ewsieg

I'm not sure if you realize I agree with you on this or if your comments are associated to Snowden and Assange.

I still see Gray when we talk Snowden and Assange, versus black and white like you, but in this case, you're absolutely right. This is not a whistleblower/leaker situation.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2023/04/13/michigan-whitmer-gun-safety-bills-school-shooting/70041872007/ A good first step. I guess the question is will it be enforced?

If there is enough heat, a non-profit will reimburse for the trips, if someone raises legal concerns, some more wrangling will be done until Thomas is responsible to reimburse a very small portion of the trip as 'his seat'. It's almost like someone (Whitmer) already gave him an outline on how to do it.

These recent leaks actually show that Biden is cautious and concerned that Zelensky, if given the chance (long range weapons), would escalate the war by attacking deep into Russia. We're spying on him because either we don't trust him, we don't trust people around him, or regardless of trust, we're doing it anyway to ensure the best interest of the United States. That's a good thing.

I hate the idea of a former #3 pick as a backup on this team (assuming he doesn't win the job) and would love to get some picks for him. That said, conversely I love the idea that if our cap space warrants it, having a former #3 pick as a backup in a position that traditionally requires more depth than most other positions.

There is some legitimacy to this complaint, but there has been reporting about how the felony charges had to have been done (using a fed statute that he doesn't even have authority to charge on) and if in fact that is what was done here, it is weak sauce. I can say my personal opinion, I really wanted GA to be the first charges. I feel like that's the stronger case on much bigger charges.

How is this enabling?

I honestly thought it was pretty common knowledge so I didn't bother sourcing anything. Probably pointing out that democrats weren't being properly informed as well should have reminded me not to assume that on this site. https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/354938/adults-estimates-covid-hospitalization-risk.aspx

You're probably right, everything is ducky.

Kept people out of work longer, which led to more stress, mental health issues, etc which led to more dissent, anger.....

Well into Covid some polls came out where they asked folks their political party and then asked them about Covid. Near 50% of democrats believed that the unvaccinated had to be hospitalized for Covid at a rate of 50%. Seems like maybe more than one side was not getting all the facts.

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/03/28/do-court-appointed-prosecutors-violate-the-separation-of-powers/ Horrible decision IMO. If you look you'll see Gorsuch and Kavanaugh dissented, which I would suspect those that know about the original case that lead to this would be surprised that it wasn't the liberal judges dissenting. I mean, I guess the executive keeps on taking powers from the legislative, so I guess you could argue it's good for the judicial to pull some powers from the executive.

it was 50/50 before the vaccine, at least based on the polls i've seen from Democrats.

I wouldn't go that far yet, sounds like he has tenure.

This describes me to a T.

As unlikely as it is, I think we have a better chance at a unifying leader than getting any gun laws passed, let alone any sensible ones that actually could help.

There are actual laws on the books regarding hate..... not that they do anything, just sayin'

Guns - Hate = Still Living too. I'm not against sensible gun laws, but it would be nice to combat some of this hate as well.

Maybe you're right, just surprised no one (outside of a high ranking US intelligence officer) seems to have anything but theories. Heck, we know most of the actors and the exact path of the materials/bomb for the Crimea bridge, from within Ukraine, through Odessa (after international intervention to get it opened to allow wheat exports), through Georgia and Armenia, and we knew all of that within a month. But nope, nothing to see here.

You mean what an anonymous US intelligence officer said, that seems to have a lot of weight when it's something you want to hear. Weird that it's completely discarded when it's not something you want to hear. There are other Intelligence reports, from US allies, that indicate it wouldn't have been an easy feat. I'm hard pressed to believe Ukraine has these capabilities, let alone to get it done on the other side of Europe. At best it didn't act alone.

I'm not going to compare these statements as comparable to digitalpig, but c'mon. You're smarter than this. I'm not saying you're wrong about how it so far has worked out and that it was beneficial for the pro-Ukrainian side. In the end, it might have even been a good move, but with a 'so what' attitude? WTF? That's exactly the reason I hope people are willing to be a little cautious about our support in Ukraine. This is a global world and sometimes it's not perfect, but it's all we got. Hitting that pipeline, while possibly a good strategic risk by the US to put more pressure on the EU to support Ukraine was also a national security risk for Germany and many members of the EU. Maybe it all works out, but if Ukraine is willing to threaten the national security of our biggest allies, you don't think they won't threaten our own national security if they think it will result in us going all in? And if it was the US, under Biden's directive, again to put the EU at risk when if they would have had a real bad winter, they would not have had the port capacity to take resources from us yet, that's awfully risky. For a second pretend it was Trump in the oval and he just flippantly said 'ummm, how about we just bomb that pipeline, we have the most beautiful underwater bombs, we should do it'. With that thought in your head, think of all the 'WTF is his thinking' thoughts in your head, because regardless who made that decision and regardless if you see the pro's in destroying the pipeline, you should have some con's, not a 'so what'.

This is old news. US was involved, rather we did it by ourselves or help facilitate, I don't know. I suspect Biden had to suck it up and come clean with Germany, but it looks like it didn't hurt our relations with them. In fact it appears to have facilitated exactly what I presume we hoped for, Germany going all in as well. I'm one of the few throwing caution at this proxy war on this board. But it seems disingenuous of you to consistently find the worst aspects of the war, sometimes with questionable sources, and at least not admit there are many positives in our geopolitical world for this as well.

This post screams of "Tell me you don't understand what an indictment is, without telling me what an indictment is."

That's what they want you to believe..... https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/03/22/the-russians-are-pulling-70-year-old-t-55-tanks-out-of-storage/?sh=6bffdee86593&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialflowForbesMainTwitter&utm_source=ForbesMainTwitter I saw a person on twitter, no idea how random they may be, that said Russia has a ton of 100mm ammo and these can utilize them. The only thing they thought is maybe they are going to try and utilize these for artillery. That still sounds like a horrible idea, but I guess better than using them to go up against other tanks. (if true at all)