heybruce

Questioning is made easier with transparency and conflict of interest laws applying all the way to the top. I'd happily support a law requiring every member of Congress, the Supreme Court and the President to make tax returns and comprehensive financial statements public and requiring all of the above to put their assets in blind trusts. Anyone else like this idea?

Have you looked at Russia's history of invading and occupying its neighbors? A defensive military alliance is one that is not an enemy unless attacked. As stated, the US would be puzzled by its neighbor entering such an alliance with Russia or China, but wouldn't invade them. At least not unless attacked.

"The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO, /ˈneɪtoʊ/; French: Organisation du traité de l'Atlantique nord, OTAN), also called the North Atlantic Alliance, is an intergovernmental military alliance between 31 member states – 29 European and two North American. Established in the aftermath of World War II, the organization implemented the North Atlantic Treaty, signed in Washington, D.C., on 4 April 1949.[3][4] NATO is a collective security system: its independent member states agree to defend each other against attacks by third parties." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO Clearly a defensive alliance. Neither Russia or the Soviet Union are mentioned. "After the war, it was agreed NATO would not expand further East past Germany because it threatened Russia's national security." No, there was never such an agreement. Proof has been provided many times. Stop trolling. "Ukraine should have remained diplomatic and neutral." How do you stay neutral when your country is invaded?

" like when patriots try to ensure accurate and fair elections that everyone can trust?" I agree. Prosecutors should go after this traitor who openly admitted he wanted to interfere with legal voting in order to sway the election: "President Donald Trump says he opposes additional funds for the US Postal Service as it would boost mail-in voting he claims would help Democrats." "Mr Trump has previously claimed that mail-in voting would hurt his campaign, which polls show to be in a tight race with Democratic candidate Joe Biden." https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53772526

If Mexico, Canada or any other country in the western hemisphere wanted to join a defensive alliance with Russia land/or China then the US would think that's odd and might point out that it's unnecessary, but nothing else. Of course it's been over 100 years since the US had a serious border dispute with its neighbors. You can't say that about Russia.

Even if he believed his lie it's still illegal to commit crimes to "correct" the lie. "Fight like hell" is no more protected speech than "Your money or your life".

Unfortunately the US has too many nutters with guns to lay siege on everyone making threats. Also the guy had sniper rifles. It only takes a little practice and competence to be dangerous at ranges of over 200 yards with a sniper rifle. That makes your siege approach even more impractical. This wasn't a no-knock warrant. The FBI had already talked to the guy. They had a legal warrant. They identified themselves, knocked on the door and shouted through the door. The guy had every chance to wake up, consider his alternatives, and surrender. He didn't, he chose to threaten the FBI with a gun. That's why he's dead.

Why not post a link to the actual study, with an appropriate quote from the introduction: "Our research design allows us to infer Americans’ willingness to trade-off democratic principles for other valid but potentially conflicting considerations such as political ideology, partisan loyalty, and policy preferences. We find the U.S. public’s viability as a democratic check to be strikingly limited: only a small fraction of Americans prioritize democratic principles in their electoral choices, and their tendency to do so is decreasing in several measures of polarization, including the strength of partisanship, policy extremism, and candidate platform divergence. Our findings echo classic arguments about the importance of political moderation and cross-cutting cleavages for democratic stability and highlight the dangers that polarization represents for democracy." https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/democracy-in-america-partisanship-polarization-and-the-robustness-of-support-for-democracy-in-the-united-states/C7C72745B1AD1FF9E363BBFBA9E18867 Americans, and people everywhere, look at the big picture and choose the lesser of two evils. This problem becomes more acute in hyper-partisan politics. Hyper-partisan politics were initiated in its current form in the US by the Republicans, Newt Gingrich specifically, in the 1990's, and force voters to choose between extremes. It's the reason why I'd like to see rank choice voting in America.

Ignoring, for now, the fact that the FBI has more experience than you or I in executing a warrant on a heavily armed loner in a remote location who has made repeated threats against the President and all who questioned this... How do you thing the FBI should have dealt with this situation?

Easy enough. Check out the GDP figures in 2020: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP/ or https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?end=2021&locations=us&start=2005

The tragic comedy of politics in the US now: People elect those that are the most entertaining, not the most competent. Not always, but way to often. Of course I'm not saying that's what happened in Marjorie Taylor Greene's case......

You are playing a "what if" game with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight. I'm sure the FBI followed whatever procedures are used in these instances. If they had done something different and got the same results or worse I'm sure you'd be playing the same game of "well why didn't they do something different?".

I find it amazing that so many people are criticizing the FBI for shooting a man who pointed a gun at them and ignored orders to drop it while they were properly executing a legal warrant. If this had happened to a BLM protester who had posted threats online and shown pictures of his rifles I suspect their attitude would be significantly different.

The deficit with China reached a record high under Trump, then came down during the Trump recession. Do you think that speaks well of Trump?

I'm sure he did, but he only researched using Russia Today.

That question has been answered over and over. It has been answered so often it has become incredibly tedious. And yet the Maga crowd keep asking it. The people making the payments were conned. Not by President Biden, but by Hunter Biden and associates. Got it? Is the answer too difficult for you to grasp?

First: Sources? Second: Did she post pictures of her rifles? Did she threaten FBI agents who questioned her about these threats? Did she point a gun at agents serving a warrant on her?

Unfortunately no; the Nixon pardon is an especially notorious example, but pre-emptive pardons are possible. "Proclamation 4311 was a presidential proclamation issued by President of the United States Gerald Ford on September 8, 1974, granting a full and unconditional pardon to Richard Nixon, his predecessor, for any crimes that he might have committed against the United States as president." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon

I didn't post what you replied to, but I agree with your post.

And through out this investigation there have been many promises and lots of speculation, but still zero evidence implicating President Biden.

Really? I think that's where the climate change deniers get their answers.

Coal has had its benefits, but its day is past. Now it's just toxic, dangerous and increasingly unnecessary. Lithium is the present (check the batteries on your gadgets) and the future, and mining it is far less dangerous or environmentally damaging than coal. Do you really think the promoters of green energy can compete, dollar for dollar, against the oil, gas, and coal industries and petro-state dollars from places like Saudi Arabia? When considering data you use the dominant trends, not the infrequent outliers. From what I recall of the CO2 claims you are misrepresenting them, but I didn't make those claims so I'll let those responsible deal with that part of your post.

Dude, I don't watch news, I read. As another poster has indicated, there was collusion between some members of the Trump campaign and some shady Russians. There were internet troll farms in Russia actively spreading disinformation against Hillary Clinton. I won't address any of your ridiculous numbers because I assume they're made up. You can prove me wrong by providing a source.

Which type of mining does more harm to the environment, coal or lithium? Which has killed more people? Do you think there isn't any money in the fossil fuel industry pushing against climate science? Why should the views of one outlier scientist outweigh the overwhelming consensus?

Disagree. Trump isn't playing anything, he's really that big an a**hole.