The Biden's Israel bashing thread
Kamala Harris: Tits, Teeth but No Policies
Meanwhile, as Donald Trump begins to sneak ahead in several polls, Kamala Harris continues to run the worst presidential election campaign in living memory. From running attack ads in Pensylvania on the Green candidate Jill Stein to embracing crypto-currency, the Democrat candidate appears to be trying everything, in the vague hope that something works. Sadly for Harris and the Democrats, the strategy, as the Pensyvania polls suggest, appears to be failing,
Rather than this current pick 'n' mix approach, if the useless woman had adopted a coherent approach to the issues concerning US voters, she'd undoubtedly now be streets ahead of Donald Trump's Republicans. For example, first and foremost, she could have pledged to end the supply of US arms to Netanyahu. Considering the atrocities committed in Gaza every day by the Israelis, it would not have been difficult for her to change the Democrats' currently disgraceful position on this matter. Admittedly, this would have greatly irritated AIPAC and the rest of the powerful US Israel lobby groups, but the support she'd have gained from the voters who are appalled at the ongoing genocide in Israel would undoubtedly have been of electoral benefit to her.
She could then have combined this with domestic reform. The US currently spends a vast amount of money on military affairs. The pointless failed proxy war, alone, it's fighting with Russia is costing billions of dollars, as Trump rightfully points out. Add to this the billions it spends on numerous military bases around the world and the total is even more considerable. At the same time, however, US diabetic citizens die because they can't afford their insulin. In the employment sector, wages for the lower-paid jobs are so poor that people sometimes have to have two or even three jobs to make ends meet. If Harris had pledged to divert money from the US military operations – for instance by ending the pointless war in the Ukraine by diplomatic means – to dealing with these domestic problems by the provision of Medicare For All, and the Green New Deal – remember those, darling? – the greater portion of the US electorate would have cheered her all the way to the White House.
The way for the Democrats to beat the right-wing is to give the electorate an alternative to it. The policies, if we can call them policies, of Kamala Harris do not provide that alternative. Now, sadly for the embattled residents of Gaza, the Ukraine, and the less well-off citizens of the US, it's too late for her to change – and Donald Trump is smiling.
https://jacobin.com/2024/10/kamala-harris-election-campaign-strategy?mc_cid=6f7687f38b
🇺🇸
[Blocking a person and then quoting their post doesn't become you, either, Ahavati. You should be ashamed of yourself.)
With all the tit for that, going on, I would recommend to have a look at the Brunson Case. This is a lawsuit brought against the United States government on the premise that everyone who voted against looking into/investigating the claim that the 2020 election was stolen, violated their oath of office .
This is not saying that the election was indeed stolen, or wasn't stolen, but that the accusation was not investigated or resolved.
This is a 45 minute video where one of the people who brought on the lawsuit , explains the why and premise behind it, how the act of voting to not investigate is a violation of oath of office and a violation of civil rights, and as such, grounds for removal from office of every government official who voted to ignore the claim and certified the 2020 election. This then would translate to an act of treason
https://rumble.com/v5jy0wt-its-go-time-the-scotus-brunson-case-loy-brunson.html
This link is for the supreme Court's dockets of the case:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/searchcase.aspx?case=22-380&searchterm=brunson
This is not saying that the election was indeed stolen, or wasn't stolen, but that the accusation was not investigated or resolved.
This is a 45 minute video where one of the people who brought on the lawsuit , explains the why and premise behind it, how the act of voting to not investigate is a violation of oath of office and a violation of civil rights, and as such, grounds for removal from office of every government official who voted to ignore the claim and certified the 2020 election. This then would translate to an act of treason
https://rumble.com/v5jy0wt-its-go-time-the-scotus-brunson-case-loy-brunson.html
This link is for the supreme Court's dockets of the case:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/searchcase.aspx?case=22-380&searchterm=brunson
MadameLavender said:With all the tit for that, going on, I would recommend to have a look at the Brunson Case. This is a lawsuit brought against the United States government on the premise that everyone who voted against looking into/investigating the claim that the 2020 election was stolen, violated their oath of office .
This is not saying that the election was indeed stolen, or wasn't stolen, but that the accusation was not investigated or resolved.
This is a 45 minute video where one of the people who brought on the lawsuit , explains the why and premise behind it, how the act of voting to not investigate is a violation of oath of office and a violation of civil rights, and as such, grounds for removal from office of every government official who voted to ignore the claim and certified the 2020 election. This then would translate to an act of treason
https://rumble.com/v5jy0wt-its-go-time-the-scotus-brunson-case-loy-brunson.html
This link is for the supreme Court's dockets of the case:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/searchcase.aspx?case=22-380&searchterm=brunson
I already did that in an adjacent political forum:
For anyone who wishes to review, it's only two brief articles. I'll just quote from that response rather than re-invent the wheel, so to speak.
May 28, 2024
Petition DENIED
(The three defendant's recused themselves in the decision. The remaining six voted. Raland did not get the four votes that was needed.)
Okay, skipping to the bottom line - the three defendants ( Liberal SCOTUS judges - reason below) recused themselves of voting on the Brunson Bro suit, leaving only the conservative members of SCOTUS left to vote.
In the Order denying "Cert." (refusing to hear the appeal) reference is made to 28 U. S. C. §455(b)(5)(i), which requires Justices to recuse themselves if their "impartiality might reasonable be questions", and Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, Canon 3B(2)(d)(i), specifically stating the Canon requires this when a Justice is a "party to the proceeding". As named Defendants in the case, the Justices were simply complying with the Law, and Ethical Standards.
Can't blame the liberals for this outcome, as no liberal justices voted. Therefore, the denial came from the conservative judges. Most likely because they found no merit in the case to begin with, despite giving it every advantage, i.e. - their clerks contacting Brunson requesting as much info as possible.
In essence, the case was considered meritless, a grasping at straws. Could you imagine if EVERY PERSON who BELIEVED something to be true sued congress because they didn't believe it to be true? From election day November 2020 - to the January 2021 certification - countless investigations were done in regard to meritless claims that the election was stolen.
Don't you think the conservative SCOTUS would've JUMPED ALL OVER this if there had been merit to the suits? Of course they would've.
MAGA are the only group who refuses to believe the election wasn't stolen. Upstanding republicans have admitted it wasn't.
I don't know why everyone is so upset. Harris only has a 50% chance of winning the electoral college regardless of whether or not she buries Trump under millions of popular votes. We've all learned the hard way that the popular votes don't determine the election, the Electoral College does. And MAGA loyalists have been working hard on that aspect, which is why Trump isn't worried about votes in general.
Speaking in Detroit in June, Trump said of his campaign, “We don’t need [the] votes,” and “We got more votes than anybody’s ever had.” Instead, he argued that the campaign needed to “guard the vote” in anticipation of a “steal.”**
Wonder what he meant by that?
**https://newrepublic.com/post/185672/donald-trump-need-votes-weird
This is not saying that the election was indeed stolen, or wasn't stolen, but that the accusation was not investigated or resolved.
This is a 45 minute video where one of the people who brought on the lawsuit , explains the why and premise behind it, how the act of voting to not investigate is a violation of oath of office and a violation of civil rights, and as such, grounds for removal from office of every government official who voted to ignore the claim and certified the 2020 election. This then would translate to an act of treason
https://rumble.com/v5jy0wt-its-go-time-the-scotus-brunson-case-loy-brunson.html
This link is for the supreme Court's dockets of the case:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/searchcase.aspx?case=22-380&searchterm=brunson
I already did that in an adjacent political forum:
For anyone who wishes to review, it's only two brief articles. I'll just quote from that response rather than re-invent the wheel, so to speak.
May 28, 2024
Petition DENIED
(The three defendant's recused themselves in the decision. The remaining six voted. Raland did not get the four votes that was needed.)
Okay, skipping to the bottom line - the three defendants ( Liberal SCOTUS judges - reason below) recused themselves of voting on the Brunson Bro suit, leaving only the conservative members of SCOTUS left to vote.
In the Order denying "Cert." (refusing to hear the appeal) reference is made to 28 U. S. C. §455(b)(5)(i), which requires Justices to recuse themselves if their "impartiality might reasonable be questions", and Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, Canon 3B(2)(d)(i), specifically stating the Canon requires this when a Justice is a "party to the proceeding". As named Defendants in the case, the Justices were simply complying with the Law, and Ethical Standards.
Can't blame the liberals for this outcome, as no liberal justices voted. Therefore, the denial came from the conservative judges. Most likely because they found no merit in the case to begin with, despite giving it every advantage, i.e. - their clerks contacting Brunson requesting as much info as possible.
In essence, the case was considered meritless, a grasping at straws. Could you imagine if EVERY PERSON who BELIEVED something to be true sued congress because they didn't believe it to be true? From election day November 2020 - to the January 2021 certification - countless investigations were done in regard to meritless claims that the election was stolen.
Don't you think the conservative SCOTUS would've JUMPED ALL OVER this if there had been merit to the suits? Of course they would've.
MAGA are the only group who refuses to believe the election wasn't stolen. Upstanding republicans have admitted it wasn't.
I don't know why everyone is so upset. Harris only has a 50% chance of winning the electoral college regardless of whether or not she buries Trump under millions of popular votes. We've all learned the hard way that the popular votes don't determine the election, the Electoral College does. And MAGA loyalists have been working hard on that aspect, which is why Trump isn't worried about votes in general.
Speaking in Detroit in June, Trump said of his campaign, “We don’t need [the] votes,” and “We got more votes than anybody’s ever had.” Instead, he argued that the campaign needed to “guard the vote” in anticipation of a “steal.”**
Wonder what he meant by that?
**https://newrepublic.com/post/185672/donald-trump-need-votes-weird
I wonder how many Palestinian deaths DEPRADATION DON has already caused...
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/10/us-israel-trump-phone-call-netanyahu-gaza-cease-fire-2024-election.html
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/10/us-israel-trump-phone-call-netanyahu-gaza-cease-fire-2024-election.html
Anyone can say the election was or wasn't stolen regardless of being Democrat or Republican. The premise of the Brunson case was not whether or not the election was stolen -- it was that both Democrats and Republicans failed to do the duty of their office by not investigating the accusations that it was stolen by voting to certify the election without "making sure" .
Here's another link that may add more insight
https://ralandbrunson.com/
To make an analogy, it's like going through the drive up at Starbucks -- you get your latte and think it smells a little different than what you ordered, then you ask the clerk to check their machine to make sure it dispensed the right things in the right amounts and they say "Nope, your order was fine" instead of checking the settings on the coffee maker
Translate that to someone saying , hey I think our election smells a little different and might have something wrong with it, can you double check the voting machines ? And the government says "Nope, your election was fine" instead of checking the settings on the voting machines and any other components of the election.
Would you get miffed if your coffee was screwed up and the pretentious clerk gave you lip and refused to at least check on it? Would you want to talk to their supervisor?
Then why isn't making sure an election was done right , not as important as making sure your latte cappuccino was made correctly?
Here's another link that may add more insight
https://ralandbrunson.com/
To make an analogy, it's like going through the drive up at Starbucks -- you get your latte and think it smells a little different than what you ordered, then you ask the clerk to check their machine to make sure it dispensed the right things in the right amounts and they say "Nope, your order was fine" instead of checking the settings on the coffee maker
Translate that to someone saying , hey I think our election smells a little different and might have something wrong with it, can you double check the voting machines ? And the government says "Nope, your election was fine" instead of checking the settings on the voting machines and any other components of the election.
Would you get miffed if your coffee was screwed up and the pretentious clerk gave you lip and refused to at least check on it? Would you want to talk to their supervisor?
Then why isn't making sure an election was done right , not as important as making sure your latte cappuccino was made correctly?
Meanwhile, as Kamala Harris dances with Bruce and continues to provide 'Ironclad' support to Netanyahu's butchers, those same butchers storm Gaza's Kamal Adwan hospital and kick out the patients. You couldn't make it up. Jeez!
PATIENTS, STAFF TRAPPED IN GAZA'S KAMAL ADWAN HOSPITAL ADMID ISRAELI SIEGE
More than 150 patients and staff are trapped at the Kamal Adwan Hospital in Beit Lahiya as the Israeli military besieges the medical facility, the Palestinian Civil Defence in Gaza has told Al Jazeera.
Israeli forces raided the hospital in northern Gaza on Friday and ordered patients to move down to the main courtyard, the Wafa news agency reported, as they conducted mass arrests.
The raid came a day after Israeli tanks shelled the compound of the hospital, one of the few remaining functioning medical facilities in the north of the enclave, as the Israeli siege entered its third week.
According to the hospital’s director, Hussam Abu Safia, the intensive care unit suffered severe damage from the tank attack. He warned that the hospital could become a mass grave as one patient was dying every hour as a result of the Israeli military assault.
World Health Organization (WHO) chief Tedros Ghebreyesus said “we have lost touch with the personnel” at the hospital and called the raid “deeply disturbing”.
He wrote in a post on social media platform X, that the hospital “has been overflowing with close to 200 patients – a constant stream of horrific trauma cases. It is also full of hundreds of people seeking shelter”.
Reporting from Deir el-Balah in central Gaza, Al Jazeera’s Hani Mahmoud said witnesses and doctors at the scene said fires had broken out, making it difficult for people to evacuate the building and for ambulances to operate.
Palestinians injured in Israel’s bombardment of the Beit Lahiya Project residential building await treatment at the Kamal Adwan Hospital on October 23, 2024 [AFP]
Wounded patients and those with other health complications were dragged outside the buildings into the courtyard of the hospital, Mahmoud reported.
“This is happening at a time when fuel was expected to reach the hospital to sustain the power generators,” Mahmoud said. “It’s hard to imagine that the hospital will be able to sustain its operations now as it comes under direct attack by the Israeli military.”
He said there was a heavy military presence in the area, with dozens of Israeli tanks surrounding the medical compound.
The Israeli military said troops were continuing ground operations across the Gaza Strip and claimed that they had dismantled infrastructure and tunnel shafts and killed fighters in the Jabalia area in the north.
It did not comment on the immediate situation regarding the hospitals and camps.
Hospitals under fire
A second medical facility in northern Gaza, the Indonesian Hospital in Beit Lahiya, was put out of service on Monday as Israeli soldiers stormed a school and detained the men there before setting the facility ablaze. The fire reached the hospital generators, causing a power outage.
Al Jazeera’s Mahmoud said the solar panels on the rooftop were also damaged, “leaving the Indonesian Hospital without any source of power”, including for lifelines such as incubators.
Those evacuated from the Indonesian Hospital were displaced to Kamal Adwan Hospital, a mid-size facility struggling to accommodate patients beyond capacity.
The United Nations said it had been unable to reach all three hospitals in northern Gaza – Kamal Adwan, Indonesian and al-Awda Hospital – despite demanding access to allow aid in.
The UN Human Rights Office said it was “increasingly concerned that the manner in which the Israeli military is conducting hostilities” in northern Gaza, also with the “unlawful interference with humanitarian assistance and orders that are leading to forced displacement”.
Al Jazeera and news agencies
25th October 2025
Source:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/25/patients-staff-trapped-in-gazas-kamal-adwan-hospital-amid-israeli-siege
🔥🌎🌏🌍🔥
🇺🇸🇮🇱🇺🇦🇬🇧
FUCK PARTY POLITICAL JOURNALISM
MadameLavender said:Anyone can say the election was or wasn't stolen regardless of being Democrat or Republican. The premise of the Brunson case was not whether or not the election was stolen -- it was that both Democrats and Republicans failed to do the duty of their office by not investigating the accusations that it was stolen by voting to certify the election without "making sure" .
Here's another link that may add more insight
https://ralandbrunson.com/
To make an analogy, it's like going through the drive up at Starbucks -- you get your latte and think it smells a little different than what you ordered, then you ask the clerk to check their machine to make sure it dispensed the right things in the right amounts and they say "Nope, your order was fine" instead of checking the settings on the coffee maker
Translate that to someone saying , hey I think our election smells a little different and might have something wrong with it, can you double check the voting machines ? And the government says "Nope, your election was fine" instead of checking the settings on the voting machines and any other components of the election.
Would you get miffed if your coffee was screwed up and the pretentious clerk gave you lip and refused to at least check on it? Would you want to talk to their supervisor?
Then why isn't making sure an election was done right , not as important as making sure your latte cappuccino was made correctly?
I actually reviewed that page previously. I can't remember if you linked it in the adjacent political thread or I extended my own research, but I've definitely reviewed it.
It's only MAGA who are perpetuating the "Big Lie" that the election was stolen despite your point that anyone can regardless of political affiliation. My point was aimed at the bottom line: It was the conservative judges on SCOTUS who eventually declined to hear the case, after it made its way through the court system on appeals based on more denials.
To expand upon your analogy - What if the coffee machine was checked and no evidence was found that anything was wrong with it? Wouldn't it be possible that it was OUR taste buds that were "off" that day and not the machines?
Those who "seek" an issue will often find one.
Here's another link that may add more insight
https://ralandbrunson.com/
To make an analogy, it's like going through the drive up at Starbucks -- you get your latte and think it smells a little different than what you ordered, then you ask the clerk to check their machine to make sure it dispensed the right things in the right amounts and they say "Nope, your order was fine" instead of checking the settings on the coffee maker
Translate that to someone saying , hey I think our election smells a little different and might have something wrong with it, can you double check the voting machines ? And the government says "Nope, your election was fine" instead of checking the settings on the voting machines and any other components of the election.
Would you get miffed if your coffee was screwed up and the pretentious clerk gave you lip and refused to at least check on it? Would you want to talk to their supervisor?
Then why isn't making sure an election was done right , not as important as making sure your latte cappuccino was made correctly?
I actually reviewed that page previously. I can't remember if you linked it in the adjacent political thread or I extended my own research, but I've definitely reviewed it.
It's only MAGA who are perpetuating the "Big Lie" that the election was stolen despite your point that anyone can regardless of political affiliation. My point was aimed at the bottom line: It was the conservative judges on SCOTUS who eventually declined to hear the case, after it made its way through the court system on appeals based on more denials.
To expand upon your analogy - What if the coffee machine was checked and no evidence was found that anything was wrong with it? Wouldn't it be possible that it was OUR taste buds that were "off" that day and not the machines?
Those who "seek" an issue will often find one.
Ahavati said:
I actually reviewed that page previously. I can't remember if you linked it in the adjacent political thread or I extended my own research, but I've definitely reviewed it.
It's only MAGA who are perpetuating the "Big Lie" that the election was stolen despite your point that anyone can regardless of political affiliation. My point was aimed at the bottom line: It was the conservative judges on SCOTUS who eventually declined to hear the case, after it made its way through the court system on appeals based on more denials.
To expand upon your analogy - What if the coffee machine was checked and no evidence was found that anything was wrong with it? Wouldn't it be possible that it was OUR taste buds that were "off" that day and not the machines?
Those who "seek" an issue will often find one.
I thought the analogy was off as well, as I think anyone with a customer service background will agree that the customer is most certainly NOT always right just because they paid for something, which by the way, is the ACTUAL motivator for American entitlement mentality and not the "welfare queen" as commonly depicted in right-wing parlance.
I actually reviewed that page previously. I can't remember if you linked it in the adjacent political thread or I extended my own research, but I've definitely reviewed it.
It's only MAGA who are perpetuating the "Big Lie" that the election was stolen despite your point that anyone can regardless of political affiliation. My point was aimed at the bottom line: It was the conservative judges on SCOTUS who eventually declined to hear the case, after it made its way through the court system on appeals based on more denials.
To expand upon your analogy - What if the coffee machine was checked and no evidence was found that anything was wrong with it? Wouldn't it be possible that it was OUR taste buds that were "off" that day and not the machines?
Those who "seek" an issue will often find one.
I thought the analogy was off as well, as I think anyone with a customer service background will agree that the customer is most certainly NOT always right just because they paid for something, which by the way, is the ACTUAL motivator for American entitlement mentality and not the "welfare queen" as commonly depicted in right-wing parlance.
FUCK PARTY POLITICAL JOURNALISM
[/quote]
Here's the latest on how much Trump cares about Palestine...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-endorses-netanyahus-actions-after-israels-deadliest-attack-bibi-calls-me-almost-everyday/vi-AA1sY1UM?ocid=socialshare
https://www.newarab.com/news/trump-boasts-near-daily-conversations-israels-netanyahu
[/quote]
Here's the latest on how much Trump cares about Palestine...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-endorses-netanyahus-actions-after-israels-deadliest-attack-bibi-calls-me-almost-everyday/vi-AA1sY1UM?ocid=socialshare
https://www.newarab.com/news/trump-boasts-near-daily-conversations-israels-netanyahu
Ahavati said:
To expand upon your analogy - What if the coffee machine was checked and no evidence was found that anything was wrong with it? Wouldn't it be possible that it was OUR taste buds that were "off" that day and not the machines?
Those who "seek" an issue will often find one.
If the coffee machine was checked and found to be in proper working condition, then yes, it would need to be addressed that the issue might be with the customer's perception.
If the election had been checked and found to be done properly, then yes, it would be something with the constituents that probably had the issue
The election was not investigated. Those representing us, the constituents, voted not to and certified it. People asked them to look into it and they didn't. The elected people in our government are supposed to work for us, not the other way around. We are their employer and they didn't do the job we tasked them with
How would that look in any other work place? Doing your job wrong, gets you corrective actioned by your boss, and depending on the nature and severity of what was done wrong, it might end up in termination.
To expand upon your analogy - What if the coffee machine was checked and no evidence was found that anything was wrong with it? Wouldn't it be possible that it was OUR taste buds that were "off" that day and not the machines?
Those who "seek" an issue will often find one.
If the coffee machine was checked and found to be in proper working condition, then yes, it would need to be addressed that the issue might be with the customer's perception.
If the election had been checked and found to be done properly, then yes, it would be something with the constituents that probably had the issue
The election was not investigated. Those representing us, the constituents, voted not to and certified it. People asked them to look into it and they didn't. The elected people in our government are supposed to work for us, not the other way around. We are their employer and they didn't do the job we tasked them with
How would that look in any other work place? Doing your job wrong, gets you corrective actioned by your boss, and depending on the nature and severity of what was done wrong, it might end up in termination.
MidnightSonneteer said:I wonder how many Palestinian deaths DEPRADATION DON has already caused...
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/10/us-israel-trump-phone-call-netanyahu-gaza-cease-fire-2024-election.html
War Stories: Why Trump’s Phone Call With Netanyahu Is So Alarming
Donald Trump told a crowd of supporters that he spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday, mainly about the Middle East wars. According to Trump, the Israeli leader said he disregarded President Joe Biden’s warning to keep troops out of Rafah in southern Gaza, a decision that resulted in the killing of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar in a shootout in the area. Trump also said Netanyahu asked him for advice on how to respond to Iran’s missile attack on Israel—to which Trump said he responded, “Do what you have to do.”
This is an extraordinary tale. If it’s accurate (and Israeli officials have since confirmed Trump made the call), the former-and-possibly-future American president admitted that he committed not only an act of diplomatic recklessness but also, quite possibly, a federal crime.
. . .
Unbelievable, and yet. . .Trump has ZERO respect for the laws or our country or the democracy it stands on.
MidnightSonneteer said:FUCK PARTY POLITICAL JOURNALISM
Here's the latest on how much Trump cares about Palestine...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-endorses-netanyahus-actions-after-israels-deadliest-attack-bibi-calls-me-almost-everyday/vi-AA1sY1UM?ocid=socialshare
https://www.newarab.com/news/trump-boasts-near-daily-conversations-israels-netanyahu[/quote]
Unbelievable, and yet. . .
The attacks on Harris are purely patriarchal in defense of a masculine system. To attack a powerless woman ( as far as the presidency goes ) is not a sign of intelligence but fear and weakness.
Here's the latest on how much Trump cares about Palestine...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-endorses-netanyahus-actions-after-israels-deadliest-attack-bibi-calls-me-almost-everyday/vi-AA1sY1UM?ocid=socialshare
https://www.newarab.com/news/trump-boasts-near-daily-conversations-israels-netanyahu[/quote]
Unbelievable, and yet. . .
The attacks on Harris are purely patriarchal in defense of a masculine system. To attack a powerless woman ( as far as the presidency goes ) is not a sign of intelligence but fear and weakness.
No doubt "fuck America" is crude, and somewhat offensive. and possibly sheeple too. It is, however on some level warranted. I've said on many occasion my opinion of administration isn't a judgment of the people
Sheeple
I think, and I could be wrong, but I think social media is so weaponized at this stage stirring a crowd up is childs-play. It is not simply American. It is a world wide phenomenon, but there have been waves of discontent: #MeToo, BlackLives matter, the storming of government buildings etc
at this stage the focus is on Palestine. when the election is over not many people are going to care. if I'm wrong come February I'm happy to be called out
anyhow, I had a grand vision everyone would unite for a couple of pages and beat me down.
"Enlighten yourself" seems appropriate to me.I don't generally talk about it but again I'm happy to have a grown up conversation about it. It is probably one of the more interesting stories of the North Atlantic.
I would recommend start here. Great author, the book is
https://www.worldofbooks.com/en-ie/products/lion-of-ireland-book-morgan-llywelyn-9780749302047
One of the first books I read as a young adult was Midaway. serious book, made a deep impression
https://www.easons.com/midway-mark-stille-9781472862068
Sheeple
I think, and I could be wrong, but I think social media is so weaponized at this stage stirring a crowd up is childs-play. It is not simply American. It is a world wide phenomenon, but there have been waves of discontent: #MeToo, BlackLives matter, the storming of government buildings etc
at this stage the focus is on Palestine. when the election is over not many people are going to care. if I'm wrong come February I'm happy to be called out
anyhow, I had a grand vision everyone would unite for a couple of pages and beat me down.
"Enlighten yourself" seems appropriate to me.I don't generally talk about it but again I'm happy to have a grown up conversation about it. It is probably one of the more interesting stories of the North Atlantic.
I would recommend start here. Great author, the book is
https://www.worldofbooks.com/en-ie/products/lion-of-ireland-book-morgan-llywelyn-9780749302047
One of the first books I read as a young adult was Midaway. serious book, made a deep impression
https://www.easons.com/midway-mark-stille-9781472862068
MadameLavender said:
If the coffee machine was checked and found to be in proper working condition, then yes, it would need to be addressed that the issue might be with the customer's perception.
If the election had been checked and found to be done properly, then yes, it would be something with the constituents that probably had the issue
The election was not investigated. Those representing us, the constituents, voted not to and certified it. People asked them to look into it and they didn't. The elected people in our government are supposed to work for us, not the other way around. We are their employer and they didn't do the job we tasked them with
How would that look in any other work place? Doing your job wrong, gets you corrective actioned by your boss, and depending on the nature and severity of what was done wrong, it might end up in termination.
Oops, we practically posted at the same time and I totally missed this before.
Look, four years later and the "Big Lie" is still circulating. Trump’s OWN former attorney general, William Barr, found no evidence of widespread election fraud. Trump’s allegations of massive voting fraud also have been dismissed by a succession of judges and refuted by state election officials and an arm of his own administration’s Homeland Security Department.
No case has established irregularities of a scale that would have changed the outcome. Pence had no path for avoiding his pro forma certification of Biden as the next president and Kamala Harris as vice president.
Nor did state legislatures have recourse in changing the election result. The Constitution gives state legislatures a role in the process of selecting a president by determining the “manner” in which presidential electors are appointed to the Electoral College. States did that, by passing laws specifying how electors would be chosen and then by certifying their election results in early December.
The only roll congress was required was to count the valid electoral college votes submitted by the state. Which it did.
What the Brunson brothers attempted was outside of the scope of law, and not much different from what Trump expected Pence to do - invalid the votes and send them back to the states - which legally he could not legally do.
If there had been ANY validation to their claims within the legal scope of the law, SCOTUS would've taken it up. Instead, the liberal judges abstained, and the majority of conservative judges declined to hear the case based on lack of merit.
I don't know what's so difficult to understand about that. It's the law. Per the Constitution, the federal government doesn't have the power to overturn election results certified by the states.
If the coffee machine was checked and found to be in proper working condition, then yes, it would need to be addressed that the issue might be with the customer's perception.
If the election had been checked and found to be done properly, then yes, it would be something with the constituents that probably had the issue
The election was not investigated. Those representing us, the constituents, voted not to and certified it. People asked them to look into it and they didn't. The elected people in our government are supposed to work for us, not the other way around. We are their employer and they didn't do the job we tasked them with
How would that look in any other work place? Doing your job wrong, gets you corrective actioned by your boss, and depending on the nature and severity of what was done wrong, it might end up in termination.
Oops, we practically posted at the same time and I totally missed this before.
Look, four years later and the "Big Lie" is still circulating. Trump’s OWN former attorney general, William Barr, found no evidence of widespread election fraud. Trump’s allegations of massive voting fraud also have been dismissed by a succession of judges and refuted by state election officials and an arm of his own administration’s Homeland Security Department.
No case has established irregularities of a scale that would have changed the outcome. Pence had no path for avoiding his pro forma certification of Biden as the next president and Kamala Harris as vice president.
Nor did state legislatures have recourse in changing the election result. The Constitution gives state legislatures a role in the process of selecting a president by determining the “manner” in which presidential electors are appointed to the Electoral College. States did that, by passing laws specifying how electors would be chosen and then by certifying their election results in early December.
The only roll congress was required was to count the valid electoral college votes submitted by the state. Which it did.
What the Brunson brothers attempted was outside of the scope of law, and not much different from what Trump expected Pence to do - invalid the votes and send them back to the states - which legally he could not legally do.
If there had been ANY validation to their claims within the legal scope of the law, SCOTUS would've taken it up. Instead, the liberal judges abstained, and the majority of conservative judges declined to hear the case based on lack of merit.
I don't know what's so difficult to understand about that. It's the law. Per the Constitution, the federal government doesn't have the power to overturn election results certified by the states.
