Something positive for our government’s future - bringing back a competence exam for hiring.
1 Like
More hipsters, more diversity, more culture, higher incomes, higher property values. Fewer confederate flags.
So we gloss over the pesky detail that those state-level audits that found no evidence were conducted by the same states that allegedly allowed it to happen in the first place. Then we put all the focus on claims that no one was supposed to see this data, essentially implying not that the conclusions are wrong but that they are inadmissible as fruit from a poisonous tree.
Can they seriously not see how fishy that looks?
I’m beginning to believe that whenever liberals reject something as “misleading” or “baseless” claims from “right wing conspiracy nuts”, they’re saying not that the accusations are wrong, but that they believe they did the right thing. Thus they are objecting to their righteousness being characterized as “illegal” or “fraud”. Even when the accusation itself is spot on.
1 Like
Did you just read the first quarter of the article or the whole thing? Nobody is implying anything about the conclusions, other than the fact that the author(s) have some doubts and could not substantiate those conclusions.
I looked through the whole thing. The first quarter was about how the claims are unsubstantiated, the remainder was criticizing how they shouldnt have been able to see the information at all regardless of how right or wrong their conclusions were.
You kinda highlight another hypocrisy in this - people being so offended about the violation of privacy from letting DOGE review these records, while at the same time criticizing DOGE for not violating privacy by releasing the data that substatiates their conclusions.
Again, even if you are entirely correct and it’s all entirely made up, can you not see how suspicious, and idiotic, these reactions come off as being?
1 Like
I’m not sure if you are referencing some other “reactions in the media”, but I didn’t see any “reactions” in the NPR article you linked. It said that D was alleged, because A leads to B leads to C leads to D. However, this may not be true because they’re not supposed to be able to see A, and they’re not supposed to be able to connect B to C, but even if they somehow managed to do that, C could be outdated, so the conclusion could be flawed or exaggerated. NPR tried but couldn’t verify any of it.
FBI corruption under Biden still being covered up
1 Like
Here’s another one:
Judge allows requirement that everyone in US illegally must register to move forward
All this outrage about how somehow Trump enforcing the law proves he thinks he’s above the law, and then they sue with the legal argument of [I kid you not] “We dont like the law, therefore the government cant force us to follow it”.
The groups that sued say the government should have gone through the more lengthy public notification process before bringing about the change, and that it’s enforcing this simply to facilitate President Donald Trump’s aim of carrying out mass deportations.
They argue that the registry puts people who work, contribute to the economy and have deep family ties in America into a deep bind: Do they come forward, register and essentially give up their location to a government intent on carrying out mass deportations, or do they stay in the shadows and risk being charged with the crime of not registering?
Can they not fathom the possibility that no one is obsessed with mass deportations, mass deportations is the obvious resolution to there being masses of illegal immigrants in the country? If not for all the illegals, there’d be no “obsession”.
Again, another instance where they believe they are right so it should be allowed regardless of what the law says, and anything opposing what they believe is wrong even if it is following the law.
1 Like
Now you are exaggerating. Nowhere does it say that “the government can’t force us to follow it.” It says exactly what you quoted: “The groups that sued say the government should have gone through the more lengthy public notification process”. I don’t know all the relevant laws, but there may be a law which describes this lengthy notification process, and perhaps that law should have been followed, and so they sued to make sure “the law” is followed.
You’re outraged that someone believes they’re right regardless of what “the law” says, while it seems to me that they’re only alleging that “the law” was not followed.
That entire quote is nothing but rationalizing why it is so horrible that the government is forcing a law on illegals. If they think the law wasnt being followed, they would argue the law wasnt being followed. Hell, they even buzzworded it, claiming it’s only happening because crazy Trump is being crazy Trump so it must be inherently wrong.
“But they contribute to the economy and have really strong family ties here! It’s so wrong to put them in this predicament just because Trump is obsessed with deporting tons of people!”
1 Like
I agree that their contributions and family ties are not an excuse to break the law. But it is a reason that puts those people in a predicament – should they register, which would almost certainly set the government on a path to deport them, or not register and risk being found out, fined, and then most likely deported. The end result is pretty much the same – deportation. But registration is more likely to speed it up, while not registering gives them a chance to stay indefinitely. If I was in their shoes, I probably wouldn’t register. The carrot is too small, the stick too big.
1 Like
As it should be - BECAUSE THEY ARE HERE ILLEGALLY. It’s a predicament of their own making (although at this point, yeah, many of them can blame liberals for contributing to/compounding their predicament).
You would choose not to register, that’s your decision and your potential consequences if caught. I have no problem with that. You arent suing for the right to be exempt from the law just because it isnt what you want. That’s my main objection with all this; they want to break the laws they dont like, but expect to get judicial cover to prevent the consequences of breaking those laws. That isnt how the judiciary is supposed to work.
2 Likes
Rozanski makes a good pitch. There will be some winners as the government becomes more efficient and maybe Booz-Allen will be one of them.
1 Like
Good news from North Dakota
1 Like
That’s the opposite of good – it’s stupid.
Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes? LOL
Stupid is repeating the same system that has already given terrible results. RCV gave Frisco district attorney Chesa Boudin, who had to be recalled. Then Oakland turned around and used it to elect Mayor Sheng Thao, who is under indictment and was also recalled. By coincidence the city is now conducting an RCV election for a successor. Several days after “election day” no one knows how it will turn out. Oakland is in Alameda County who followed @scripta’s advice and used their RCV system to elect district attorney Pamela Price. She was also recalled.
You can’t blame a system for who the voters voted for. If anything, ranked choice should help prevent bad candidates from winning. No system is going to negate stupid partisan voter.
2 Likes
No, stupid is forcing everyone to use an obviously inferior system. RCV is superior in terms of math, logic, and fairness. In this case it is being blocked strictly for political gaming. If Republicans weren’t losing, they wouldn’t care to block it.
We’ve already been over this – you do not understand and do not care to understand RCV. And because of this, you are basically arguing that 2+2 does not equal 4.