If you're in or getting close to entering college right now, you should take a very critical look at the kind of schooling you'd receive and the quality of instruction you'd get for the cost. A number of colleges out there are only giving minor discounts for a sharply-reduced quality of instruction. Unless your program has very specific prestige or is well-organized to handle online curriculum, you should weigh all of the options on the table.
How "defiant" of them to break their leaders' rules this way. Surely there will be accountability, leadership changes, and procedural changes to mitigate this brazen seizure of authority instead of kickbacks and back-pats for perpetuating inequal justice under the law.
If this issue was properly debated and we had Congressmen that were worth a damn, it would have been resolved long ago with a compromise bill that would have had a LOT of public support and could have been applied federally with exceptions and fringe cases left to the individuals states.
Why hasn't this been done? Because they don't WANT it to be done. It is literally NOT IN THEIR INTEREST to solve the issues of the citizens anymore, but only to protect the interests of their special clubs. They'll spend a few days on it, then go back in hiding for a while.
And if you think they DON'T read their own budget bills, you might have to take a seat. Those bills are where they spend the most effort each year, sitting down with their buddies looking for every opportunity to add pork that returns back to their individual pockets. They will debate the surface items and their lofty goals, change a few lines here and there depending on what works best theatre-wise, but the pork still remains, and everyone playing gets the kickback when the time comes.
There are many cases like this right now where it is clear that leadership was running the entire show until it fails, and then they try to skate off to their next destination without any accountability.
Ken, it's time to start asking the right questions.
Where were the auditors? If they existed, did the auditors have any empowerment to protect against this situation, or were their hands tied by leadership / policy? What procedures were in place to protect the organization from corrupt actions / bad leadership? What is the extent of the damage that can be attributed to their policy decisions? Is there any evidence of the board members making decisions that would fall outside of the interests of their official capacity and responsibilities? (e.g. heavily skewed decision matrices) How will you assure that this cannot happen again?
And out of that 77, how many have the "correct" leadership in office?
We have to make some hard decisions.
The party itself is still very much like a corporation. The top leadership are still in charge right now, and will remain in charge unless we get enough people in there to vote them out (assuming that their structure still allows for it). How do we make it happen?
Can we get enough people in from local chapters to vote them out? How many does it take, how many do we have, and what can we do to help make it happen?
For those who are heavily entrenched, would running as a third party help us or hinder our cause? When is it worth it to us to pull this maneuver?
These are not questions where a blanket answer covers everything. We need organization, resources, and leadership if we want to protect any remnant of free speech that the people may still believe exists in this nation. We need people to be on the inside, on the outside, on the betweensides, but most importantly on OUR side. Who is even willing to do so in this time of need?
Mitch does not define us. The GOP does not define us. The news and media conglomerates do not define us. The government does not define us. WE define who we are.
"However, there is a real danger. If it is public that you have a BlackBerry and it it government and you are using it, government or not, to do business, it may become an official record and subject to the law. Reading about the President's BB rules this morning, it sounds like it won't be as useful as it used to be. Be very careful. I got around it all by not saying much and not using systems that captured the data."
I would recommend getting some testimony from accountants / professional auditors and get their opinion on similar circumstances in business / government. We need to communicate that the behavior taking place in Georgia is indicative of leadership (in GA) that does NOT want to be properly audited or held accountable to its own standards. From a QA / process standpoint, their actions are like putting lipstick on a pig.
This is how the political elite operate.
The top dogs are meant to never "know" anything. This gives them the authority to give commands that go against the rules while maintaining "innocence" by not "knowing" at the time. Whether it's insider trading or making shady deals, the top dogs are set up to know the plan without any paper trail showing it, and only "discover" the information later when it's time to hide their tracks.
This is why upper administrators are very particular about "when" facts come to the desk of their leaders; they don't want to be audited later with knowing something earlier than it is convenient for them.
I agree, but it would be good for all of us if the family could divulge that information or at least make it clear that a pre-existing may have had influence over the death. Has anyone been able to reach out to them?
I'm laughing more at the irony of it being a "poison pill" to consider anything Trump is looking for, because 5000 pages of poison pork that average Americans never asked for sure isn't poison to them.
Laches or unnecessary delay would spell the death of the Supreme Court, as we purge it with our own hands.
There was no guarantee of injury to Trump before the rules were changed (and no, the June 2020 election does not count as injury to Trump). The only time where Trump could start claiming the injury as definite was November 3rd. He protested the injury immediately and brought cases as soon as he could properly collect enough evidence to make the cases (any sooner would not have been "ripe" enough to bring to court, as facts were still being discovered).
Claiming it as "too late" simply because he was forced to follow the courts' own bureaucracy (including rejections on technicalities that could have been resolved by an honest court instead of forcing do-overs at every turn) falls outside the spirit and all practical interpretations of laches as a whole.
In the same manner, any more unnecessary delays on technical grounds with no outreach or reconciliation to make the case hearable would show that the court is refusing to hear the case while trying not to outright say so. If our courts are not willing to even LISTEN and HEAR the case, and quell the cries of justice from 70+ million voters, then they stand to have more than just a few "rioters" to be afraid of in the future. No justice, no peace will ring truer than any bell.
It's certainly possible, but what would be even scarier is if his medical history didn't have any pre-existing conditions. That would point to either an incredibly poor reaction to the virus on his side (very low odds, even lower as a member of the government with good health care) or poor treatment at the hospital (making the wrong calls, administering poor treatments, etc).
Reporters can only release what is given (if they choose to do so, that is), so if the family or the reporters don't want you to know, then we're left in the dark.
He got admitted really freakin' early after testing positive, instead of just quarantining at home. At 41, he also should be in good enough health to just fight it normally instead of needing special treatment. He either had ridiculous symptoms or was overzealous with needing to be seen.
Top Kek:
"Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) has suggested that the inclusion voter fraud investigations and other trump wishlist items are “poison” pills designed to prevent the measure from acquiring the necessary support from Senate Democrats."
It's OK to be confused, but you shouldn't assert an opinion or make judgment on others until you've done your homework and have put yourself in their shoes.
I got frustrated the other night from pedes jumping to conclusions on it and not taking this advice to heart, so I made this thread to at least help educate people on it.
https://thedonald.win/p/11RNy24vN3/for-a-better-understanding-of-th/
Unfortunately, I don't. I can imagine that there is some context on who introduced the bill and what amendments were performed on the House/Senate websites, but you have to remember that the majority of Congress had not even had proper time to read the whole thing before they voted on it.
Presenters are sometimes not even related to the actual bill authorship either. A lot of the actual writing is done by legal teams, some from special interests looking to fit specific language in place so they win out, others trying to piggyback on the cash train with promises of a return later. The DC swamp is thick, and some curry favors with each other to take "turns" on presenting so that the actual authors remain hidden.
Totes. At this point, it would nearly be impossible for them to deny if they were properly squeezed by legal teams under oath instead of the B.S. we have been getting for years now with Congressional "Hearings". Hearings indeed; all TALK with no action!
I agree that simply removing 230 would be a step backward, but a proper revision or replacement would be great if it addressed stuff like what you're listing here.
There needs to be clear separation between a Public Platform (which accepts all free speech, only limits based on the laws, and could accept public funding) and a Private Platform (which has internal rules that are agreed to and is either out to make its own money or follow its own passions/interests). We cannot have entities claiming to be both at the same time, just like how I cannot both be an owner of a home and a renter in it (rent to myself, receive rent writeoffs).
The link was the quickest path I could find to explain what was going on without blowing up into full legalese, so my apologies for that.
The jist of this maneuver is that the President has limited authority to question and suggest changes as part of providing enforcement on the law, especially on Omnibus legistlation. The Executive Branch are the Doers, afterall: they spend the money that is given in the way that Congress allocates it, and they enforce the laws that are put into effect. It is hard to make Do on the law, however, when Congress shits it up on occasion.
The ICA is the current method that the president has to formally attempt to clean up the law that is passed before enforcement. It's a 45-day window where the agreed-upon parts of an omnibus are allowed to go through immediately, but the weird parts of it are either delayed or sent back to Congress for reconsideration. Congress then decides how the law is cleaned up, if they want to, before it finally goes into effect. This also gives the Executive branch a window of time to review how enforcement should be executed to meet the letter of the law, or to challenge it immediately if Congress passed an unconstitutional law.
In this situation, I think it's being used to punt enforcement to after 45 days as well as give focus of the pork back to Congress so that the people can judge them accordingly.
The veto was definitely the option we wanted. But what would the veto have accomplished?
It would have forced Congress back into session. They would, in turn, just override the veto and pass it into law. MSM goes on the offensive against Trump, Congress pats themselves on the back and says "good enough" instead of fixing the problems with it. No opportunity for Section 230, no $2000. Some portion of COVID / unemployed pedes would walk away from Trump.
Impoundment would look more petty at that point; he could try it, we'd be happy and it would delay, but the effects are unknown for normies and could blow up in Trumps face at a time when he's trying to round up a mandate on his own election.
If you can think of a better move, I'd be down to hear it. Again, many of us were expecting the veto, so I sympathize that you're in disagreement on it.
I made a thread recently that outlines what you describe, as well as links to an article on the Impoundment Act.
https://thedonald.win/p/11RNy24vN3/for-a-better-understanding-of-th/
That would have been an interesting option. If we do a quick pro/con on it, I'd be happy to edit it into the main message.
It forces Congress back in to re-vote on the bill. That would have had an interesting effect on congressmen voting for $600 only instead of considering $2000. I don't think it would have had any impact on Section 230 consideration.
Other thoughts?
I agree. It's definitely a controversial move to make, and I ended up posting a new thread just to try giving some understanding on it. I'm not in the room, so I don't have all the info going into it, but I know walking in that this was not a bill Trump wanted to have on his desk at all, and the blame for all of that crap rests solely on Congress.
I thought the entire point of having the football in executive hands was to allow a rapid, executive decision in times of emergency. One would think sending the decision off to a committee would be just as effectual as giving it to Congress.