(08-19-2023 08:39 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-19-2023 07:16 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  The charitable interpretation for me is that he is a novice politician who let the moment get away, and he said some thoughtless things without really meaning to.

The less charitable interpretation is that he was happy to put out the idea that Juneteenth was useless, and that he knew it would get coverage and he would gain some traction from a certain portion of the electorate.

Wrong thread, 93. Just pointing it out as a member of a cabal would do for one of their fellow cabalists.

Don’t know where you got cabal.

(08-19-2023 08:39 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-19-2023 07:16 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  The charitable interpretation for me is that he is a novice politician who let the moment get away, and he said some thoughtless things without really meaning to.

The less charitable interpretation is that he was happy to put out the idea that Juneteenth was useless, and that he knew it would get coverage and he would gain some traction from a certain portion of the electorate.

Wrong thread, 93. Just pointing it out as a member of a cabal would do for one of their fellow cabalists.

Smurf Rule #125: ABC. Always Be Correcting improperly threaded posts for your fellow travelers

(08-19-2023 09:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-19-2023 05:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-18-2023 08:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-18-2023 07:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-18-2023 06:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I understand the venue rules, and think maybe they are using them, just as the GA DA is using the RICO stuff to reach a result that the DNC is thrilled with.

(Aside: I know someone who was sued under RICO. The alleged crime: not assigning a parking space. The corrupt organization:
GSA.)

As you say, we shall see. But I am suspicious of the guy that just tried to give Hunter blanket immunity. You are not? You think that all of a sudden they are unbiased seekers of truth? Or did you miss the last 7 years?

We shall see.

What if, and hear me out here, this has nothing to do with what the DNC wants? And it’s instead about what will make the best case for the prosecutors?

and what if, hear me out here, the opposite is true?

As Tanq has said, we shall see.

What do we have to go on that tells us the DOJ is determined to pursue the Hunter case? The immunity offer? The foot dragging on the laptop. The 51 intelligence officers that Biden quoted in his election campaign?the misuse of known tainted evidence?

What’s more likely to be true? The DOJ cares what the DNC thinks as you allude to? Or they don’t?

Based on their actions and nonactions the last 7-8 years, they care. They consistently work for the Democrats. Consistently.

if a person puts out birdseed and chases away cats, would you say they are partial to birds and not fair to cats?

(08-19-2023 09:24 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-19-2023 08:39 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-19-2023 07:16 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  The charitable interpretation for me is that he is a novice politician who let the moment get away, and he said some thoughtless things without really meaning to.

The less charitable interpretation is that he was happy to put out the idea that Juneteenth was useless, and that he knew it would get coverage and he would gain some traction from a certain portion of the electorate.

Wrong thread, 93. Just pointing it out as a member of a cabal would do for one of their fellow cabalists.

Smurf Rule #125: ABC. Always Be Correcting improperly threaded posts for your fellow travelers

I should learn photoshop.

(08-19-2023 10:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-19-2023 09:24 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-19-2023 08:39 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-19-2023 07:16 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  The charitable interpretation for me is that he is a novice politician who let the moment get away, and he said some thoughtless things without really meaning to.

The less charitable interpretation is that he was happy to put out the idea that Juneteenth was useless, and that he knew it would get coverage and he would gain some traction from a certain portion of the electorate.

Wrong thread, 93. Just pointing it out as a member of a cabal would do for one of their fellow cabalists.

Smurf Rule #125: ABC. Always Be Correcting improperly threaded posts for your fellow travelers

I should learn photoshop.

My goal is the steak knives. (Oblique reference to that particular scene….)

(08-19-2023 11:55 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-19-2023 10:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

Quote:Smurf Rule #125: ABC. Always Be Correcting improperly threaded posts for your fellow travelers

I should learn photoshop.

My goal is the steak knives. (Oblique reference to that particular scene….)

look like you get third place...

(08-19-2023 03:17 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(08-19-2023 11:55 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-19-2023 10:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

Quote:Smurf Rule #125: ABC. Always Be Correcting improperly threaded posts for your fellow travelers

I should learn photoshop.

My goal is the steak knives. (Oblique reference to that particular scene….)

look like you get third place...

Hot damn -- my secret goal in life is to get fired by a guy who has to explain at least 3 sets of 'no remand' conditions -- soon to be a 4th set.

Actually at one point I *was* fired by a guy who had remand conditions, now that I think of it.....

I'm just surprised that a comment as clear as...

But will they? IMO, no...

is somehow taken as a 'certainty'.

For all of you so intent that people have read all of the 'best' (obviously subjective) sources and have an appropriate background before stating their opinions... I assume that you are 100% AGAINST Vivek's proposal that anyone under 25 pass a simple civics test (or engage in civil service) in order to vote..... NOT because it goes too far in setting conditions and age limits for rights, but because it doesn't go far enough to ensure that their opinions meet your standards.

(08-21-2023 08:22 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'm just surprised that a comment as clear as...

But will they? IMO, no...

is somehow taken as a 'certainty'.

For all of you so intent that people have read all of the 'best' (obviously subjective) sources and have an appropriate background before stating their opinions... I assume that you are 100% AGAINST Vivek's proposal that anyone under 25 pass a simple civics test (or engage in civil service) in order to vote..... NOT because it goes too far in setting conditions and age limits for rights, but because it doesn't go far enough to ensure that their opinions meet your standards.

To what does the bolded refer?

I'm assuming the bolded connects to your last paragraph.

(08-21-2023 08:22 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  .. I assume that you are 100% AGAINST Vivek's proposal that anyone under 25 pass a simple civics test (or engage in civil service) in order to vote.....

I am 100% in favor of that. He just moved up in my estimation.

Active duty military excepted.

(08-21-2023 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 08:22 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  .. I assume that you are 100% AGAINST Vivek's proposal that anyone under 25 pass a simple civics test (or engage in civil service) in order to vote.....

I am 100% in favor of that. He just moved up in my estimation.

Active duty military excepted.

How would that even work? A Constitutional amendment?

(08-21-2023 11:34 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 08:22 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  .. I assume that you are 100% AGAINST Vivek's proposal that anyone under 25 pass a simple civics test (or engage in civil service) in order to vote.....

I am 100% in favor of that. He just moved up in my estimation.

Active duty military excepted.

How would that even work? A Constitutional amendment?

Probably. How did we lower it to 18?

I would raise the voting age to 25, with the following exceptions:

a. Those who are serving or have honorably served in our armed forces, and,
b. Those who pass a test similar to the one required of our naturalized citizens.

(08-21-2023 11:34 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 08:22 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  .. I assume that you are 100% AGAINST Vivek's proposal that anyone under 25 pass a simple civics test (or engage in civil service) in order to vote.....

I am 100% in favor of that. He just moved up in my estimation.

Active duty military excepted.

How would that even work? A Constitutional amendment?

There seems to be some details that would have to be worked out... but as I understand it, it is up to the states to decide who can and cannot vote in their jurisdiction. I'd think states with high legal/recent immigrant populations would support these rules... while states without them might not. One of the many reasons why 'the popular vote' is not a thing in Federal elections.

Feds could certainly incentivize such a rule... but I wouldn't think that would sit well with factions of the right (libertarians?)... I think it would mostly be a political push by the President to get that movement started... with support for federal employees or military service to vote.... maybe an EO stating that all members of the government, certain public sector service employees or military service members between 18-25 are eligible to vote in federal elections, notwithstanding any local prohibitions... which then gives a framework for states to establish that law themselves?

I don't think there is any way he could just 'make it happen'... I don't even think a Constitutional Amendment would hold water to keep the states from having at least SOME differences.

Example... Cali could say anyone on public assistance or attending a state school is technically 'working for the government' and this eligible to vote in California elections.

(08-21-2023 12:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 11:34 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 08:22 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  .. I assume that you are 100% AGAINST Vivek's proposal that anyone under 25 pass a simple civics test (or engage in civil service) in order to vote.....

I am 100% in favor of that. He just moved up in my estimation.

Active duty military excepted.

How would that even work? A Constitutional amendment?

Probably. How did we lower it to 18?

I would raise the voting age to 25, with the following exceptions:

a. Those who are serving or have honorably served in our armed forces, and,
b. Those who pass a test similar to the one required of our naturalized citizens.

I understand the interest in this. It makes sense but it would be crazy-hard to implement.

So a 24 y/o political science major who is a working for the Virginia Republican committee is subject to the test but a 26 who lives at home and is unemployed is not.

(08-21-2023 01:26 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 12:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 11:34 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 08:22 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  .. I assume that you are 100% AGAINST Vivek's proposal that anyone under 25 pass a simple civics test (or engage in civil service) in order to vote.....

I am 100% in favor of that. He just moved up in my estimation.

Active duty military excepted.

How would that even work? A Constitutional amendment?

Probably. How did we lower it to 18?

I would raise the voting age to 25, with the following exceptions:

a. Those who are serving or have honorably served in our armed forces, and,
b. Those who pass a test similar to the one required of our naturalized citizens.

I understand the interest in this. It makes sense but it would be crazy-hard to implement.

So a 24 y/o political science major who is a working for the Virginia Republican committee is subject to the test but a 26 who lives at home and is unemployed is not.

It seems to me that a 'citizenship test' should be part of a good high school curriculum.... but to answer your specific question... the 24yr old has probably been voting since 18, and could just as easily be a California Democrat committee employee... and the 26yr old either hasn't been able to vote for the last 7 years or he apparently has time to study prior to hitting 26.


Car licenses are similar... I don't remember the specifics but an 18 or 21 yr old in Tx has somewhat different requirements for a license than a 16yr old. Not really comparing the two 'rights'... just that the process isn't that unusual.

Getting back to the original intent of this thread, IMO the current actions are all about running out the clock on the statute of limitations which Hunter's legal team has already done on crimes committed in 2018 and earlier. Yes, the fix is in. Not so much to protect Hunter, but to protect the Big Guy.

(08-21-2023 04:42 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Getting back to the original intent of this thread, IMO the current actions are all about running out the clock on the statute of limitations which Hunter's legal team has already done on crimes committed in 2018 and earlier. Yes, the fix is in. Not so much to protect Hunter, but to protect the Big Guy.

Protecting Biden is 'done'. He's a lame duck now as it is and the only way he survives is if Republicans screw this up, which they very well might... but if they do that (Trump runs as an independent or write in), even Harris could beat them. If I were Dems, I'd slow their roll on Trump. Get enough to sour SOME Reps on him and support guys like Christie whom Trump would hate and like to run against somehow. Turn the RNC into a dumpster fire.

If Biden didn't know, he was negligent in his duty to protect the office from such things. To me and lots of dems I know, that's enough. Whether he participated or just turned a blind eye to how his derelict son was making millions (Biden COULD be too stupid/insular to know that Hunter wasn't just a brilliant guy making millions to support the family) but he and especially his staff had a duty to know.

I'd run on that... That dems can't be trusted... That everything they've argued about reps is 100% true of their leadership... and that something 'new' is needed. That's what Reps should run on... Trump can't run on that. He did in 2016 and won... but he's tarnished goods now, whether fair or not

(08-21-2023 01:26 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 12:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 11:34 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 08:22 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  .. I assume that you are 100% AGAINST Vivek's proposal that anyone under 25 pass a simple civics test (or engage in civil service) in order to vote.....

I am 100% in favor of that. He just moved up in my estimation.

Active duty military excepted.

How would that even work? A Constitutional amendment?

Probably. How did we lower it to 18?

I would raise the voting age to 25, with the following exceptions:

a. Those who are serving or have honorably served in our armed forces, and,
b. Those who pass a test similar to the one required of our naturalized citizens.

I understand the interest in this. It makes sense but it would be crazy-hard to implement.

So a 24 y/o political science major who is a working for the Virginia Republican committee is subject to the test but a 26 who lives at home and is unemployed is not.

First, there are no PolySci majors who work for the Republicans, especially ones 24 years old. Might as well posit a Keebler elf.

If the 24 YO wanted to vote, he could take and pass the test. Not exactly years of his time involved. Maybe a bit longer that a Driver's test. The 26 YO could vote whether or not he had ever taken the test.

Pretty much like the current situation regarding 18 and 17 year olds, except the 17 has no way to show he should be able to vote, even if he is in the Marines.

(08-21-2023 05:05 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-21-2023 04:42 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Getting back to the original intent of this thread, IMO the current actions are all about running out the clock on the statute of limitations which Hunter's legal team has already done on crimes committed in 2018 and earlier. Yes, the fix is in. Not so much to protect Hunter, but to protect the Big Guy.

Protecting Biden is 'done'. He's a lame duck now as it is and the only way he survives is if Republicans screw this up, which they very well might... but if they do that (Trump runs as an independent or write in), even Harris could beat them. If I were Dems, I'd slow their roll on Trump. Get enough to sour SOME Reps on him and support guys like Christie whom Trump would hate and like to run against somehow. Turn the RNC into a dumpster fire.

If Biden didn't know, he was negligent in his duty to protect the office from such things. To me and lots of dems I know, that's enough. Whether he participated or just turned a blind eye to how his derelict son was making millions (Biden COULD be too stupid/insular to know that Hunter wasn't just a brilliant guy making millions to support the family) but he and especially his staff had a duty to know.

I'd run on that... That dems can't be trusted... That everything they've argued about reps is 100% true of their leadership... and that something 'new' is needed. That's what Reps should run on... Trump can't run on that. He did in 2016 and won... but he's tarnished goods now, whether fair or not

The current Special Counsel is involved in letting statues of limitations expire. Some here want to wait and see. I've seen enough.

Apparently a couple of the Republican candidates share my view of the DOJ.