Biden Ends Presidential Bid.

[Thales750]

I love JD Vance's idea of giving people with children extra votes. It's true, as much as it enrages MSNBC to hear it, but it's absolutely 110% true - those with children are more invested in pretty much everything, including the future of the country. This is not said to denigrate those without children, it's just facing facts. To those who never started a family of their own, family and parenting and children's issues will always be abstract.

As much as I face staunch opposition to this idea, I must say our voting system would probably benefit from an overhaul. There should be weight given to things that show you have skin in the game. Paying taxes and having children are reasonable places to start; if you're paying no taxes it's all too easy to keep voting for the party that taxes other people and gives you the proceeds..

There is only one solution to our election problems.

There needs to be a public fund set up that pays for all candidate's campaigns equally. A small tax to raise a billion or so ($3 each) and no more contribution above $100, no more Super PACS, no more Citizens United.

The whole thing would be straightened out in one election cycle. Beholden to the People, what a concept.

 

[Thales750]

The fix was implemented by Trump and your hero wreaked it.

My here. ?
And who would that be?

 

[Pat Hartman]

We all know right now the problem is convincing white people to even WORK - and certainly nobody is taking their jobs.

Apparently black people won't work either. Perhaps the issue isn't actually race but the hourly rate instead.

I was contracting with a small company a few years ago. They had about 40 people working in our office. Most of them were analysts building complex data models so they were not low level, uneducated office clerks. There was a remarkable number of non-citizens working there. About 25%. So, one day I asked the manager why. His answer - they're cheaper. It all comes down to money. You pay an American wage, you get a citizen worker.

This is not new. It started with engineers in the 70's and rapidly spread to the IT workforce. Americans were costing too much so big companies convinced Congress to increase the limits for H1b visas for example so they could replace Americans with lower paid foreign workers. This was the early days (73) of the movement so it wasn't until some years later that I recognized what I had been involved in. I had a Pakistani on my team and he had a visa problem. In order for us to fix the problem and get him reauthorized to work for us, we had to prove that no citizen could do his job. So, my company placed ads in the local newspapers advertising for Azi's position. The salary was very low for an IT job and even a trainee would have probably turned up their nose at the offer. But, just in case, we made the requirements so specific that no applicant could conceivably satisfy them. At the time, I didn't know what we were paying Azi or even my other team members. I was managing all the people we had in town at various different clients but not responsible for determining wages although I did do their reviews. The story gets worse. In the mid-80's a consulting firm called me out of the blue with a job offer. He was offering $25 per hour but I was billing at $50. When I turned him down flat, he started screaming at me that I'd be sorry. I could be replaced by H1b visa holders being paid $15.

Thirty years later, several busloads of Indian contractors showed up at one of my former employer's and each person was assigned to an employee who was informed that he was to train his replacement or lose his exit package. The H1b visa law specifically prohibits replacing American workers with visa holders. They circumvent this silly rule by "outsourcing" the whole department. So a company is hired to provide services and no one cares if they are visa holders working for a fraction of what Americans had been being paid for the exact same job.

So, are citizens being replaced by visa holders, yes they are. As long as it is not apparently a 1 for 1, companies get away with it. You would never know that you didn't get hired because a visa holder was cheaper. Who is going to complain? Illegal aliens are a totally different issue because companies who hire them are breaking the law. But, you know what? The IRS has computers. Do you think they would use those computers to identify people who are using a stolen SSN? Not a chance. There is no political upside.

 

[Steve R.]

 

[moke123]

Can't white wash this record

 

[AccessBlaster]

When will he be sentenced?

 

[moke123]

When will he be sentenced?

I know. It's hard to keep track. September.

 

[AccessBlaster]

I know. It's hard to keep track. September.

Why September?

 

[Steve R.]

Can't white wash this record

View attachment 115336

A bogus, highly flawed, persecution of Trump in the spirit of a Stalinist show trial in the now defunct Soviet Union.
The attempt to prevent Trump from being placed on the election ballots went down in flames, as this bogus "conviction" will too.
The Democrats have been unethically abusing the rule of law by using lawfare to cripple Trump's reelection bid.
See the thread: Trump Indictment.

 

[Thales750]

Is there a way to download these threads? i thought a i saw a PDF download somewhere.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Can't white wash this record

What will you say when the higher court throws the whole thing out? What about the Supreme Court's ruling that for a criminal case the verdict needs to be unanimous? In Trump's case, the judge gave the jury ridiculous instructions and there was no charge that was ever proven by the prosecution.

 

[AccessBlaster]

They're doing their best to memory hole kamala's record. I don't think it's going to work her record is been under scrutiny for decades.

 

[moke123]

What will you say when the higher court throws the whole thing out?

Gee, i don't know Pat. Could you be more specific on the legal basis, not the maga basis, for overturning the juries verdict?

What about the Supreme Court's ruling that for a criminal case the verdict needs to be unanimous?

Are you saying it wasn't unanimous?

In Trump's case, the judge gave the jury ridiculous instructions

What were they and which ones do you feel were ridiculous and why?

there was no charge that was ever proven by the prosecution.

Which charges didn't they prove?

I don't think it's going to work her record is been under scrutiny for decades.

And yet she was elected VP, go figure.

 

[AccessBlaster]

And yet she was elected VP, go figure.

Riddle me this: Why are they so sensitive about her non-border record

 

[Pat Hartman]

Are you saying it wasn't unanimous?

What CRIME was Trump convicted of? The judge offered three possibilities

Which charges didn't they prove?

This was a trial in search of a crime. The judge even said that the prosecution never proved that Trump committed a crime.

And yet she was elected VP, go figure.

She was not elected VP. VP's are appointed. They are not elected. She was sooooooooooooo popular with the Dems that she couldn't even get 1% of the primary vote. But Pravda is working their little fingers to the bone to make her all new and shiny. Just as long as they never allow her to speak without a teleprompter in front of her, they make make people forget how stupid she is. Three weeks ago, Pravda had very different things to say about her. But we are living in 1984 so what they were saying 5 minutes ago is irrelevant. All that matters is what they are saying right now.

 

[Mike Krailo]

Unfortunately, the useless idiots will continue with all the lies and pushed propaganda because that's the game they play. Do whatever it takes to win at all costs and divide the nation. They don't even realize that this very attitude is what is costing them the election. If the democrats have any good idea's policy wise, let's hear them. My guess, is we will continue to hear the same old BS and never really discuss the issues at hand. They have already decided that the deplorables are not capable of understanding what is good for them, so she has to force it down all of our throats whether we like it or not.

The latest insane thing from the assassination attempt investigation by the FBI has Christopher Ray stating that it may not have been a bullet that struck the president, but could have been shrapnel? There's no common sense in that statement and it only proves beyond a shadow of a doubt how corrupted that organization is. Shrapnel from what? He just makes a nonsensical statement that makes no sense at all and gives nothing else to back up this ridiculous suggestion. The very first bullet hit trumps ear and then that hydraulic line far away from where he was. The picture with a bullet whizzing by his head came from the shooters direction and not the other way around.

Regardless of who wins the election, we cannot be effective as a country without being united from the peoples perspective irrespective of politics. Politics are inherently corrupt because, that corruption is the elites goose that keeps laying the golden eggs for them. Taking our money and serving their purposes is all they know how to do.

 

[Steve R.]

Can't white wash this record

View attachment 115336

This will be easily "white washed" and disappear into oblivion since it was a bogus case and based on lawfare. I couldn't find the Weinstein story earlier so it was not in my earlier post. Unfortunately the hyperlink for showing the header contains the forbidden word ra**, so it does not show-up.
Harvey Weinstein ra** conviction overturned by NY appeals court (Fox News Published April 25, 2024 9:27am EDT)
The significance of this case, is that the case may be easily overturned for the reasons below:

In a 4-3 decision, the appeals court found that Weinstein's trial judge allowed prosecutors to call women who said Weinstein had assaulted them to testify, even though their accusations did not specifically relate to the entertainment mogul's charges.

Harvey Weinstein, Donald Trump, and Evidence of Past Misconduct

New York’s high court overturned the producer’s conviction. Will that affect the Trump trial?

www.brennancenter.org

In a 4–3 decision last week, the New York Court of Appeals overturned film producer Harvey Weinstein’s sex-crimes conviction. The court said that the trial judge made two critical errors. First, he allowed the jury to hear too much about Weinstein’s alleged prior sexual assaults, which were not among the charges and tainted the jury’s opinion. Second, by allowing the prosecutors to question Weinstein about certain alleged prior misconduct if he chose to testify, the trial judge created an unfair disincentive for the movie mogul to take the stand in his own defense.

What is also significant, is that Bragg knew that the legal strategy he was implementing was contrary to the NY appeals court decision, but he did it anyway. I believe the reason for that is that the Democrats wanted a conviction now and did not care if it was overturned later on appeal after the November presidential election. Bragg was simply trying to taint Trump as a despicable person to discourage voters from voting for Trump. That is election vile interference and an abuse of the legal system.

 

[Steve R.]

Gee, i don't know Pat. Could you be more specific on the legal basis, not the maga basis, for overturning the juries verdict?

When a prosecutor presents a contorted illegitimate case to a jury and it is then successfully appealed that is not "overturning the juries verdict" per se since the jury was gaslighted into making the "wrong" verdict.

 

[moke123]

This will be easily "white washed" since it was a bogus case and base based on lawfare. I couldn't find the Weinstein story earlier so it was not in my earlier post. Unfortunately the hyperlink for showing the header contains the forbidden word ra**, so it does not show-up.
Harvey Weinstein ra** conviction overturned by NY appeals court (Fox News Published April 25, 2024 9:27am EDT)
The significance of this case, is that the case may be easily overturned for the reasons below:

Harvey Weinstein, Donald Trump, and Evidence of Past Misconduct

New York’s high court overturned the producer’s conviction. Will that affect the Trump trial?

www.brennancenter.org

What is also significant, is that Bragg knew that the legal strategy he was implementing was contrary to the NY appeals court decision, but he did it anyway. I believe the reason for that is that the Democrats wanted a conviction now and did not care if it was overturned later on appeal after the November presidential election. Bragg was simply trying to taint Trump as a despicable person to discourage voters from voting for Trump. That is election vile interference and an abuse of the legal system.

Prior bad acts and admissibility are litigated all the time, in nearly all criminal cases. In weinsteins case I believe there was testimony of uncharged acts wherein in trumps case the bad acts were all after a finding.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Prior bad acts and admissibility are litigated all the time, in nearly all criminal cases. In weinsteins case I believe there was testimony of uncharged acts wherein in trumps case the bad acts were all after a finding.

The porn star's testimony had nothing whatsoever to do with the accounting of her bribery payment. If the bribery payment was a crime, it was a crime regardless of what the porn star said regarding her relationship to Trump. Why must you play dumb? It really doesn't become you.