swordfish

True enough BR. 🤣

Starting to buy into the "Arm the teachers" idea.....

So - comparing the coverage of the Texas school shooting to the Buffalo shooting of last week. We knew the identity, the foul racist leanings and had pictures of the Buffalo shooter plastered all over every news source the next morning, we knew where he got his guns, even that he had wore a Haz-mat suit to school one day. It was all him and his racist views that killed those people. Yes - he deserves death penalty as brutally as it can be administered. This morning, it was all about the guns. And how we need more gun control, "how many more kids must die" Yada-yada. It's the gun's fault, not the shooter's. Nothing about how the gunman breached the security (or if there even was any).

Yes, one would assume that a higher number of (legal) voters means that, regardless of the party......

Wondering if MLB and/or Stacey Abrams is gonna apologize for moving the All-Star game from Atlanta last season to protest this new law "designed to suppress" voter turnout this election.......probably not...... https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/21/voting-is-surging-georgia-despite-controversial-new-election-law/

Can we just admit Covid is the Flu on steroids, and Biden is a geriatric hazard to himself and everyone else at this point?

Wondering if Senator Schumer is going to hold a presser demanding the current President Biden lower gas prices like he did the former President Trump?

https://nypost.com/2022/05/23/biden-praises-gas-prices-as-part-of-incredible-transition/ Biden praises high gas prices as part of ‘incredible transition’ Out of touch as ever, President Biden celebrated record-high gas prices Monday, gushing that the pump pain was part of “an incredible transition” of the US economy away from fossil fuels. “[When] it comes to the gas prices, we’re going through an incredible transition that is taking place that, God willing, when it’s over, we’ll be stronger and the world will be stronger and less reliant on fossil fuels when this is over,” Biden said during a press conference in Japan following his meeting with Prime Minister Fumio Kishida. The president then insisted that his administration’s actions, rather than increasing the price of gas, had actually been able to “keep it from getting worse — and it’s bad.” Only then did Biden pay lip service to millions of Americans who have found themselves spending thousands of extra dollars to fuel up their vehicles. Nobody seen this one coming?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/22/politics/baby-formula-us-military-aircraft/index.html Baby formula arrives in Indianapolis from Germany on US military aircraft to address critical need Well, this is embarrassing... I keep hearing "Switzerland" all the time. Switzerland is where the W.H.O., the W.H.A., the U.N., and a member of the C.C.P. are meeting this week to discuss and Vote on Joe's Amendments of turning our Sovereignty over to the Authority of the W.H.O. in the event of another PLandemic.

Just some good advice from your good buddy SF -

Wishing this was just another silly meme, not someone legitimately testifying before Congress......

Anyone remember all that talk back in 2020? The amazing denial effort relative to HB? Anyone? Anyone else remember the prediction that the truth will be forthcoming in about 2 years? https://nypost.com/2022/05/18/justice-coming-for-dirty-51-hunter-biden-laptop-liars/ FTA: Barr, who was AG at the time, recently told Fox News he was “very disturbed during the debate when candidate Biden lied to the American people about the laptop. He’s squarely confronted with the laptop, and he suggested that it was Russian disinformation and pointed to the letter written by some intelligence people that was baseless — which he knew was a lie … “When you’re talking about interference in an election, I can’t think of anything more than that kind of thing.”

One wedge issue after another coming into the mid-terms........ Race, Abortion, Climate..... BLM founder blames her admitted "mistakes" on "White guilt money"...... https://nypost.com/2022/05/18/blm-co-founder-patrisse-cullors-says-white-guilt-money-mistakes-weaponized-against-her/

Just like his voters in 2020?

https://briancates.substack.com/p/why-i-believe-michael-sussmann-will?utm_source=%2Fprofile%2F34778084-brian-cates&utm_medium=reader2&s=r&fbclid=IwAR3M2-NI57eEu-PolJ37BdqRlGo9__2htQBS4meOGlCwk0CSB6nEmSLBawc Why I Believe Michael Sussmann Will Change His Plea To Guilty Before His Trial Begins His Own Coconspirators Do Not Want To Testify At This Trial Brian Cates May 12 Why am I so confident in predicting that Sussmann was going to change his plea from ‘not guilty’ to ‘guilty’? Well I have three main reasons for this expectation. Let me list them. First, Sussmann has no real defense. None. Nada. Zip. Bubkis. Durham has him completely trapped on the false statement charge with incontrovertible forensic evidence. Including a text message that Sussmann sent to the FBI’s General Counsel James Baker the night before their meeting at FBI headquarters back in September of 2016. In that text message, Sussmann states - in his own writing, mind you! - that he wants this meeting for himself, he’s certainly not reaching out and asking for this meeting on behalf any clients. Read the text message for yourself: Now, Sussmann’s latest gambit is an attempt to introduce notes from former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe into the trial evidence because McCabe says in those notes that Sussmann **did** say he was working for clients on the Alfa Bank hoax. Here’s why that doesn’t matter: Sussmann changes his story based on who he’s talking to and when. When he sent Baker the text message on September 18, 2016 at precisely 7:24 p.m., he LIED, and said it wasn’t for any clients. When he testified before CONGRESS in December of 2017, Sussmann told the truth, that he was working for clients when he made his approach to Baker. So later on at some point after his meeting with Baker, Sussmann told McCabe or others at the FBI the truth? And McCabe took accurate notes, reflecting that Sussmann said he was there on behalf of his clients? That’s awesome! Good for him! But does that **change the fact** that in a text message to James Baker on September 18 at precisely 7:24 p.m., and then the next day in Baker’s office at FBI HQ, Sussmann LIED to Baker? It does not. Just because Sussmann tells the truth about the matter later to others does not mean his lie to Baker - delivered in writing and then in person the next day - is somehow cancelled out. It’s **still** a false statement to a federal official. That text message and Bill Priestap and Trisha Anderson’s notes are damning. The text is from the night before the meeting took place, and the notes were written down immediately after it was over when Baker briefed Preistap and Anderson on what Sussmann had told him. So Sussmann’s going to be 100% convicted if this goes to trial. Unless a DC jury just practices nullification and ignores all the evidence Durham will present to it and lets Sussmann walk out of the courtroom a free man simply because he’s a Swamp creature. I doubt that would happen, because it would mean Durham blew the jury selection process. Second, All Of Sussmann’s coconspirators do not want to come testify under oath at this trial. Testifying under oath about the tricky matters they were involved in with the Alfa Bank hoax and related issues opens them up to perjury charges later. Now, I’m sure that Marc Elias, Robby Mook, Laura Seago and all the others that are on the government’s witness list - or who might later be added to it - have done their best to keep up to date on the case filings as far as they reveal what Durham knows already. Please Dear God, don’t let them call me to testify under oath…amen! But here’s the thing: no matter how well your legal team briefs you, or how prepared you think you are, or how confident you think your grasp is of what the prosecutor knows…there are **always** things he knows that he hasn’t revealed yet. Trust me on this: The Clinton campaign’s former general counsel Marc Elias is gonna use any remaining pull or clout he has on Sussmann to pressure him to take a deal. Elias does not want to get up there on that stand under oath and answer questions where he’ll having to pick his words with extreme care as he tiptoes through a verbal minefield. It’s the same for former Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook, and other Clinton campaign, DNC, Fusion or Perkins Coie persons that might end up on that witness stand. Durham’s team will try to steer these witnesses with questions into places they do not want to go. And because they don’t know what the prosecution does and doesn’t not know at this point, making an untruthful answer could have really serious consequences. After all, Durham’s putting Sussmann on trial on a felony charge of making a false statement to a federal official when he wasn’t under oath in a courtroom. If Durham catches a witness telling him a provable lie under oath in Judge Christopher Cooper’s courtroom? There will be fireworks. Perhaps that’s the point? Third, nobody has ever escaped John Durham There’s a reason Durham has the reputation he does. He’s earned it. The only guy who managed to escape getting his ass shipped to prison was a crooked FBI agent who died before Durham could convict him. This is why in the end, just before the plunge, I believe Sussmann is going to blink. He knows he’s facing a stacked deck and that Durham has it all. He can’t really win and he knows he can’t win. He probably doesn't want to get "Suicided".......

A wedge issue in an election year......Let's just keep highlighting it......Kinda like "Replacement Theory" being something new that radical white nationalists dreamed up recently......(NYT - 10/29/2018) not last week, and from a liberal nonetheless. https://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-we-can-replace-them/ How dare whites feel aggrieved about being replaced? Those bastards, letting themselves get resentful over us replacing them. They deserve what they have coming. We’re not replacing whites because we love power, we are replacing whites because they are hateful. We know they are hateful because of how much they make us hate-filled toward them. If they didn’t flat-out deserve to be hated, we wouldn’t hate them so much. Our boots stamping on their inhuman faces forever is for their own good.

Wonder if this parent is having a hard time getting baby formula.......

BR - I think you and I are closer aligned on this issue than (maybe) you think. I certainly agree if RVW is overturned without a federal legislative action on abortion, there will be more to argue about because the states certainly won't be consistent and YES - unintended consequences will more than likely appear. Overly liberal states will get more liberal and overly conservative states will get more conservative. I WANT to believe the people we elected will actually do their job and find some middle ground for the US on this issue, but I am also a realist that thinks they still need a wedge issue for re-election. although I suspect there is. 😉 And THAT, my friend is why I hope to never be on the opposite side of the courtroom with you. So far, in any of my depositions or testimony, no lawyer has been able to throw me off. (I take pride that I have actually been complimented by an opposing lawyer once - and he was tough) I think you could be relentless wearing me down......So lets not meet in a courtroom, OK?

Jeez BR, I have enough personal experience testifying to zoning boards and dealing with lawyers to know NOT to get in an argument with one.......but since when have I not been consistent on my position that this should be decided legislatively, not judicially? Oh, and if I'm inconsistent in something, "exposure" on the GID is the least of my worries..... ✌️

The hypothetical "Judge" SF does not care to wallow into that hypothetical debate on a potential side affect of any new hypothetical abortion laws. Wondering what it has to do with the constitutionality of abortion. (The topic of this thread). Which again - SF's position is that it needs to be left to the states unless Congress can actually pass a law that specifically addresses abortion. SCOTUS got it wrong in Roe V. Wade and both sides know how shakey the ruling is which is why the Pro-Choice side has been so scared of this happening. (IMHO) Senator Schumer put a bill before the Senate last week that had absolutely zero chance of passing (even though there was enough support for a better bi-partisan bill to pass) just to keep the debate alive. SF would think that with the left in charge right now, they would be smarter if they were more willing to influence the laws that could come out on this issue instead of punting it to the next congress which may not be so left-wing or letting the States do it. Neither house leaders seem to want to solve this issue.