ewsieg

In regards to Oblong's question, you're right, they would say so. But if instead of the government doing anything about the price, they just said they would pay it on behalf of the users for a year, Big Pharma would absolutely love that. In fact, why just do it once, if the people like it, keep doing it.....even better.

I'm in Macomb county, Marlinga is just a name that is known which is good as James is now known too. Does the name Marlinga carry any weight in Oakland county though? Guess that is the question. Biggest key I see in those stats are the unfavorable numbers. Not a whole lot of voters turned off just by his name, unlike James.

This student loan thing irks me, not so much from the angle that many of the republicans complain, although I agree that it will definitely be unfair to some and aide others that it really shouldn't, in the end though, the burden is too high. What irks me, is instead of the government trying to tackle some issues on why tuition costs are so high, or things like do you really need a "fake" masters degree to be a teacher. The government helped push higher education to steer the US towards a service economy in the last few decades, but it hasn't done anything since to try and improve from there. Instead of looking at it, we're just going to throw money at it and the problem will remain.

Even if Trump wanted to make the claim that simply taking the documents meant they were no longer classified or now the 'standing order', could you not simply imply by the executive branch raiding his residence for those documents that the current president implied they are now classified again? I'd say normally that's not allowed, or I guess able to do, as declassified documents are open to the public, but as Trump never opened them to the public, can't see why Biden couldn't classify them again.

https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/james-craig-accused-gathering-fake-signatures-bid-make-michigan-ballot Leduff was hard on Craig and Johnson, blaming their campaigns for not properly vetting and getting enough valid signatures. In each of their cases they were well short of the maximum you're allowed to turn in. Dixon and Whitmer both submitted the max amount allowed. In following up, Leduff stated he asked around and both Dem and GOP contacts said it's always been known the government entity that certifies the signatures basically rubber stamps them. Still, ultimately the fault was Craig and Johnson not working to ensure whatever third party they had working for them was getting them the results they paid for. I'm not trying to both sides it. But again, if they all use the same third parties to get signatures, it makes sense they all have the same issues. Leduff asked the Whitmer admin if they scrubbed signatures and only submitted those they didn't have an issue with and never received an answer.

I believe it was the Michigan Democratic party that challenged Craig and that 'quality guru' guy, whatever his name was. I think Dixon even jumped on the bandwagon to help them out. Whitmer was smart enough to provide the max amount of signatures. Again, they use the same third party companies that organize these signature drives. There absolutely was some of the same issues for Whitmer's signatures as Craig's. Sounds like this was well known in political circles that a good amount of these signatures were either not properly documented or outright fraudulent, but they were never challenged. The Dem party chose to strategically point it out against specific people at a specific time. Smart political move, but it's also going to force them to use more campaign funds in the future to vet signatures they get before submitting them to the state. As I stated earlier, it's a good thing.

This is definitely going to be a bigger story. The dems going after Chief Craig is a good thing IMO, but it's going to screw both parties come next election. Both parties use the same 3rd party companies to get signatures, both knew they were a joke, but the dems were smart enough to use it against the opponent at the last second. The GOP will definitely scrutinize the Dems next time around.

To be honest, that was my issue with Hillary, not so much that it was done, but why was it done. What did she want control over and why? I always felt those were legitimate questions and my guess is all MAGA folks would agree with me. Funny now though, guessing instead of asking why, they'll be playing the legal line claiming as POTUS, he can't illegally disclose confidential information as he is allowed to. I know there is still a process, but he may have a legal standing (assuming that is what this search was for). That said, why? That is the question that should be asked by everyone.

Wouldn't be the first time he publicly said one thing and than had his lawyers argue the opposite way too.

Remember, Chris Ilitch has no say in what happens, he just hires the GM.

My co-workers friend just lost her election for Mayor of Knoxville to Kane of WWE fame. Apparently it was a +25 Trump town when he ran in 2016. Kane was an incumbent in an off year election where Dems control the White House and congress. She lost by 10. I know history points to a red wave, but right now I just don't see it right now.

Thank god she's calling for a special prosecutor so there is no chance she screws up another investigation/trial.

Be careful what you wish for. It's one thing if you have strong men on your side, like Ted Cruz, who puts on a breastplate daily, grabs a battle axe and fights the barbarians daily.

I heard some discussion that the carried interest was thrown in specifically because 1) it didn't account for much revenue and 2) allowed for Sinema to step in and nix it, with still having the bulk of the bill to pass.

I just pointed out that the lone store in SF that accounted for the the entire increase SF saw for that time period. It does probably make sense that if a single store reporting larcenies accounted for so many reports maybe 1) the store decided it would report everything it saw versus just dealing with it like others in the area and 2) after Target corporate got heat for changing their hours in SF and citing that it was specifically because of crime in SF, maybe when they decided this headache of a store wasn't worth it, they decided not to blame it on crime for PR purposes. I have no right wing talking points, just pointing out valid issues happening in SF which you can't handle and instead want to turn the discussion to Tulsa to prove your left wing talking points. If you go back and read my first response to Archie, you'll see I pointed out SF to try and specifically get him past the right wing talking point I would expect from him and therefore try and get him to understand that many factors, including some by folks he supports (R's) can force people to make decisions they wouldn't prefer to make due to financial constraints.

Wrong! America has a drug problem that is seen as a homeless problem! Seriously though, there is an argument that it may be a drug issue, but the above comment was satiric towards the fact that instead of listening, there is a need to point out a different and possibly valid issue, as the sole cause that you should be concerned about instead. I can't imagine I'll ever be homeless. If it does happen, I promise you I will do whatever I can to ensure that if I remain homeless, I am homeless in a warmer region (California maybe???) and one that I would suspect is more friendly to the homeless. I listen to a podcast that has done some work for an Oakland county homeless shelter and in listening to those guys that specialize in homelessness and trying to help out the best they can, it makes government as a whole, regardless of who is running it, look criminally incompetent. It's one of the few issues I see where I think the amount of money dealing with the issue isn't part of the issue.

Obviously that deli is smarter than Target and saw there were no deli's in SF and started one. Once another 1, or even 2 deli's open up in SF and obviously some will have to close due to having so many in a small area. It's not democrats fault deli's don't know how capitalism works.

I feel like your 'both sides' attempt to push against me even mentioning San Francisco and therefore pointing at Tulsa, despite the fact I was actually pushing against Archie, is now gone to the point of you just throwing anything at the wall. Without looking it up at all, my guess is the population in SF is much more condensed than in Dallas. But honestly, who cares. The part that cracks me up the most about this is you have always been one of the biggest dissenters on any crime statistics out of Detroit. Now when crime statistics can be used for your narrative though, you're going to post them all day long?

https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/San-Francisco-crime-rate-17065509.php I believe that's the Target that closed down. Add in the Walgreen's that have shut down and pretty soon there may be no larceny at all, nor any stores in which you could possibly commit larceny from. No stores, no larceny.... no larceny and that'll prove the dems are best at crime prevention. Now I understand.

For San Francisco, I didn't think it was the violent crime that was the complaint, but rather theft/larceny and other smaller crimes that were surging.

He was trying to 'both sides' it. I quit caring what the point he was making once I realized what he was trying to do.

There is some truth that some liberal policies in some big cities is causing some legitimate crime issues. It's not a false flag as Pfife says. That said, you need to be truthful on why it's happening in most of these places too. Take out Portland, San Fran, and a few other outlier cities and now look at Detroit. Detroit is the same big city that largely pushed back on 'defund the police', yet folks are getting let out on bail for violent offenses. Kill a Detroit cop and they'll throw a tether on you and send you on your way. There is hardly any money in the budget for jails/sheriff department. There has been such a push to cut taxes and just keep trimming away at budgets that the current Wayne County jail fights just to keep the lights on. This same issue is going on nationwide. I'll be willing to point to some corruption and other reasons for this as well, but not until you can admit that the 'starve the beast' policy from the right plays a big role in this too.

If you're argument here is that the DCCC was pumping money into this campaign to actually boost Meijer and it was simply their incompetency in running an effective ad campaign which led to Meijer still losing, you might have me agreeing with you. If it's one thing i've seen with the Democrats is they are largely incompetent.

I guess it comes down to are you voting, even across party lines, to try and put the best candidates in place, or are you doing it knowing you're playing with fire in order to increase the chances of your preferred outcome. I guess i'll put it like this. As a citizen, would you prefer to have a choice between two people that believe in the rule of law and will follow the constitution, even at the risk that you won't agree with the policies of one of them, or is it better to make the choice between someone that will follow the constitution, and another that will follow the constitution when it suits them.