ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
paging @sambowieshin

GaA24wBXQAENW49
 
From sunnyright X post:


"It does however have the money for a dedicated DEI office, the policies of which “shape policies and operations” and which is “central to our mission”


"Maybe we can start with the salaries of the many many people serving on its multitude of DEI committees and racial equity working groups. And get back to just supporting small businesses instead of serving as a salary mill for lefties who graduated with BAs in Gender Studies and whose other career choice was barista."










Many of the DEI positions in that administration. Would like to see their salaries:






GaA3dadWYAAaGGw
 
REVEALED: Dirty Mitch McConnell Is Up to His Old Tricks – Is Not Funding Kari Lake or Ted Cruz in Their US Senate Races when BOTH are Locked in Tight Races (VIDEO)

"In working to flip seats currently held by Democrats, the Senate Leadership Fund plans to spend $67.5 million on TV, radio and digital ad reservations in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. The super PAC, run by close McConnell allies, will add $28 million in outside spending to Republicans’ effort to unseat Sen. Bob Casey in Pennsylvania, $17 million in Wisconsin to target Sen. Tammy Baldwin, and $22.5 million in Michigan, where the parties are fighting over an open seat now held by Democrats."

So is AZ more winnable than these three seats?

Is Cruz in enough trouble in red TX to warrant spending over these three seats?

Note that the SLF is run by MM allies, not MM himself.

Those two have an axe to grind imo. Poor babies.

I predict Pubs flip one+ of the three seats SLF is spending on over Lake winning or Cruz losing.

Why is Cruz so bad/close?

 
Last edited:
You couldn't be more wrong.

Their only other option was Bernie, and he would have been destroyed on a national level w/ his policies/beliefs. The country was definitely not ready for that.
I think there was just that much dislike/hate for Hillary by a large enough group of people, that she couldn't win. Bernie was the media darling, but I'm saying just pick any random Dem from the House or Senate or Governor, who had more than 1 term in office, and that person would have done better than Hillary.
Well, actually I think you would have seen less votes for both candidates, less for the Dem because Hillary did have her extremist supporters some of whom may not have voted because it wasn't her; and Trump would have gotten less, losing the anti-Hillary votes.

Personally, I was so appalled by both of them, I voted for every other office, but either left the President blank or voted for the Libertarian. I admit, Trump wasn't as bad as I had feared. I don't care about tweets & what someone says, I care about what they do (or don't do).
 
Yes, you do. That is why you libs want to import so much labor ... bc low fertility rates. A$$hole.
That and more lib voters. They can't be sure that babies they have will grow up corrupt and evil like themselves and vote lib. They can ensure that if they bring them in with the promise of free stuff, these people will jump at the chance because they are lazy and uneducated.
 
Govt was the shelter for the overproduction of colleges and universities. The system was self-replicating and ever-expanding with no curbs to the limits of it. That's the trouble with tribbles.

It's a really cute idea to offer free college to some people because they can't afford it, while others pay full price, but what does that to the actual value of an education? (WHAT happens when a company over-produces a product and saturates the market? Prices drop because perceived value drops.)

The problem with govt "higher ed" is that they are budget driven. They need to keep the budget increasing to keep expanding and keep up with inflation, causing expenses to increase, while people as a rule do less and less work, necessitating more and more employees to get the same work accomplished.... Then you need more buildings and more land to house staff and maintenance... then you need more money to operate more facilities, then you need to upgrade....

You also need more students to justify the budgets, but they can't all graduate with the current number of depts, so you add more depts, more majors, more degrees, and then more instructors who do less and less instructing and need more assistance to teach classes, so you need more graduate students for cheaper labor... and the schools all wind up putting out more and more graduates with less and less valuable skills for fewer and fewer jobs.

So... the govt became the safe haven for a while. Now those same people are being absorbed by industry and the market, and businesses and markets are failing, while at the same time there's not enough skilled at repairing or building anew what is needed.
💯

Another area (higher Ed) that many of us probably know people who, if Trump does what he must (in this case reform the entire student loan disaster), will lose their jobs.

You’re right, though. Nothing is any more emblematic of the disaster that government always creates than higher education.
 
Surprise...Surprise.

The FBI makes a big announcement that crime is down statistically (even though anyone paying attention knows that is ridiculous)...dems and media get their talking point and just like job numbers and other things a little while later we quietly get some more accurate numbers.




From the article:

When the FBI originally released the “final” crime data for 2022 in September 2023, it reported that the nation’s violent crime rate fell by 2.1%. This quickly became, and remains, a Democratic Party talking point to counter Donald Trump’s claims of soaring crime.

But the FBI has quietly revised those numbers, releasing new data that shows violent crime increased in 2022 by 4.5%. The new data includes thousands more murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults.

The Bureau – which has been at the center of partisan storms – made no mention of these revisions in its September 2024 press release.

RCI discovered the change through a cryptic reference on the FBI website that states: “The 2022 violent crime rate has been updated for inclusion in CIUS, 2023.” But there is no mention that the numbers increased. One only sees the change by downloading the FBI’s new crime data and comparing it to the file released last year.

“I have checked the data on total violent crime from 2004 to 2022,” Carl Moody, a professor at the College of William & Mary who specializes in studying crime, told RealClearInvestigations. “There were no revisions from 2004 to 2015, and from 2016 to 2020, there were small changes of less than one percentage point. The huge changes in 2021 and 2022, especially without an explanation, make it difficult to trust the FBI data.”




Extensive Revisions in Violent Crime Stats

The actual changes in crimes are extensive. The updated data for 2022 report that there were 80,029 more violent crimes than in 2021. There were an additional 1,699 murders, 7,780 rapes, 33,459 robberies, and 37,091 aggravated assaults.
But libs here will continue to spew disinformation from the old reports when the conversation turns to how bad crime has become lately with the influx of millions of criminals across the border.
 
I think that I may have spotted a trend here. Not sure. Maybe. I think so....but I'll have to think on it some.

 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT