Hmmm...would appear when caught posting an article obviously biased just by the wording of the first sentence you now deflect to some other topic. In this case a movie you want to denigrate, but admit you have never seen....unsurprising...ok, you got me .... let's say "make it easier for them to swing future elections" how's that? I mean its not like over 20+ Republican states aren't jointly doing it, H-H. You had your head buried in a hole?
View attachment 5092904 ... It's called REPORTING THE FACTS, h-h, and it has been FACT CHECKED. Go visit the article yourself. Even the sources are listed at the END.
I got an idea, why not run a FACT CHECK on that stupid article "2000 Mules" and copy that in here. And remember one thing, FACTS is not what you say you saw, it's what you can PROVE.
‘2000 mules’ has faulty premise about 2020 mail ballots
"2000 mules," a new documentary from a right-wing filmmaker with a history of spreading false claims, promises to give ewww.politifact.com
- The 2020 presidential election was secure and evidence from state and federal officials and courts shows no indication of widespread fraud. While authorities identified isolated cases of voter fraud, these instances were in such small numbers it would not have changed the election’s outcome.
- A documentary by Dinesh D’Souza, a far-right commentator, furthers the myth that something sinister occurred with mail ballots during the 2020 election. D’Souza told Fox News that “mules” delivered 400,000 illegal votes. Experts say the evidence D’Souza points to is inherently flawed.
- Many states have laws allowing people to return completed mail ballots on behalf of others, such as family members. Ballot drop boxes are more secure than standard mail boxes.
- "2000 mules," a new documentary from a right-wing filmmaker with a history of spreading false claims, promises to give evidence to millions of Americans who believe something went wrong in the 2020 election.
The trailer for Dinesh D’Souza’s movie resembles a sci-fi flick, set to dramatic horror movie music with grainy video footage of what appears to be people dropping off ballots at ballot drop boxes.- "STAND DOWN & STAND BY"
Wake Up, America! Wake Up! PLEASE!!
- Thread starter Drillher4me
- Start date
- Status
Big Oil Profits $75B, Leaving Consumers In The Dark
www.accountable.us/news/big-oil-companies-net-75-billion-in-profit-while-ameri…WASHINGTON, DC – Today, government watchdog Accountable.US released analysis showing that oil and gas company giants Shell, Chevron, BP, and Exxon posted record profits last year totaling $75 billion while American consumers struggled to pay their heating bills and fill up their gas tanks.
Yes, oil companies are reporting record breaking profits.
Mar 10, 2022 · Oil companies did announce record breaking profits earlier this year. Exxon Mobil made $23 billion in profit for 2021. But that came after suffering $22.4 billion in …House Dems pass gas price-gouging bill that faces uphill battle in the Senate
The House's Democratic majority overcame some internal opposition to pass legislation on Thursday addressing high gas prices by cracking down on possible price gouging from oil companies.The bill was approved along party lines in a vote of 217-207. Four Democrats -- Texas' Lizzie Fletcher, Jared Golden of Maine, Stephanie Murphy of Florida and Kathleen Rice of New York -- joined all Republicans in the chamber in voting against the legislation.
The Consumer Fuel Price Gouging Prevention Act, introduced by Reps. Kim Schrier, D-Wash., and Katie Porter, D-Calif., would give the president the authority to issue an energy emergency proclamation that would make it unlawful for companies to increase fuel prices to "unconscionably excessive" levels.
It would also expand the powers of the Federal Trade Commission to investigate alleged price gouging in the industry and would direct any penalties toward funding weatherization and low-income energy assistance.
The DOJ Is Finally Asking the Jan. 6 Committee for Help. Why That’s a Huge Deal.
This week multiple outlets reported that the Justice Department has asked the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack to provide transcriptions of the witness depositions and interviews that it has conducted. The specifics have yet to emerge, but the request surely includes testimony and documents from former President Donald Trump’s associates.
Importantly, the Department’s letter explained that the transcripts “may contain information relevant to a criminal investigation we are conducting.” While the committee’s resistance to immediate cooperation dominated reporting, it will be worked out in time as these things almost always are. It should not overshadow the real story here: DOJ has signaled a new and significant stage in its investigation.
That is our takeaway as a former counsel for the first impeachment and trial of then-President Donald Trump and two former federal prosecutors, one of whom was also an Acting Attorney General.
There are three reasons we believe the DOJ revelation is such an important inflection point.
First, the investigatory train of accountability for higher ups in the Trump administration appears to have left the station. Finding the truth about those at the top of national leadership who bear the ultimate responsibility for the attempt to overturn the 2020 election is the most important outcome of the Jan. 6 Committee, even as it pursues its parallel purpose of developing legislation that might forestall similar seditious events in the future.
Legislation matters. But it must be accompanied by accountability for the misconduct that has made it necessary. Otherwise, the effort will be futile, and the same players, or their acolytes, will threaten our democracy again. And when one of the alleged culprits hints at a return engagement as chief executive, unless there is present accountability, the enforcement of remedial legislation in the future would be unlikely.
Those who would govern must know that there will be actionable consequences for malfeasance in office. Otherwise, corruption inevitably will reign with an iron hand and a steel boot.
Second, while Attorney General Merrick Garland has been criticized for the lack of visible action against Trump and other senior government officials, we have previously pointed to signs that the DOJ‘s investigation was actually climbing the investigative ladder toward those at the top. Still, there is a world of difference between implication and confirmation.
Thus it is significant that the recent news suggests a new stage of the criminal investigation. The attorney general and his colleagues would not be asking for this evidence without confidence that his department is on firm ground in an extremely serious probe into the potential responsibility of leaders who might have participated in a conspiracy to violate our nation’s most-essential laws.
Garland has a well-earned reputation for protecting the Department of Justice from charges of politicization. He would not risk its, or his, reputation in pursuing allegations of a previous administration’s criminality without a strong predicate for accusations of wrongdoing. Hence, the new letter raises high expectations. Garland has been around Washington long enough to know the risks of raising them falsely.
Notably, the Select Committee has spent considerable time and resources investigating the attempt that started immediately after the November vote to keep Trump in power, negating the election’s verified outcome. That involved an unlawful scheme to have Vice President Mike Pence reject or delay Joe Biden’s electoral victory certification. Thus, expectations are also raised that the DOJ is probing illegality in connection with that alleged pre-January 6 criminal conspiracy.
Third, the Justice Department letter tells us that Garland understands that the clock is ticking toward 2024. Indeed, he has not chosen to hold off his request until after the Select Committee’s public hearings, scheduled to start June 9.
The new visibility of action does not mean that indictments of senior officials are certain, or that they might be expected quickly. We anticipate that progress will occur with deliberate speed. Assuming compliance with the DOJ request, and its gaining full access to the relevant materials developed by the 1/6 Committee, DOJ will be able to continue its investigation even if upcoming election results enable a new Republican majority that acts to end the life of the committee.
For the present, Garland knows that there will be no immediate agreement with the committee on the timing and sequence of initial sharing of information, though upon any agreement, more transfers of information should quickly follow.
Majority of Americans think Jan. 6 attack threatened …
ABC News – Breaking News, Latest News and Videos
ABC News is your trusted source on political news stories and videos. Get the latest coverage and analysis on everything from the Trump presidency, Senate, House and Supreme Court.
Poll: Majority of Americans believe Jan. 6 Capitol riot was …
May 28, 2021 · A majority of Americans think that when supporters of former President Donald Trump stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 as lawmakers voted to certify President Biden's election win, it was an attack on democracy,
The "news articles", as you call them, are little more than propaganda pieces, usually some sort of opinion pieces which contain little or no facts... Any facts they contain are used totally out of context in order to push a leftist agenda. I've posted many OBJECTIVE articles which you have belittled in the past because they're not liberally biased.
Pennsylvania GOP just got their nightmare gubernatorial candidate
Pennsylvania state Sen. Doug Mastriano attended the Jan. 6, 2021 “Stop the Steal” rally in Washington and was near the U.S. Capitol when Trump supporters attacked it. Since then, Mastriano has spread numerous lies about the 2020 presidential election, and he even called for decertifying the election results. He’s taken the position that, irrespective of the popular vote, the Pennsylvania General Assembly has the “sole authority” to appoint presidential electors if an election is “compromised” (which he says happened in 2020). Not surprisingly, Mastriano was enthusiastically endorsed by former President Donald Trump.
gas prices started under tump....yet again he did nothing
Republicans are blaming Biden for soaring prices -- but …
Republicans are blaming Biden for soaring prices -- but fact-checkers are reminding them of who's really at fault
As gas prices across the United States continue to soar, Republican lawmakers are using the moment as an opportunity to blame President Joe Biden; not Russian President Vladamir Putin, the dictator who started the war that led to this economic domino effect. Now, fact-checkers are weighing in to...
www.alternet.org
Senate Republicans are pretending gas prices didn't start …
46 Senate Republicans vote against constitutional amendment guaranteeing gender equality
A bipartisan resolution that would have recognized the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment failed to get a filibuster-proof majority.
americanindependent.com
no real surprise here
Michigan election chief: Trump suggested I be arrested for treason and executed
Jocelyn Benson, Michigan’s top election official, faced an onslaught of threats after the 2020 presidential election for refusing to overturn results that showed Joe Biden had won the state. In those hectic weeks, she says she also received an especially disturbing piece of information: President Donald Trump suggested in a White House meeting that she should be arrested for treason and executed.
Benson, a Democrat, revealed the alleged remark for the first time in an interview with NBC News. She said she learned of it from a source familiar with Trump’s White House meeting.
“It was surreal and I felt sad,” Benson said, recalling her reaction.
It certainly amplified the heightened sense of anxiety, stress and uncertainty of that time — which I still feel in many ways — because it showed there was no bottom to how far he (Trump) and his supporters were willing to stoop to overturn or discredit a legitimate election.”
Jan. 6 committee says it has evidence that 'directly contradicts' GOP denials of 'reconnaissance tours'
Georgia GOP Rep. Barry Loudermilk is facing scrutiny from the House Select Committee Investigating the Jan. 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol.
"Based on our review of evidence in the Select Committee's possession, we believe you have information regarding a tour you led through parts of the Capitol complex on January 5, 2021," Select Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) wrote in a letter to Loudermilk on Thursday.
"The foregoing information raises questions to which the Select Committee must seek answers. Public reporting and witness accounts indicate some individuals and groups engaged in efforts to gather information about the layout of the U.S. Capitol, as well as the House and Senate office buildings, in advance of January 6, 2021," read the letter, which was also signed by Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY).
In response to those allegations, Republicans on the Committee on House Administration—of which you are a Member—claimed to have reviewed security footage from the days preceding January 6th and determined that '[t]here were no tours, no large groups, no one with MAGA hats on.' However, the Select Committee’s review of evidence directly contradicts that denial," the letter stated.
The letter proposes a meeting during the week of May 23.
"The letter comes more than a year after some House Democrats accused Republicans of providing tours in the days leading up to January 6 to individuals who later stormed the Capitol," CNN noted. "Rep. Mikie Sherrill, a Democrat from New Jersey, accused Republicans in the days after the insurrection of providing tours to people who then used the information they learned from their visit about the complex's layout to aid in their attempt to interrupt the certification of the 2020 presidential election results."
Sherrill said she saw members of Congress leading groups of people through the Capitol on a "reconnaissance" tour on Jan. 5. Her comments came on Jan. 12, 2021.
The committee investigating the 2021 US Capitol assault plans to stage public hearings in June and release its findings at the height of the midterm election campaign later this year.
‘Pretty savvy’ DOJ just sidestepped legal battles that have slowed Jan. 6 committee’s probe: legal expert
The Department of Justice may have sidestepped the legal battles that have slowed the House Select Committee's investigation of the Jan. 6 insurrection.
Federal authorities opened a new direction in their criminal probe by requesting transcripts of interviews conducted by congressional investigators, and MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner explained why that move was "savvy."
Trump Attorney General Bill Barr in talks to cooperate with Jan. 6 committee, source says
Former Trump administration Attorney General Bill Barr is in talks to cooperate with the House select committee investigating the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, according to an individual close to Barr.
Committee chair Rep. Bennie Thompson told "Face the Nation" in January that the select committee "had conversations with the former attorney general already," and an individual close to the Barr confirmed the panel contacted him for what was described as an informal conversation to see whether he had information related to the Capitol attack or the actions of former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark.
the party of no....can't even decide when is enough no's
On Wednesday, POLITICO reported that an argument broke out on the floor of the House between two key Republican lawmakers over how much the GOP caucus should abuse legislative procedure to slow down the passage of noncontroversial bills.
"Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee and a self-described Freedom Caucus critic, confronted certain members, including the group's chair, Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), warning them that they were burning bridges with their own colleagues, according to a Republican source familiar with the back-and-forth," reported Olivia Beavers. "Rogers suggested if they keep causing headaches with their colleagues, it will come back to bite Freedom Caucus members later on."
Feud erupts among House Republicans as Freedom Caucus seeks to obstruct legislation
On Wednesday, POLITICO reported that an argument broke out on the floor of the House between two key Republican lawmakers over how much the GOP caucus should abuse legislative procedure to slow down the passage of noncontroversial bills.
"Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee and a self-described Freedom Caucus critic, confronted certain members, including the group's chair, Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), warning them that they were burning bridges with their own colleagues, according to a Republican source familiar with the back-and-forth," reported Olivia Beavers. "Rogers suggested if they keep causing headaches with their colleagues, it will come back to bite Freedom Caucus members later on."
I have a revelation for all you soothsayers, all your facts in politics are the opinions of someone else. Our facts are just that too, In politics there are very few facts but tons of opinions.
maybe....but I post news article that are on my home page.....I would think that a credited news agency would post the news and not opinions
Of course with these Republicans, you never know when they tell the truth because they LIE and Fabricate stories with no evidence to back themselves up. Hell, they lie more than a 1st grade kid. And they do it with such a straight face, too! wow!
Last edited:
woooooo, a "revelation" & "soothsayers", huh? Damn! And then you folks have the nerve to post a video like "2000 Mules" a hilarious attempt at mockumentary news.... lol! God help us if you take that crap serious. I'll use Trump's words ... "sad, so sad". Dinesh D'Souza's laughing all the way to the bank on you folks that paid to view that sorry piece of crap. You won't admit that just possibly that video was meant for the weak minded who fall for every Snake Salesman story they hear.
Let me tell ya something, kiddo, I'll take the stories & news coming out of our sources before your tabloid & fabricated stories any day.
For one thing, NY Times, Reuters, Wall Street, Washington Post etc post retractions when their news sources aren't right. Their demands for accurate news is backed with sources of the materials they post. All you have to do is go to the end of the news report/article and see their sources. You folks refuse anything that challenges the validity of your fake news or actions of your party, regardless if it is video, audio, one-on-one ... matters not to you folks.
I'll continue posting news stories and my sources that spell out what's happening in politics and you can believe 'em or not, I don't care. Like the Republican's direct assault on voting rights and voter suppression. Only a blind, deaf, and dumb person might argue it isn't happening, then along comes something like the Capitol coup and Presidential announcements to militias to "stand down & stand bye" ... geesh! Your butts ought to be jealous of what comes out of your mouths sometimes.
Last edited:
It's not what he's saying. You can post any thing you wish, you just can't call it a FACT based upon some assumption you came to by reading something. You can't continue to hear Trump call "voter fraud" and say its a fact. But, you do take what you hear as the "truth".
Why do you think Trump started his own "Truth"type twitter? Would it be to continue having access to the same gullible group of people who he once had access on Twitter? Trump survives because of gullible, non-thinkers. He wants everyone to distrust the government and to look to HIM as the ONLY ONE that can FIX IT! Remember his laughable medical suggestions to fight covid ... and his followers were taking him serious rather than following CDC protocols to shorten the virus life. Trump, simply by some of his crazy suggestions alone, probably was responsible for 200-300,000 people dying of covid, yet Trump & his minion family slipped quietly out the back doors and went and got the damn shots.
You folks believe ANYTHING that thug says.
Getting it Right: Fact-Checking in the Digital Age - American Journalism Review
The American Press Institute is working to improve best practices in news fact-checking.
ajr.org
Should be a requirement to READ before entering political discussions.
Well let me point to all your insults and wrong statements disguised as facts.
I haven't insulted you or anyone else since FB dropped the gauntlet, so what else you got?
Nawwwww, Republicans aren't trying to suppress voting laws. Not at all ....
news.yahoo.com
www.theconstitutionproject.com
Colorado Republican candidate pushes to end one-person, one-vote
Colorado Republican candidate for governor, Greg Lopez, would like the state to do away with the popular vote in which all votes are equal and replace it with an electoral college that would give more voting power to rural counties where Republicans perform better.
Colorado Republican candidate for governor, Greg Lopez, would like the state to do away with the popular vote in which all votes are equal and replace it with an electoral college that would give more voting power to rural counties where Republicans perform better.
Republicans attack the "rights of the people" ...One Person, One Vote | The Constitution Project
www.theconstitutionproject.com
It wasn’t until 1963 that “One person, one vote” became a widely articulated core principle of the Constitution when it was first spoken by Chief Justice Earl Warren’s Supreme Court. Warren Court transformed the nation’s political and social landscape in the middle of the twentieth century, applying the Constitution’s expressions of fairness and equality to American life in sometimes startling, courageous, and even jarring ways. But no decisions were as important to the nation or as grueling to the members of the Court as those surrounding equality in voting and representation, known collectively as the Apportionment Cases.
Starting with the Court’s 1962 decision in Baker v. Carr and culminating in 1964 with the case of Reynolds v. Sims, the value of “One person, one vote,” once brought to light, seemed so profoundly rooted in the Constitution its practice became “inevitable.”
Yet at the time these decisions were anything but “inevitable.” It was a wrenching, agonizing time for the Justices. To establish equality in voting and representation, the Court had to overcome deeply rooted political traditions throughout the entire nation, entrenched political powers fiercely opposed to change, and its own precedent, Colegrove v. Green, that some members of the Court believed with every bone in their bodies protected the very practice of democracy in America – as well as the integrity and viability of the Court.
Through all of this, the Chief Justice understood the urgent necessity to press ahead. Of all of the groundbreaking rulings his Court rendered throughout his tenure as Chief Justice, he called the Court’s choice to tackle this issue in Baker, its “most vital decision.”
The Oklahoma Legislature gave final approval on Thursday to a bill that prohibits nearly all abortions starting at fertilization, which would make it the nation’s strictest abortion law.
The bill allows private individuals to sue abortion providers and anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion. It would take effect immediately if signed by Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican who has pledged to make Oklahoma the most anti-abortion state in the nation.
The Oklahoma ban goes further than the Texas law, which bans abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy. The bill defines an unborn baby as “a human fetus or embryo in any stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.” Anti-abortion groups, believing abortion to be *******, have tried unsuccessfully since the 1973 Roe decision to pass federal or state legislation defining life as beginning at fertilization.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
