As much as I want to love this from a MAGA perspective (especially because of what MAGA-folks have had to endure at the hands of the left for so long), a part of me can't help but recognize how MAGA-folks would react if Biden or some other Democrat President were to post something like this (like dumping a Christian celebrity into a dumpster then laughing and dancing about it).

This was posted by the official white house account as well.

From a legal, corporate standpoint, why should businesses NOT seek out the least expensive hiring opportunity if it can (theoretically) do just as good (if not better, theoretically) of a job?

Would anyone really boycott Amazon.com for hiring H-1B?

Isn't Amazon more or less a global company now, even if "home base" is the US?

Thank you, it was enjoyable. I might've missed it otherwise.

1. Massie's complaint was that Maduro's capture violated "Article I: Congressional War Declaration". Trump argues it was valid under "Article II: Executive Power" (particularly in regards to drug issues related to Maduro and the "illegality" of Maduro's leadership over an otherwise sovereign nation). Trump's team put in a lot of effort to push the issue into their legal favor.
2. That DHS/ICE funding bill had a lot of great stuff in it that our country needed, but it also included funds for CISA (related to cyber security) in ways which Massie interpreted as enabling online censorship (big brother, big government stuff).
3. Massie has demanded full transparency on the Epstein files, particularly noting (multiple times) that it was potential offenders that were often redacted rather than the victims (which clearly should've been the other way around). As for the "innocence" of the specific names mentioned, that's still being investigated (to my knowledge). DOJ really slowed down to a halt under Pam Bondy, and Massie wasn't the only one frustrated about it.
4. He never defended Clinton in regards to Epstein. This is a mis-framing of what Massie's concerns were. He wanted ALL the criminals related to Epstein to be caught, not cherry-picked subpoenas related to Clinton only. If anything, Clinton would be immune to any actions related to Epstein which occurred specifically during his tenure as President (same for Obama, for that matter). I don't like it, but it's a protection guaranteed in the law and ratified by the Supreme Court. Attempting to waste time going after one man instead of just releasing everything would do little more than delay justice for all.
5. The left is stupid, and will typically report anyone that seems to cause Trump any amount of grief or pain. Powerful figures "behind the scenes" (like AIPAC) are a bit more complicated because they play both sides (just as Trump did prior to his run for President), but become less complicated once you understand what their objectives are. Doing "guilty-by-association" is a fairly easy short-cut to take when attempting to evaluate one's character, and often takes less effort to measuring the man themselves.

There are several Christian scriptures that talk about God not looking upon sin with any degree of allowance. Massie seems pretty firm in not wanting to pass anything that enables any degree of action which works against the interests of the American people. The real problem are the omnibus bills. If each individual matter were genuinely voted upon within and of itself, I doubt anybody would have any issue with Massie's voting record, and he'd show to support all of the same things Trump wants his allies to support.

This is Polymarket, not to be taken too seriously.

Massie aims for loyalty to the constitution over loyalty to any particular government official. Congressional branch is SUPPOSED to be a checks and balance for the Executive, not subservient to it.

Sounds like an association fallacy to me. Besides, how impossible is it to find a congressman who isn't "bought" by Jewish-related influence? By that standard, even Trump wouldn't pass his own litmus test from his early campaign days of "nobody owns me" because he's accepted quite a bit of money from notable sources since then.

"Voted No on border wall". I don't think any of our bills are one issue bills yet, and I think Massie resists the notion of pushing through things you want with things you don't want. America can't have a clear vision of what it's politicians believe in if every bill is something like, "kick all the illegals out, but illegals are now permitted to Mail in vote from out of country"

What do you mean?

... what? Do you have any examples to help illustrate this? The only things I'm aware of that Massie opposes on Trump's side are: going to war without Congressional approval, sending money overseas, and protecting predators (Trump has been strange off and on regarding the whole Epstein debacle since the start of his second term)

Likely funded by Isreal? Doesn't a huge chunk of his opponent's money come from groups supportive of Isreal?

This ties back into other issues that even conservatives and Republicans have often complained about, just vote on one thing at a time! The whole strategy of smashing a bunch of stuff into a bill in order to get at least some of what you want is largely counter-productive in the long term and hyper complicates our laws.

His reasoning for that was grounded in the condition. If America needs to do to war, fine, but do it the right way. Inform congress, get a vote to go to war, then act. Calling it a "military maneuver" just sounds like a paper-thin excuse to do whatever the heck you want regardless of what the constitution requires.

That sounds like an association fallacy on Stephen's part

The money behind "de-seating him" in his congressional race is certainly interesting... already pacing as the most expensive of its kind.

I mean, this would be an interesting "5D chess move" if this was Trump's intention, but it just seems weird for Trump to NOT be on Massie's side on the very things they "fight" about.

Doesn't his voting record coincide with what Republicans want like... 97% of the time? ... only varying to vote against foreign aid and protecting predators?

I'm always hesitant about adopting "preventative" methods when it involves something irregular outside of a normal healthy diet and exercise that somebody can profit off of.

I'm still puzzled as to why he (and others) haven't been arrested yet, under the Patriot act or otherwise.

And if they have already been arrested (and/or dealt with), I can't understand why that information hasn't been made public yet.

Just... why?

So... just Zinc + Quercetin in sufficiently copious amounts for a while until the problem just goes away? I'm at work and can't listen with the sound on at the moment.

I can't upvote this enough. @Joys1Daughter please look into this.

Aye, at some point we all have to settle for some measure of "unproven belief" (Kool-aid) simply because it's often impossible to arrive at a confidently correct and truthful answer. It's the same reason so many biblical scholars actually lose their faith in the scriptures simply because their research exposes them to how impossible of a task it would have been to preserve and faithfully translate the original meaning of those texts over the course of thousands of years, which included times of destruction, warfare, and so forth.

https://biblehub.com/searchhebrew.php?q=hanta

(zero results)

No arguments there. Though the secular definition does make me wonder if there's more to what Q said than what our initial reflex causes us to interpret