to lie, I'm not an expert on these things. I'm just going off of a statement made by the Fleet commander and like I said, somewhat walked back, but somewhat agreed to, by the Navy Secretary. But again, I am no expert, so it's 1984 and Gehringer vs the Navy Fleet Commander and the Navy Secretary. I do know math though, and 2 = 2, so I guess we have to call it a draw. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/navy-secretary-says-that-us-navy-may-need-to-choose-between-arming-itself-or-ukraine/ar-AA16eUtl

I'm absolutely rooting for Ukraine and personally I want to support them, but at the same time, I want to make sure I can support other allies like Taiwan. There is an argument that a decisive victory in Ukraine supported by the US will deter China, but there absolutely are military concerns about our actual ability to assist in defending Taiwan should it be required and this Ukraine war has an affect on that. So blindly rah rah'ing into escalated battle with Ukraine has all the right 'feelz', it doesn't necessarily mean it's the right thing to do. As a side note, I still love the narrative by the left that scoffs at GOP'ers that point to Obama being president as proof America is not racist, but than points out Zelensky is jewish, so obviously Ukraine doesn't have a Nazi issue. We have the same several hundred racist POS that march in various cities and that's proof we have a white nationalist issue, meanwhile Ukraine has political parties with leaders that publicly claim all jews should be exterminated from Ukraine or other parliament members that don't deny the holocaust, but refer to it as a 'bright period'. Granted while I doubt we'll get a consensus that Ukraine has these types of issues, i'm sure we can agree that republicans are losing sight of the whole picture and focusing on some small potatoes. That said, if we can agree on that, what does that mean democrats are doing when they do it here?

Chuck, was your first response to me a bit of sarcasm that I just didn't catch?

If there are any elected politicians choosing the Russian narrative, than yes, that's shameful. Most that are against sending weapons are doing it on two fronts, mostly 1) it's not our war and 2) our own national security. I think there are legitimate reasons why you can argue they are wrong, but turning it into 'choosing the russian narrative' I think does damage against legitimate debate. The Navy fleet commander recently came out and said soon we will be making the determination whether we chose to arm ourselves or arm Ukraine. The Navy Secretary tried to walk it back a bit, but essentially just put the blame on defense contractors for not producing arms quick enough. Hopefully that gives some context to the extent we have supported this war already. In a perfect world, we could march in and overthrow Putin tomorrow, and continue that march to Beijing. No resistance and help install two future great democracies. In the real world, going all in on Ukraine might mean we sacrifice Taiwan.

Yes, I saw McCarthy struggle to win the speakership and it was the Trumpiest folks in the party that made it so difficult on him. I'm not claiming Trump is not the leader, I'm just saying I no longer feel he's entrenched as he once was. You want to change a party direction, have them lose. Trump backed candidates in federal elections lost....you can argue "bigly" when you take into account history shows mid terms favor the party not in power. https://www.politico.com/2022-election/results/trump-candidates-endorsements-11-8-22/ That's before Warnock won as well. IMO, the party leaders are done with him. McCarthy just needed all the help he could get, but privately I'm sure he's done with him. Add to that, the crazies, they are out Trumping Trump right now too. He basically has MTG as his lone strong ally in the party.

Mostly true, but I meant at least maybe recommending action to congress or at least stating action may go forward after he's out of office. To point, it's just an OLC memo as well, it has never been challenged. Nothing prevents Garland from indicting, although that doesn't mean it would hold up in SCOTUS.

Based on what I've read, it's an open and shut case for Garland. I think the only reason for pause has been the politics around it. This only makes it worse which is my only point. As for the voters, I think we saw a potential glimpse into the future of GOP without Trump as it's leader. The crazy is still there unfortunately, but Trump created a monster that is bigger than he is now.

Politically this could result in the DOJ not charging Trump. Obviously those decisions should be not related, but it would be politically tough to charge Trump and not Biden, even if the evidence points to only Trump legally at fault. That said, would that be a heavy price for dems/Biden? That might help Trump fend off other GOP'ers that are looking to win the primary. I don't think anyone is happy with the thought of Biden/Trump again, but I still like Biden's odds. I like how Dems own up to things....after the midterms of course.

https://apnews.com/article/biden-united-states-government-district-of-columbia-0574fd762159e8cb5f31c85205df3dc0 Another Atta Boy! Is Biden doing this just for the added pats on the back?

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/12/1148685480/classified-documents-biden-doj-archives-delaware Atta Boy!

When I do listen to Rogan, which isn't all that much, I tend to like the shows. Granted I'm cherry picking the shows I want to listen to so that might be a big part of it. I enjoy the long form interview style and Rogan is good at asking questions, but letting his guests lead the direction. I certainly don't agree with everything he has said, but I guess I don't understand the complete disdain for the guy, especially from more liberal folks who have similar politics as him.

Isn't it incentivizing the act of taking confidential materials, even if it's by accident, if you give him high fives for this? Can we meet in the middle? High five him for notifying the right people and then immediately yell at him for being so irresponsible. And back to Oblong's anecdote, the guy doing 70 over should be facing criminal ramifications on top of losing his license and major fines. The guy doing 10 over should get a slap on the wrist. I'm not saying they are on the same level.

The raid on Mar-a-Lago happened because they knew he was lying about not having docs still. Additionally, we now have evidence that he either purposely or at least with reckless abandon, took these documents to Mar-a-Lago, which is another crime. I would contend that most people in these positions, that make an error, do the right thing. I would contend that if we don't want to grade any president on a curve, this would be the expectation, not something we honor. And again, 5 years, confidential materials, sitting in a facility that i'm sure did not have the type of security one would expect for confidential materials. Doesn't sound like something to give high fives for.

I guess my point is if we allow our POTUS going forward to grade themselves against Trump, we're all fucked. Biden's team did the right thing after it was discovered. That's what I want to expect from any POTUS and I don't want to give them high fives for doing what you're legally supposed to do.

Fixed this for you I never said both sides were legal issues. But 5 years of confidential documents in a facility that wasn't designed to hold confidential materials and it's a bad look. So yes, did Biden's team do the right thing, absolutely. But let's not try and turn this into a 'win' for him.

I'm not saying you should react the same way. I don't like the petty cash anecdote because person B left cash that anyone could have taken for 5 years in a place where the owner obviously didn't realize they had anything valuable and was lucky it wasn't stolen. Cash vs confidential materials are a huge difference. Back to your speeding anecdote though. Imagine Mr 10 over tells everyone that listens just how stupid Mr. 70 over is, how there is no excuse to speed, ever. Don't you know just how dangerous speeding is, let alone at that reckless speed of that idiot he saw earlier in the day. Then he gets caught doing 10 over. In your scenario, is Person A justified in fighting the ticket and pointing out Person B was so much worse that it's not comparable? If anything, he should be celebrated for only doing 10 over, amirite?!?!

Not really sure what you're getting at here. There were a few days of rumors before the Justice Department spoke about the raid on Trump. If you wanted to believe Trump on what he told the public and take that as 100% fact, I guess have at it. But again, i'm not saying there are not vast differences in 1) intention and 2) cover up after the fact. My only point is if you were one of the people that said there was no excuse for any confidential materials to be in someone's custody that is no longer a government employee with the need to know and stored in a non-government facility, you could at least admit some wrong even if you point towards the vast differences on why this isn't the same level as Trump. I remember hearing folks questioning how many spies may have died because of this. Certainly how many spies were outed and how many intelligence programs were destroyed over Trump having confidential materials. Countless other reasons why Trump having these documents in a non secure room was so detrimental to our national security. But because Biden's team did the right thing by informing the appropriate contacts as soon as they found them bad guys that may have gotten access to them unbeknownst to anyone, they are just going to return them and not use the information because the right process was followed?

I guess I am both side'sing this in the fact that i'm pointing out both sides, just like in your scenario, should expect repercussions. But to your point, absolutely both sides should understand that the punishment should fit the 'crime' and would vary wildly. Note that I quoted 'crime' as well. I did that because as of right now, there is only evidence of a crime in regards to Trump (knowingly taking documents and lying about not having any more), whereas with Biden, there is no evidence of a crime just some irresponsibility. My only point is, if you're going to get on your high horse and proclaim how horrible it is what Trump did when at the time we didn't even know all the facts, you might not want to be careless yourself.

Absolutely correct. Almost like if you look at them as separate issues, you can say what Trump did was egregious and Biden's team was at least irresponsible (per his own words). I'm not trying to both sides stuff. But again, Biden himself said that having confidential documents in your own possession is at minimum, irresponsible, is it somehow not irresponsible now because Trump was worse? And it's not 100% that he was selling or planning on selling. In fact from what I've read, Trump is a packrat and wanted anything that he felt put him or one of his decisions in a good light in his possession because he felt he 'owned' them. It's why what he did is exponentially worse.

The details make this a much different story than what Trump did, but Dems invited some of this to themselves with their overhyped response to Trump. Before details came out which outlined why Trump's issue was egregious every Democrat stressed how there is no excuse for confidential documents being taken from the White House. Even Biden chimed with "How that could possibly happen, how anyone could be that irresponsible." If it truly is that irresponsible, doesn't Biden deserve some flack for this as well?

I feel like your comments on Aunt Becky are foreshadowing a means to dismiss any legitimate complaints that may arise from your question as 'everyone does that'. For one, you're right, unfortunately the grift in Washington and likely even worse in State and Local governments is real and too many people, regardless of party affiliation, do it. The Hunter/Burisma/Ukraine thing comes down to the fact that Burisma hired Hunter not because of any expertise he had, but just because of his name and the hopes it would keep some heat off of the Oligarch's company. Joe Biden led a US delegate, which was part of a global delegate, that wanted to remove a corrupt attorney general (equivalent) for Ukraine. In part because he was bribing some Ukrainian companies and letting them get away with corruption themselves. Even the Obama administration fought internally if it was a conflict of interest and if Joe should be involved. There is no evidence that Joe did anything illegal, nor Hunter, but I think even if you're a dem, you only need to take off your rose colored glasses to see the grift. I personally don't believe Joe Biden pushed to get rid of this AG because Hunter asked him too, but as I've said before, if I'm the new AG and I know Joe Biden, the VP of the most powerful country on the earth, at the request of his president, the most powerful man on this earth, pressured my country to fire the guy that held the job before me because he wasn't investigating companies diligently enough, when that Burisma file comes in front of me and I see Hunter Biden is on the board, I probably am going to be a little hesitant in putting a lot of effort into that specific business. The laptop issue I have is that so many media outlets went along with the dem/intel talking points instead of investigating it. Trump, rightly so, has had exhaustive investigations into any Chinese/Russian deals/accounts/investments. We know Joe Biden was at minimum pursuing Chinese business deals. The now legitimatized laptop proved that. I have seen no pressure on Biden as he ran, after the laptop story broke, after the laptop story was determined to be real, or even now speak to any foreign business deals he may have been in. Apparently when Trump was in question, that was a serious deal. Instead we had the intel department use unidentified sources to say the laptop was 'earmarks of Russian disinformation' and the dem party delegitimizing it by saying it was nothing but 'dick picks' Those aspects led to some social media suppressing it altogether.