....
You understand that when they're infecting these volunteers they're doing so with a purpose in mind, right? They're trying to test different things on these people to get a vaccine to literally stop the spread of the coronavirus. They want to stop the deaths and mass infections of people.
It's not like they're just going down to a pub and sneezing on everyone to get them infected.
They're having these people in a safe environment that is separate from others and infecting them. It's not like once you're infected they just let you run around all willy nilly.
they are not infecting people its already been determined montha ago purposfully infecting people is against ethics and laws the solution has been fr months to pick participants that usually are in close proximit to community/people that would have a high chance of passing a virus to them for months now its a known and set thing that teachers and healthcare workers are the main demograph for vaccine trials because after the jab, they then go back to work/in the community and have a higher risk of getting it from the community. than say a prisoner in solitary confinement for a year Same sort of thing in my mind. You may not be giving them the virus, but you're not openly stopping them from getting it when you know that they're in a high risk area. But in any case, what I'm arguing is that it's not like the people in the vaccine trial are openly infecting people for some BS reason. They're doing it to try to end rona and get back to normal. Not sure why there is so much hate over that. This shit has turned so political for literally no fucking reason. |
|
|
|
Jack Dorsey owns CashApp, which handles Crypto transactions and routinely bans users for nonsensical reasons leading to the forfeit of people's balance. He doesn't actually care about what's going on in Nigeria nor does he give a shit about Bitcoin. He only cares about promoting CashApp.
Typical smart businessman. Guy makes a company to buy Bitcoin cause some of the other ways of buying it are a bit of annoying and also replicates a Venmo like business (not sure if he or Venmo was the first person to do it) Guy then continues to post about Bitcoin on his twitter account and makes the news every so often for it. Gets a ton of free advertising for CashApp, and Twitter for that. He's doing well on this lol. Jack Dorsey owns CashApp, which handles Crypto transactions and routinely bans users for nonsensical reasons leading to the forfeit of people's balance. He doesn't actually care about what's going on in Nigeria nor does he give a shit about Bitcoin. He only cares about promoting CashApp.
As Jack’s censorship and manipulation becomes more widely known, I suspect his image will take a hit. I used to think he cared about freedom and fairness, but as you’ve pointed out, all his actions are curiously self-serving. Whatever pleases himself and the advertisers. |
|
|
|
... Pretty sure there is no statue of limitations on tax fraud / tax evasion. Correct me if I'm wrong though. Maybe the criminal side of things is differently, but I think the IRS can come after you for the money you owe them (civil) at any point. Source on that: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a0899314-b701-49b5-a695-d69896261788Pretty moot point though, as the IRS does not have the funding or the political independence to just go after the sitting president and his family. LOL. What you see in this thread is anti-trumpers attempting to argue that Trump can/should be proscecuted criminally for imagined tax issues. (A) The actual facts don't matter as this is a pre election smear campaign (B) Criminal prosecution has a statute of limitations, 6 years. (C) Tax collection has a primary goal of COLLECTING MONEY, not putting people in jail. (C) is really important. It's literally the case that the IRS can triple their money by waiting a couple years and going after someone that tried to deceive them. What maximizes collection of tax, should be their standard policy. Anything that tries to jail people instead of collect tax is contrary to the goal of collecting tax revenue. Anti-Trumpers would like a weaponized IRS that did their bidding, criminally charging Trump and totally ignoring Pelosi, Biden, etc. Now his daughter it seems has been on the payroll as an employee in one case and as a contractor in another with the allegation being made this was done to stop paying the appropriate tax. Whether that is legal or not I think it is clear it is morally wrong for someone trying to make it to the White House to be conducting in those types of behaviours.
...
Where did you come up with that idea? That would be okay or not based on the employee agreement terms and conditions. Are you not in the US and just don't know the law and practice here? Oh yeah I understand that, I'm just kinda pointing out the fact that the IRS could go after this if they wanted to, doesn't seem to be anything stopping them in regards to the state of limiations and such. Maybe they can't go after them criminally, but civilly they can recoup whatever money they want. Fair to point out from an earlier discussion that the IRS does not have the proper funding to audit rich people due to budgetary cuts over the past decade or so. Plus the fact that Trump is the president. No one is going to try to audit him. I'll agree with you in saying that this is all pre election smear, nothing else. |
|
|
|
...
Cory Booker takes 1st place for the dumbest person in the United States senate. He is insufferable. He asked Barrett if she was a fucking white supremacist with her two black adopted children in the background... Nothing screams white supremacy like a catholic mother of 7 with two adopted children from Haiti. Yeah I don't really understand the narrative there, guy looks like a real dumbass when he's saying it. Plus the fact that like, I highly doubt that line resonates with many voters. Plus the whole case that he was trying to grill her about was pretty straightforward. She's not someone who is going to make policy from the bench, so it makes sense that she refers to the letter of the law. If the Congress wants to expand what racial discrimination and a hostile workplace is then they can, but at the moment she's totally in the right. WHICH IS ANOTHER REASON THE CASE WAS A UNANIMOUS DECISION. |
|
|
|
Personally I'd have to say that I am impressed as well. This hearing has not been as personal or as emotionally charged as Kavanuaghs was, so that's a pretty nice thing to see as well. Makes sense that it isn't as personal, because they're not accusing her of raping someone 30 something years ago. But I did see some 'scandal' that's been circulating social media. Cory Booker brought it up in a hearing, and Barrett was able to shoot it right back at him in saying that he was mischaracterizing what was said. I'm assuming the dems thought this was their GOTCHA moment on her, but it was not. Here's some info on that from NPR: Then Booker grilled Barrett further, pointing to her recent opinion in a work discrimination case that he said did not square with that statement.
The 2019 case involved a Black Illinois transportation employee who sued the department after he was fired. He said his supervisor had created a hostile work environment and called him the N-word.
The unanimous three-judge panel ruled that the employee had failed to prove that he had been fired because of his race. In her opinion, Barrett wrote that the N-word is an "egregious racial epithet," but she argued that the employee couldn't win by simply proving the N-word was said to him.
Barrett defended her decision, saying that Booker mischaracterized what she said. The key part of that case was that the defendant did not "tie the use of the N-word into the evidence that he introduced for his hostile work environment claim," Barrett said. He based his argument on the use of expletives spewed at him, but those expletives presented to the court did not include the N-word.
"And so as a panel, we were constrained to decide based on the case the plaintiff had presented before us," Barrett explained. "So the panel very carefully wrote the opinion to make clear that it was possible for one use of the N-word to be enough to establish a hostile work environment claim if it were pled that way." |
|
|
|
government think they have a guaranteed 4 year job. where the less they do the better. and use the lists of things they should do as a pledge for what they might do next 4 year term.
how about
ban all lobbying. ban all side jobs (private paid conference speakers/ceo/advisor roles in private companies) have all bank accounts made available to scrutiny committees. have no other income from other sources
then get paid a basic salary just to live on. and then paid extra for actually achieving things. EG pass a law that benefits citizens = $$$ bonus
so just stop all the do nothing then pledge to finally do something if re-elected
if governments can react to a pandemic in just a couple months. then no policy/idea/plan/agenda should take 4 years
then at re-election time we can see the policies/plans they did help push through and actually get a good idea of how productive a politician was to then judge if he should be kept on for another 4 years. no longer based on hopes/promises of future change. but on case history of changes so far.
and where these policies/plans are ones that benefit the people in general. not corporations not private parties. but what can help improve the lives of those that deserve to have their lives improved.
Not really so simple to do these things. There is nothing illegal about lobbying. People have a first amendment right to petition your government if you have issues with what they're doing. Lobbyists never directly pay someone, which is illegal, though they donate to your campaign and in turn you know keep their interests in mind as they're a supporter of your candidacy. Lobbying doesn't need to involve money by the way. If you're a big enough organization, like Black Lives Matter or the NRA, your endorsement is enough to get people to support your causes and to change the laws to benefit you. Plus setting up benefits for 'passing a law that helps people' seems highly subjective cause a lot of laws have the intention of helping people. Though not every law can help everyone, and not every law has consequences that were intended. |
|
|
|
|
....
You understand that when they're infecting these volunteers they're doing so with a purpose in mind, right? They're trying to test different things on these people to get a vaccine to literally stop the spread of the coronavirus. They want to stop the deaths and mass infections of people.
It's not like they're just going down to a pub and sneezing on everyone to get them infected.
They're having these people in a safe environment that is separate from others and infecting them. It's not like once you're infected they just let you run around all willy nilly.
|
|
|
|
Okay you win. Maybe he's POTUS for nine-more while they argue the case, the appeal, the next level appeal, and the supreme court.
Ah, but the pesky constitution always getting in the way of well-intended dictatorships. Trump can't stay past noon January 20. Nothing says having respect for the constitution quite like packing the courts so justices can legislate from the bench, effectively getting rid of separations of power. There is a reason why both Biden and Harris are refusing to say if they will pack the SC, including in the debates. The only explanation is they know it is widely unpopular but plan on doing so anyway. If this was not the case, they would simply come out and say they are against court packing. Saying they won't could alienate younger more liberal voters (think Bernie Bros). Saying they will could alienate Republicans that plan on voting for Biden. I think it's entirely possible, and makes sense even, to keep packing the courts on the table without making a promise to actually do it. I really think that, once you explain what 'packing the court is' to voters, they're REALLY not going to like it. While the Dems can try to explain it off as "WELL THEY PACKED THE COURT WITH RBG AND SCALIA" it's just not the same in the least. The GOP NEVER added seats at that time, they just used some political maneuvering to make sure that they were the ones with the choice on the court. Say what you want about that, but I think the Dems would do the same if given the opportunity. Not me endorsing the strategy that Mitch and the GOP took, just pointing that out. But I think that packing the courts is going to be something that the Republicans run with cause it seems like the only thing that has been sticking for them in terms of attacking. Maybe a bit more on the green new deal, fracking, etc. Fracking obviously isn't popular in all of the US, though in swing states it is (PA) |
|
|
|
Oh come on now sm ...that's more exciting than the .1btc you are more than likely going to win?
It would be even sweeter if a certain poster didn't go awol.
Rub in face etc....
(seriously, I know you would never do that)
Meh. It's just money. And there's going to be plenty of rubbing. Ok, that didn't come out right. I'm assuming Harris will be the frontrunner if Biden wins.
I don't think that's a given (the Harris thing). Four years is a long time and VPs aren't really the most exciting political figures. I'm still hoping that both parties will push someone less-Beltway next time, like Pete Whatshisname, and whoever that could be on the Republican side... please tell me it's not Ted Cruz LOL. Totally not the most exciting part of politics, for sure, though I do think that Harris isn't going to be a Biden/Pence in terms of her influence in the admin. She's probably going to be more like a Cheney in terms of how much power she'll wield in the administration. Maybe a little bit less then Cheney though, as she's not on his level of power plays, lol. Not a guarantee, I agree, but a strong possibility if Biden wins.  2021 could be one hell of a hangover for Republicans. Could be a rough year. Might not be though. High likelihood (given the current aggregate polls) that the GOP keeps the Senate, loses the WH, and loses more seats in the house. Nice deadlocked Senate for sometime. Or maybe some times of less partisanship and compromise for once, though I really doubt that. |
|
|
|
It's true most of the stuff can't be prosecuted in criminal court due to statute of limitations. I'm surprised in your seemingly new found faith in the IRS' ability to audit and prosecute the wealthy and lack of faith in Trumps capability of getting away with crimes.
The bolded above is incorrect, the primary court would be the IRS tax court, which is neither state or federal district court, but a "US Tax Court." I think you're confused. The IRS conducts criminal investigations. If they build a strong enough case they refer it to the DOJ or District attorney for prosecution. It's not me that is confused. It's always been you. Your confusion is that you want a criminal investigation, and to get that, you need to get any matter related to Trump OUT of the US Tax Courts. To do that you pre-define Trump tax activities as "Criminal," because ORANGEMANBAD. I already explained: most of the stuff can't be prosecuted in criminal court due to statute of limitations
Pretty sure there is no statue of limitations on tax fraud / tax evasion. Correct me if I'm wrong though. Maybe the criminal side of things is differently, but I think the IRS can come after you for the money you owe them (civil) at any point. Source on that: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a0899314-b701-49b5-a695-d69896261788Pretty moot point though, as the IRS does not have the funding or the political independence to just go after the sitting president and his family. LOL. |
|
|
|
AOC as the frontrunner in 2024 --- come on really? The fuck is vegas thinking. Then again once I think about that, many people are going to buy those odds and then just lose their money cause there's no shot you can guess someone out this far. That's why the odds look amazing from a bettors perspective, when they're really not. I'm assuming Harris will be the frontrunner if Biden wins. She'll literally be in the perfect spot to takeover the held of the admin. I don't personally think Biden will serve two terms if he is elected. Shit though, I thought the 2020 election was far out and we're literally here now. |
|
|
|
This isn't the norm, but it does raise some legitimate concerns about vaccinations. This guy caught a mutated version of SARS-COV-2 and got COVID-19 a second time meaning if a vaccine was to be released, you would need to get everyone vaccinated above a certain percentage to induce herd immunity. You might not be successful in just vaccinating the most vulnerable if young people are passing the virus around allowing it to mutate and infect vaccinated people. Considering a large chunk of Americans wouldn't voluntarily get vaccinated, this makes things more interesting. Again, this is with the caveat that reinfection is possible or likely -- the article clearly outlines that this isn't common.
True, and there are legitimate concerns in regards to people getting reinfected. Though it seems to be VERY VERY unlikely, and I highly doubt it would cause much of an issue. If compliance is high in regards to masks, social distancing, etc -- then the people that are being reinfected with a mutated version aren't going to cause an issue. Totally very scary, and doomsdayers will love to bring up that you can get it again -- but its just not likely enough to happen to be a major concern. Most major concern right now should be compliance with social distancing, masks, and working on a vaccine. |
|
|
|
Need to give officials and Political people better salary and more bonuses.
Then They Don't need to steal or bribe as their salary will be higher.
Good idea Right?
Politicians and Government officials are rewarded more perks than anyone in that country and also have good amount of salary but do you really think that giving more salary will convince them to not to corrupt? the salary amount won't reach 1% of the corrupted amount. What could be the best solution? Give power to voters to change the leaders at any time they want, don't give them certain time period. +1 to this. Not sure if any amount of money would be enough to convince someone to not sell themselves to some lobbying company for the promise of an amazing job after politics. It's a very strong lure. Plus the pay in Congress really isn't even that bad. As a member of the House, the lower chamber with more members, you're making $174,000 a year. Downside if you have to maintain two residences - one in your district, and one in DC. DC isn't cheap to live in, which leaves a lot of members of the house sleeping in their offices. But yeah -- even if the government paid you 500k a year -- people in lobbying would just guarantee you a much higher paying job once you're done if you help them out on a few votes and wield your influence. |
|
|
|
|
I do think that as racial tensions slowly recede again in terms of the news cycle, that people in the NBA (and other sports organizations) are going to return to normalcy. I can't really see this whole thing continuing on forever with putting something besides your name on your jersey.
If racial tensions / racial justice stays in the news enough it'll totally continue being apart of the NBA. For them it does also help with getting the 'woke' part of the news to write stories about them and then in turn it boosts ratings as being in the news reminds people they can watch basketball.
But yeah, this won't last forever. Most other sports wont follow cause they don't see the need to. The athletes in their sports aren't making it a big deal and aren't bringing it onto the field, so they don't feel the need to address it.
|
|
|
|
A good team coaching you is one thing, but a good team providing you real time answers to questions is another.
Obviously we all know that everyone is going to have debate prep and to be coached and such, but no one wants you to be spoon fed answers. That's my issue with it being online.
I get the health concerns though, and if the Trump campaign/admin is transparent with his test results leading up to the debate wouldn't we be fine? Also -- Could just kick the debate back for sometime. Trumps campaign manager is saying to have the debate on Oct 22nd and the 2nd one on the 29th.
Again, it's not just Trump, but anyone in his entourage who could be contagious. Or Biden's team too for that matter. Or anyone working at the venue. I don't think Trump personally infected 11 people in Cleveland. It's unnecessary risk for no real benefit. It's one thing to waste billions of dollars on political campaigns but it's a whole new level to put people at risk for... what exactly? Prime time entertainment? I'll give you this, cause it is totally right. I suppose everyone who is entering the debate facility could also submit to a test, but even doing that isn't going to rule out everything -- as people could be too early in the process to test positive for a test. Another day in paradise, lol. |
|
|
|
Short story: Do four or five studied face expressions make someone look presidential?
Harris has many flaws, but face... seriously? With the orange combover as the POTUS, that's your concern? Not a fan of a virtual debate. I really don't think it does enough to ensure that the candidates aren't being coached through their answers. And no, I'm not going to be the person who points at a particular candidate as says they're the one that is being coached instead of the other. Virtual debates don't fully allow for us to know that they're being genuine though.
It's not a high school test. If they have a good team to coach them - have at it. They will need a good team to govern. There is no debate important enough to risk health or life for, and I'm not talking just about the fossils on the stage but this: A good team coaching you is one thing, but a good team providing you real time answers to questions is another. Obviously we all know that everyone is going to have debate prep and to be coached and such, but no one wants you to be spoon fed answers. That's my issue with it being online. I get the health concerns though, and if the Trump campaign/admin is transparent with his test results leading up to the debate wouldn't we be fine? Also -- Could just kick the debate back for sometime. Trumps campaign manager is saying to have the debate on Oct 22nd and the 2nd one on the 29th. |
|
|
|
Trump throws a tantrum because he can't spread his " blessing"... no more debates I guess. https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/08/politics/second-presidential-debate-virtual/index.htmlPresident Donald Trump said Thursday that he will not participate in the second presidential debate with Joe Biden after the Commission on Presidential Debates said the event will be held virtually in the wake of the President's positive coronavirus diagnosis.
"I am not going to do a virtual debate," Trump said on Fox Business. "I am not going to waste my time on a virtual debate." Not a fan of a virtual debate. I really don't think it does enough to ensure that the candidates aren't being coached through their answers. And no, I'm not going to be the person who points at a particular candidate as says they're the one that is being coached instead of the other. Virtual debates don't fully allow for us to know that they're being genuine though. Wouldn't President Trump be fine within CDC guidelines to have a debate? 14 days from when he got it. I think they may have even lowered the amount of time from 14 to 10 days as well. While Pence was talking, Harris was continually, none stop moving between one of four or five facial expressions, I thought "cartoon-like". Pence came across as thoughtful and careful.
I really disliked that approach of Harris, although it may resonate with some.
Harris came up with a couple of significant "New Facts." (A) Harris/Biden are not going to destroy the jobs of the fracking industry. (B) Harris/Biden do not propose a rehash of the Green New Deal.
When Pence rebutted these points, she acted like he was an idiot. He replied that they were her platform, and she doubled down. Obviously these are new talking points or her idea not Bidens', or perhaps just outright fabrications.
I would have much preferred if she had carefully explained those positions, and just said they were a change of position, or hers, not Biden's, or whatever the situation may be.
Short story: Do four or five studied face expressions make someone look presidential?
Would you want her for president?
I thought Pence did pretty well in this debate, but I think we all already knew that Pence was a good debater. I've never been a fan of Harris, fucking cop, so I don't think I can give her a fair look. |
|
|
|
....
I get that argument though. As the founders WOULD'VE NEVER allowed for us to live in the current state that we live in. ICE operating near the borders pulling over private citizens everyday? ....
Sez who, the founders wouldn't have thought that was proper? I mean yeah the founders are dead, but I think it's fair to say that they wouldn't like to hear stories about how the government is pretty much like a nanny state now. There is no reason that we should be in a county where the government is involved in pretty much every facet of our lives. Like literally, why are people being killed financially from the regulatory state that continue. Why are there bureaucrats in Washington that know nothing about you, killing your business? CBP controlling WITHIN OUR OWN BORDERS? Militarized police. Yeah none of these things are what the founders would have wanted. Police as we know them really didn't exist in the late 1700s, so I'm a bit at a loss to know how to respond. "Soldier" was much more what existed, that did some things similar to "policing." That is why I would disagree on that point. they wouldn't like to hear stories about how the government is pretty much like a nanny state now.
There is no reason that we should be in a county where the government is involved in pretty much every facet of our lives. Like literally, why are people being killed financially from the regulatory state that continue. Why are there bureaucrats in Washington that know nothing about you, killing your business?Pretty much agree on this dimension. Alright that's fair then. I thought you were disagreeing with my whole thing, which didn't make any sense. Ya know, given the fact that like there'd be NO WAY the founders would support the bureaucratic nightmare that is today's government. Then again, their entire economy wasn't as complex as ours is now. Hamiliton would've liked the massive expansion of executive power over the years, not all of them though. We've literally let Congress continue to cede power to the executive which is such a shitty way of doing things. Fuck government. |
|
|
|
Yeah I think this is what a lot of people missed.
There's no way that China was going to willingly provide WHO information. Is it fair to be angry at China about this? Yes. Is it fair to be mad at the WHO? Kinda. It would've been nice to know that China was blocking the WHO or if the WHO had any suspicion there was something going on before the WHO told them.
I think this does open a lot of Americans eyes into if it'll make sense to continue to provide money to a group that is just an advisory group that is unable to stop a future COVID. There should be some real bipartisan research into this IMO.
guess your naive or have reading issues. actual facts is china DID give info to WHO and WHO checked it out, validated the reports and in first week of january was telling the world. all before a single person died. thats called rapid reporting trump did not publicly react until march, and only because he was getting huge pressure from hospitals worried they are increasing in admissions but not being funded to increase capacity. Pence tonight said trump shut down flights to china in january. WRONG china shut down their own flights. so planes ended up having to circle the skies because they would be penalised for not taking off in their timeslot from america. it had to be declared a pandemic before the planes could just park and not fly. trump then organised repatriation flights against the wishes of both china and WHO the only reason cases got into america is because of TRUMPS repatriation flights While this is a bit of an older story relating to China, it is still helpful. Source is the WashingtonTimes, so hate me on that if you want to. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/12/anthony-fauci-china-misled-world-coronavirus-erupt/?utm_source=Boomtrain&utm_medium=manual&utm_campaign=20171227&utm_term=newsletter&utm_content=morning&bt_ee=LxHIyWSyAg5zatW5wrCVa5sF3lOb6r5r%2BBV66luuFauci said back in April on Fox that the Chinese government was telling the US (and the World) that human contagiousness was minimal. China also had thretaned many doctors inside of China with prison for trying to warn the world on Social media. China hid this. Like, what else are we going to say there? You really think that while China was threatening jailtime for doctors that the WHO was able to get credible information? |
|
|
|
Pence is currently acting as the President.
No, he isn't. When Trump was at the hospital, yes he is. The public just doesn't know about it because they don't make an announcement. If Trump was still sick after returning from Walter Reed, Mike Pence still retained Trump's responsibilities. Any time the President is sick, the Vice President takes over internally at the WH. Americans aren't briefed on it, for obvious reasons. I mean maybe in some capacities yes, but there no was no announcement to the Congress that Vice President Pence would be acting President for the time being. Can Trump delegate some of his own tasks to Pence while he was Walter Reed? Yes. But that doesn't mean he is acting as President. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
