You don't need the SEC to do something about it. You can claim fraud and sue them directly if you are an advertiser. But you need something substantive to survive pre-trial motions. You can't just claim they lied. Elon needs to drop those receipts. Then it will be open season.
Accurate statement.
However, there is something more to it, I think. Watching Mark Kelly "win" should have given her confidence in her next election. Yet you'd think she would not leave the party unless she thought it was dragging her down. If so, why would she think it was dragging her down?
For some time now I have postulated that Synema is some kind of reverse dem imposter. Like some day in the future we will find out that Don Jr. used to bang her back in the day and used that connection to recruit an infiltrator to the dems in the senate. Of course I have no basis beyond intuition for thinking it. And perhaps it isn't don jr, but someone else connected to them. She just doesn't make sense. Kind of like Manchin.
Remember not too long ago that there was some kind of fake news viral story about Manchin leaving the dems and joining the reps? Maybe the source was wrong about the name. I know Trump stoked those flames too, i just don't remember specifically what he said. And maybe Manchin will actually do that, but is waiting till the new Congress to surprise them.
Apparently you didn't read what I said. Because I anticipated this exact comment, I went ahead and pointed out that censorship is not what I am calling for. What I am calling for is to not mislead people about what you are saying. Don't let your confirmation bias get ahead of the evidence. It is an unproductive exercise. Presenting a theory or hypothetical for discussion is what we do here. Claiming said theory or hypothetical as fact with evidentiary support being near zero is the kind of thing that reflects poorly on everyone.
Here is a fairly extreme example for purposes of illustration: Say you post a random tweet from "DeWayne" in the Ozarks saying "Barack Obama is actually a lizard. I saw it myself with my own eyes." And then your headline says "I frickin knew it! Obama is a lizard! (sauce inside)" Acting like this is some factual assertion with support is exactly the type of thing that wastes everyone's time and causes people from the outside looking in to think the entire place is a cesspool of dumbasses and morons that will literally believe anything they read that supports their own confirmation bias. This is not limited to extreme examples. Giving weight to evidence that a reasonable person ought not give weight to, and the OP ought to know better even if they don't...that is the issue.
I am not saying that yet to be proven theories are to be considered outlandish. I am saying don't speculate and claim it as fact.
Regarding your example about vaccine dangers - saying that your child was injured in 2000 and you believe it to be a result of vaccines is not at all the type of discussion I am referring to. But say you posted a random tweet from a random person making a statement on the topic and said "see! this PROVES that vaccines are dangerous!" this is the type of posting that is not helpful. If you said "I am inclined to believe this guy, because I have had a similar experience with my own child..." there is nothing wrong with this.
It really is not as difficult as some people have chimed in here. All I am saying is don't mislead people about what you are presenting. That is not a productive exercise for anyone. Don't let your confirmation bias get ahead of the evidence.
At no time did I say that something cannot be talked about. All I am saying is that people need to be mindful of the way they talk about it. For example, posting a video from twitter in Brazil with absolutely no way to authenticate it and then as a corollary acting as if it is a sufficient basis to conclude "ItS hAbBeNiNg!@!" doesn't do anyone any favors.
That doesn't mean don't post it. It means don't attribute a meaning to it that cannot be substantiated. Its a fair question to ask "is this legit?" or "does this mean what we think it does?" But to be like "holy crap! martial law in Brazil!" serves no useful purpose. Especially when someone lazy can look into it and instantly discover it is not what it is being purported to be.
Want to postulate or let out a brain fart for discussion? Go right ahead. Nothing wrong with that. Its only a bad idea when speculation is presented as fact. That is all I am saying.
On another note, is it unreasonable to ask for an e-thot flair option on these posts?
How much of an issue are drug cartels there? And what kind of drugs are they pushing? Are they affiliated with Colombian cartels?
I have seen some troubling videos of drug gang shootouts in Paraguay on the border with Brazil. Maybe I am just naive, but I always thought that drug cartels were a product of American and European consumption. Pablo Escobar existed as a function of living at the beginning of the supply chain - where the coke is made. Mexican cartels exist as a function of the huge cash influx they receive helping the Colombian cartels smuggle the coke into the US.
I am aware that marijuana also appears to be somewhat lucrative to the Mexican cartels. Or at least it did for awhile. Human trafficking/smuggling as well. But it seems like the huge money from Colombian cocaine was what allowed the cartels to grow and be able to engage in the other side businesses. Perhaps this take is wholly inaccurate. It is my perception from what I have seen.
Where I am going is trying to uncover what kinds of businesses these Brazilian cartels engage in. It isn’t smuggling drugs to the US or Europe. They don’t grow much (any?) coca in Brazil that I am aware of. And the amount of money pushing drugs on the streets of Brazil cannot be remotely lucrative, can it? Does Brazil have enough people with disposable incomes to afford a drug lifestyle such that powerful cartels are the inevitable product of such lifestyles?
I hope this story continues to be updated daily until we get an answer. Utterly befuddling if accurate. The fact that Obrador is quoted as publicly demanding answers is also very odd. If he really said this, you would think he already had spoken to the state department about it privately. And clearly didn’t get a satisfactory answer.
I trust the government so much a story like this makes me think he’s been sprung so he can run a violence campaign here getting riots going. It is not the only possibility that can be supported by Obrador getting no answers from us. But in my mind, its one of the top most likely explanations.
If you’re a dude and you are married to a chick, not sure that makes you a fag. But pretending you’re not a dude might. Not sure.
I haven’t read anything written so strangely in awhile. In fact, it makes me want to look for some kind of hidden message. My first thought is that this was originally written in another language and translated. This might be the case. Not sure.
The organization of this is odd. Likewise, the length is way too long. You are left wondering where this guy is going with all of this. It is like a high school paper with no thesis. Just a bunch of random thoughts collated together. I had the feeling when I got to the end that the author was going to signal some kind of danger on the horizon. A message like “not to worry, we always get our leftist whack job governments in the aftermath of martial law.” But never materialized.
I hope Brazil gets their ducks in a row. I am skeptical it will occur.
We can only help ourselves. And while I understand and sometimes feel the same level of jaded as you describe, it seems as though it is just part of the process.
The amount of times I’ve been called a shill here because I question or reject what people say is pretty crazy. But I don’t mind. It just forces me to either think harder or re-evaluate my position. No amount of that is going to stop me from saying what I think. Although I should probably change my name to “UnconscionableSkeptic” since these days I feel like all I do is crap on everything. Fortunately, outside of a few dill holes, most people avoid personal attacks.
So basically it is police and not military that are taking out drug dealers? Granted I know very little about Brazil, but it did always seem odd that the military would engage in that work. The only thing that made it seem plausible is that Mexico does this all the time against the cartels there.
Some good friends of mine are Brazilian. I have picked up Portuguese over the last couple of years since I actually can practice with them. Sadly, all I have picked up about the country as a whole is about steaks and how much more awesome they are there lol
I can’t quite put my finger on specifically what, but it all feels like a giant psyop what is being reported in the US about Brazil. Why are we getting told things from otherwise mostly reliable US sources? Gateway pundit has a mixed record. My complaints about them mostly are about editorializing (often with no real substance to back up the position) in lieu of reporting facts. And if I am remembering right, Steve Bannon has also furthered this idea of eminent military intervention.
Sometimes I wonder if this stuff isn’t put out there so that we all spread it around and look retarded in the process. Which, if true, means we need to reevaluate the purpose of some of these smaller publications & pundits (TGP, Bannon).
No love lost here with this guy. But when someone says something sensible, I am all for utilizing it to reach people. He doesn't say much sensible stuff, but when he does, why not spread it?
That dude isn't in any uniform and doesn't look like anyone prepared to engage in combat physically. Honestly my take is that this is the kind of advice I would have given prior to January 6 at a gathering of large people. "Be prepared. Get food, and gas up your cars. If something goes down, you don't want to be caught with your pants down. Buy some batteries, a solar charger, and fill up some propane. If you got a generator, make sure you have fuel for it. You need enough for 2-4 weeks just to be safe. It is highly likely it could get very ugly out there. You need to be able to stay out of the streets for an extended period for your own safety."
Well, we only have faux news media to tell us how many are actually entering. The only thing I have seen published are the number of encounters CBP have with illegals. How they arrive at the number of people actually entering from the number there are encounters with seems like a lot of hocus pocus to me. It is just as likely to be a ridiculously high estimate as a ridiculously low estimate. Seems like no foundation whatsoever to be credible. The only thing we know for sure is illegals are entering. And a shitload want to enter and are lined up to do so. Every other number is pure speculation; and it would appear to be wild speculation in a best case scenario.
It is probably easier to send support staff to those countries for training than it is to bring entire units here. For that reason alone, I don't think it is possible.
How do we even know its really happening? I can't find anything at all on it. I've seen multiple tweets with videos that are demonstrably several years old. Others have no way to determine a date. I've got several friends from Brazil who also said they have no idea whats happening because everything is censored. My Portuguese is decent, but I cannot find anything remotely credible looking to back this up.
I want it to be true. But I don't blindly accept something without proof. Just seems pretty iffy to me that damn near a complete blockade of info on it is happening. You'd think our state department would be losing their shit about it and making threats. But nothing. All we got are some drug dealers getting clipped by the military. And a bunch of inferences on what that means being made. Other than this, we have squat. Would happily be wrong here if someone can show me to the contrary.
It is bullshit that government is involved in marriage to begin with. Having said that...
If you go get same sex married on January 1 of next year, you go get a license to get married on January 1. Lets just say it will be in Minnesota. It was a long time ago when I got married, so I don't remember what the exact rules were. But if I did not get married within like 72 hours of what I put on there, it was void.
So you finally get married on January 1 of 2023. A few months later (lets say June 1, 2023) you move to another state (lets say Tennessee) that wouldn't let you do it there on Jan 1, 2023. But you aren't asking them to let you do it there. Because you already did it in Minnesota. What this statute is requiring is that Tennessee must recognize what you lawfully did in Minnesota on Jan 1 2023. As in past tense.
Want to practice law in Tennessee after being admitted to Minnesota bar? Not the same thing. Simply existing in Tennessee is not the practice of law. But representing clients in a court room sure is. If you wish to represent people in the future in a Tennessee court room, then you must be admitted to the Tennessee bar. Tennessee has no need to recognize your ability to practice in Minnesota.
Want to drive a car in Tennessee after having a Minnesota license? This is an ongoing act or a future act. Not the same as having a past event recognized. You don't need a Tennessee license to cover your past driving in Minnesota.
On another note, I am not sure where the feds even come off with the authority to write such a statute.
Article I § 9
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Doesn't appear on the list.
There is a key distinction here though. All of the licenses you describe are for ongoing activities. Marriage doesn't work that way. One does not get married, and then continue to get married. It is a one time occurrence.
To illustrate: You can be admitted to practice law in Kentucky, and when moving to Nevada, you are seeking to continue practicing law. So you must apply to Nevada. Because the practice of law is going to continue. Same thing with driver licenses.
When you move from CA as same sex married couple to SC, you aren't asking SC to let you get married. Because you already are married. To get unmarried, you'd have to get divorced. Under full faith & credit, this statute is requiring a state recognize this out of state occurrence.
Not that I agree with any of these concepts; but I can't see how a one time occurrence is analogous to ongoing or future actions.
What you articulate is the exact thing that should happen as well as the precise reasons it should happen. The cynic/skeptic in me says this is still the same script though. And we've already seen how it ends. I hate being cynical. It has been forced into my psyche over the years.
Tick tocking receipts has become a commonplace maddening act that results in the appearance of bullshit/idiocy. If you aren’t going to drop receipts then stfu. No more Charlie Brown kicking the football bs. No more 2 more weeks bs.
Yep. I have seen this script before.
Kari Lake was confident she would win the future ballot dumps from Election Day. Totally confident she would be declared the winner. Now totally confident she will prevail in court.
Props to her on confidence. But that is all cope to me. We know where this is going because we’ve seen it before. Doesn’t mean you don’t try. But it does get a little tiring and/or embarrassing when the inevitable happens. Probably would help a lot to not be so openly confident leading to an ultimate let down. That is the path of your average democrat.
SEC. 4. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT GIVEN TO MARRIAGE EQUALITY.
Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, as amended by this Act, is further amended by inserting after section 1738B the following:
Ҥ 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof
“(a) In General.—No person acting under color of State law may deny—
“(1) full faith and credit to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals; or
“(2) a right or claim arising from such a marriage on the basis that such marriage would not be recognized under the law of that State on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals.
“(b) Enforcement By Attorney General.—The Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against any person who violates subsection (a) for declaratory and injunctive relief.
“(c) Private Right Of Action.—Any person who is harmed by a violation of subsection (a) may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against the person who violated such subsection for declaratory and injunctive relief.
“(d) State Defined.—In this section, the term ‘State’ has the meaning given such term under section 7 of title 1.”.
Original text amended by the above:
1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
This seems pretty cut and dry. If a same sex couple got married in California, this statute would require Texas to give it full faith and credit (presuming Texas did not allow same sex marriage). So ya, you couldn’t be a same sex couple and get married in Texas. But you could go to California then when you return to Texas, it must be recognized by Texas.
Basically, all it takes is one state doing gay marriages, and the other 49 have to recognize it. Not sure how else you could read this.
The driver license analogy is not the best. Because someone moving from one state to the other has to apply for a license in their new state of residence. At no time must you apply for a marriage license again just because you moved. You aren’t getting married again. You just relocated. A state banning same sex marriage wouldn’t have to issue you a license, but you also wouldn’t be asking them to do so. Since you already got one in a state that allowed it.
Hold up, I just had another brain fart: wasn’t Baker one of the guys that allegedly flipped in the whole Russia collusion hoax? Along with lisa page if I recall. Am I making this up out of thin air or was that totally a running theory?
I thought frens don’t let frens datefag on here?
Think of the idiocy in how they justify it. Let’s presume that what he was tweeting was “dangerous super duper serial mithinformathon that threatens Our Democracy™“ or whatever these dickheads say. How did their response actually change this?
Basically, if the goal was to stop or curb these statements, it didn’t come close to working. Trump had 80 million followers. I am going to presume his account got millions of impressions a day. The threat to Our Democracy™ Continued unabated.
What they did is not much different than skimming an inch of water out of a 10 foot swimming pool to lower the risk of drowning. As if any meaningful difference exists before and after.
Now when it comes to trying to skew an election a couple of points…it is possible they had great success with this. Since we don’t know the true vote totals, we can’t even begin to postulate what the impact was. But we know they believed there to be an impact in their favor; otherwise no action would have been taken.