Slander
Team no stickys
qanon needing to rethink their reality...
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/some-qanon-followers-struggle-inauguration-day-n1255002
It's sad that serious news articles now read like an onion article from 2002.
qanon needing to rethink their reality...
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/some-qanon-followers-struggle-inauguration-day-n1255002
It's sad that serious news articles now read like an onion article from 2002.
Now you're starting to understand the issue with the compromise that you call for. You're asking me for an agreeable, hopefully equitable exchange of goods for dollars.
That's not what happens in the compromise you are asking from the government. That's why it hasn't "worked for 240 years." The government compromises with your rights... something that should be non-negotiable. So when you demand both sides come together, you're stating that one side doesn't have anything of value to defend... that COTUS is just something to be compromised... and then you call them out for not compromising they way you think they need to.
Sure, my example is extreme... but that's exactly what government does. See 2nd amendment. See 1st amendment... 5th, 4th, etc, etc. Compromise kills... everyone loses... especially those who don't have a seat at the table.
Congrats. A truly viable 3rd party is really needed to scare the Ds & Rs.
How did his oath come out? Anyone watch it? He fumble anything up? Was he gassed up enough to get through it?
Don't you try to dance around giving me a handjob with some sort of constitutional lesson.
I'm in agreeance that some things are non-negotiable. I would offer that doesn't mean that those on the left and the right can't compromise to find solutions to problems, only that both sides need to understand that some things are off the table.
As history has shown, a 3rd party only splits the Republicans. Remember Perot?
Congrats. A truly viable 3rd party is really needed to scare the Ds & Rs.
You couldn’t afford me.
compromising in solving a problem also requires the problem first be accurately identified.
do we have gun problem? Or a value of life problem?
do we have an immigration problem or a lack of law enforcement of existing rules problem?
do we have a tax problem or a spending problem?
some compromise in approaches might... might have value. But rarely does compromise solve an actual problem... because government compromise on the accurate definition of the problem. The only place government doesn’t compromise is in defending... government
Well I certainly don't believe some youtube personality claiming it was some sort of super massive false flag operation. Do you?
I think you're more cynical than I. You have already started to identify the steps needed to make it happen. To me that looks like a pathway forward.
Sad to see you still believe that nonsense. It's been debunked here and on the old site many times.
You couldn’t afford me.
compromising in solving a problem also requires the problem first be accurately identified.
do we have gun problem? Or a value of life problem? I'd say it's more a mental health and pharmaceuticals problem
do we have an immigration problem or a lack of law enforcement of existing rules problem? I'd say the immigration process needs to be re-done and expanded.
do we have a tax problem or a spending problem? 100% Been saying this for years. When I was a little kid sales tax in CA was 5% and we had cops and parks and street sweepers and schools and everything including a surplus. Now the state is broke, the roads are fucked, people living and shitting on the streets, etc., all this with record revenues.
some compromise in approaches might... might have value. But rarely does compromise solve an actual problem... because government compromise on the accurate definition of the problem. The only place government doesn’t compromise is in defending... government
I'll play.
I lol’d at the first sentence... “in public and PRIVATE chat rooms....”
how would they know?
why does immigration need to be re-done and expanded? What is the problem that said change might solve?
I'm not disagreeing on your pharma, but I don't know that I agree either... certainly highlights the importance of agreeing on the problem definition.
Because the birth rate of non-hispanics is too low for the labor requirements of the nation, white kids are not out there picking strawberries. We need immigrants, but we need to know they're not bad guys, and the process needs to speed up so they're not tempted to swim the Rio.
All of the "mass shooters" I can think of had psychiatric issues or were on meds or both. Shooting up a grade school or a concert venue is not normal behavior, but it's also not just a recent phenomenon, people have been crazy for a long time.
You may be right. Having said that, as a 3rd gen immigrant, I don't know that I agree that bringing more people into the US solves that particular problem (labor)... we have a massive part of the population that is... under employed.. so to speak.
Shoot, we used to require sponsors to ensure that we were getting the right people into the country - i.e. those who wanted to come here to the US because they wanted freedom and liberty. I'm not sure increasing rates of people coming here from other governmental models sustains COTUS.
don't disagree.
Eventually you're going to have to do your own landscaping.
Impeachment is akin to an indictment. It's an accusation and the trial and witnesses are in the senate. The impeachment is BEFORE the trial.
It would be nice to remove their paychecks and see how they like it. They should be honored for the privilege of representing the American people.
Or stop mailing checks to lazy, able-bodied fuckwits.
Dems won't let that stop and won't let us drug test them before giving them our tax money.
Now they will push for universal income or whatever they will call it upon rolling it out to the bums to buy their votes.
trial and witnesses are in the house, the senate just decides if the trial and witness results warrant removal
Shoot, we used to require sponsors to ensure that we were getting the right people into the country - i.e. those who wanted to come here to the US because they wanted freedom and liberty.
I disagree.
In impeachment proceedings, the House of Representatives charges an official of the federal government by approving, by majority vote, articles of impeachment. A committee of representatives, called “managers,” acts as prosecutors before the Senate. The Senate sits as a High Court of Impeachment in which senators consider evidence, hear witnesses, and vote to acquit or convict the impeached official. In the case of presidential impeachment trials, the chief justice of the United States presides. The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office. In some cases, the Senate has also disqualified such officials from holding public offices in the future. There is no appeal. Since 1789, about half of Senate impeachment trials have resulted in conviction and removal from office.
Did something recently change on this that I missed? I had a El Salvadorian buddy in 2010 I think that wanted to stay in the US after he finished up schooling here and his student visa was going to run out. He was trying to get the company he interned for to sponsor him or however that works, but they decided it wasn't worth the hassle.
He ended up getting some kind of financial job in Switzerland instead and daily drives a Huracan.
H1-visa's need sponsorship, often by companies. we used to -50-100 year ago - require personal sponsorship, IIRC
H1-visa's need sponsorship, often by companies. we used to -50-100 year ago - require personal sponsorship, IIRC