Win / GreatAwakening
GreatAwakening
Sign In
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES All General AskWin Funny Technology Animals Sports Gaming DIY Health Positive Privacy
Reason: None provided.

From reading your other comments here it appears that you think Noem is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, so to speak. I think it’s probably best to delve into the issue to understand it better before setting up the gallows for the senators who denied this bill being enacted.

Years ago I lived in a place where voting issues used to be addressed fairly well. Both sides would put forth their arguments and then both sides would put forth their subsequent refutations of the opposing side’s argument. Example- one side was arguing that the library needed money for updates, replete with all the flowery words of ‘noble’ intentions. It sounded really good, frankly - until you read the refutation. In fact, the library had been using the same scam for years, got loads of taxpayer money handed to them time and again. They gave themselves raises, didn’t bother with updates they said they needed more money for and cried poor and needy the next time their funding could be brought up during a taxpayer vote. Needless to say, they were denied after this was exposed.

In this case, it doesn’t sound like handing that kind of power to the Governor is the best idea.

Edit: This may be a good time to delve into the CFIUS - who set it up?, how has it been working?, has it protected Americans or harmed them?, who is currently in charge there?, etc.

1 year ago
1 score
Reason: Original

From reading your other comments here it appears that you think Noem is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, so to speak. I think it’s probably best to delve into the issue to understand it better before setting up the gallows for the senators who denied this bill being enacted.

Years ago I lived in a place where voting issues used to be addressed fairly well. Both sides would put forth their arguments and then both sides would put forth their subsequent refutations of the opposing side’s argument. Example- one side was arguing that the library needed money for updates, replete with all the flowery words of ‘noble’ intentions. It sounded really good, frankly - until you read the refutation. In fact, the library had been using the same scam for years, got loads of taxpayer money handed to them time and again. They gave themselves raises, didn’t bother with updates they said they needed more money for and cried poor and needy the next time their funding could be brought up during a taxpayer vote. Needless to say, they were denied after this was exposed.

In this case, it doesn’t sound like handing that kind of power to the Governor is the best idea.

1 year ago
1 score