Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
National Guard to be deployed in New York City subway in crime crackdown: Governor
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/national-guard-to-be-deployed-in-new-york-city-subway-in-crime-crackdown-governor/ar-BB1jr6uy
Those progressive DA policies and laws are working wonders again....
Biden is one embarrassing moment from driving a tank with a helmet on........
Ahhhh,,,,,Did Haley offend you?.... Suck it up as they say, its actually an important issue on many peoples mind....And you claiming someone else is offensive? Thats rich...
Progressives would say Haley is/was a bad choice, I'd bet more think Kamala was and still is,,,, and by a very good margin.....Another poll dems would likely ignore
Haley's speech......Graciousness
I demand better treatment for 12yrs,,,,,,,CHAT be darned,,,,,How dare it enable such...Demeaning it is and child advocacy groups will are enraged....The perpetrator of such an attack on our children (and adults who enjoy the occasional acting like one and refusal to grow up,,,(as is a mans god given right ;) demand a public and personal apology....Immediately!!!!!
We will not let "common sense" get in the way of seeking justice for such a discriminatory and heinous act of insensitivity.......
(Got that from Gemini's sibling who is none too happy......Wait for it,,,Cancel culture works, https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173985212 )
Sibling: I call for more clarity, they've gone on to demeaning 5yr olds, as if that's better....These acts will not be forgotten as they double down on bigotry and hate towards children,,,,,who attacks children!!? Only the most vile!...Legal Council is needed for damages, laws need to be crafted...This type of speech and use of highly questionable pronouns must end!
Gemini's bro/sister/them/they is pissed,,,,,,,
Roll eyes
Have a good day,,,,,And, Thanks for playing.....Your post only proves one my points, when presented with alternative facts or opinion, it just can't be tolerated even to the point of lies , false association and unwarranted personal attacks, when you have no reasoning to counter.......
Enjoy your free speech, I, will enjoy mine
Fight that cancel culture, we need more like it!
Thanks for playing
Easy on the 12yr stuff dude,,,,Quit being offensive, as progressives put it!!! Lol ......Should I call you an age bigot or just being demeaning to 12 himself............(That how progressives sound more often than not)
A full apology is now expected on social media to right your most offensive wrong ;)
Centrist extinction looms as Sinema, Manchin, Romney call it quits
https://www.axios.com/2024/03/06/sinema-retirement-manchin-romney-centrists
(The 2 extremes are the winners........Giving most of the country a loss....And its not just these 3)
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema's (I-Ariz.) decision not to seek re-election has dealt the latest in a series of crushing blows to Senate bipartisanship, hollowing out a centrist core that has suffered under years of intensifying polarization.
Why it matters: The departures of Sinema, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) — three moderates routinely vilified by their own parties — will leave a massive hole for bipartisan deal-making.
It's hard to look at today's political incentives, with lawmakers more concerned about their primaries than the general election, and conclude that the vacuum will be filled.
Zoom in: Despite her broad unpopularity, Sinema will leave Congress with a virtually unparalleled record as a bipartisan negotiator.
The freshman senator wielded outsized power as a moderate swing vote, helping to craft bipartisan laws on infrastructure, gun safety, marriage equality and semiconductor manufacturing.
Sinema was the first Democrat to win an Arizona Senate seat in decades, but she left the party in 2022 — a political earthquake that came just three days after Democrats secured a 51-49 Senate majority.
The other side: Some progressives think of Sinema as a sellout. She helped advance some of President Biden's top priorities — but when the political road got bumpy, the competitive triathlete wouldn't go the distance.
Her and Manchin's staunch opposition to eliminating the filibuster, for example, prevented Democrats from passing landmark voting rights legislation in 2022.
Sinema also stood in the way of Biden's signature spending package — the Inflation Reduction Act — until Democrats abandoned a tax provision that would have closed the "carried interest loophole" for private equity.
Zoom out: Sinema, Manchin and Romney have spent years sounding the alarm on the death of bipartisanship, a trend punctuated by the GOP's recent rejection of the border security deal that Sinema helped negotiate.
"You lose the center, you lose the moderates, you're screwed. You really are screwed," Manchin told Politico after Romney's retirement announcement. "I'm hoping the voters will wake up."
Even the exit as Senate GOP leader of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — once viewed as the quintessential partisan brawler — was lamented by Democrats who admired his commitment to the institution.
Between the lines: Of the 10 senators who helped negotiate the bipartisan infrastructure law in 2021, four will be gone by next year.
A fifth — Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) — faces a highly competitive re-election race in November that could determine control of the Senate.
Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) remain pillars of the Senate's centrist foundation, but there's little doubt they're endangered species.
Give Joe the Prevagen, double doses,,,,No known medical help for the other guy...
Owe you one..........
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/colorado-secretary-state-weighs-supreme-courts-trump-ballot/story?id=107775958
Dems may not be able to beat him, but he can surely beat himself....
Hit your edit 1918 not 20,,,,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velveeta
GN
White Rural Rage....roll eyes
Progressive silliness...... Wont sue the vet.....
When you spend 3 yrs with stuff like this a priority
What do you think will happen
250%?....note 'profit margins' not politics,,,, Corps!
Now tell me how wages have kept up over the same time........
Quickie from Maher,... but wait for the end also
Fast food? Big Mac up 250% in 25yrs......
Profit margins......
2/3s aren't as Gullible as you....
And congress has to do the other,,,LMFAO. You all are flat gullible
Harvard Business Review.........People know how the economy effects them......Data can be misleading as you know..... Much of that is simple rebound from the pandemic and make you and dems look stupid for touting it, then saying 2/3 are lying?......No wonder trump is ahead, roll eyes
Now tout the stock market ? Or GDP or unemployment..... None of those are indicators of the people wealth...
However, modern economies have lost sight of the fact that the standard metric of economic growth, gross domestic product (GDP), merely measures the size of a nation’s economy and doesn’t reflect a nation’s welfare. Yet policymakers and economists often treat GDP, or GDP per capita in some cases, as an all-encompassing unit to signify a nation’s development, combining its economic prosperity and societal well-being. As a result, policies that result in economic growth are seen to be beneficial for society.
We know now that the story is not so simple – that focusing exclusively on GDP and economic gain to measure development ignores the negative effects of economic growth on society, such as climate change and income inequality. It’s time to acknowledge the limitations of GDP and expand our measure development so that it takes into account a society’s quality of life.
A number of countries are starting to do this. India, for instance, where we both work advising the government, is developing an Ease of Living Index, which measures quality of life, economic ability and sustainability.
Harvard Business Review
https://hbr.org/2019/10/gdp-is-not-a-measure-of-human-well-being
No its an opinion! Polling proved as much,, but now dems hate and distrust them? No wonder Trump is up....
Economy, polled 2/3 against Biden.... so Ill call BS
Could TX, Hold an evidentiary hearing invoking the 25th? Bet a few states would like to....Just like dem leaders would not like trump to be reelected....
CO did not hold a 'Trial' so the defendant was not given due process...It also was not their jurisdiction...
Amazing how you all can fight a 9-0 decision....
Its not a stretch to say tying to keep a candidate off the ballot unlawfully in undemocratic....
I posted here Putin just did the same, but Russia doesn't have the recourse we do eh..Seems he did it twice
https://apnews.com/article/russia-presidential-election-putin-ukraine-candidate-3267d751005003ba3a0aaf3c9faa6517
Nadezhdin is the second antiwar hopeful to be denied a spot on the ballot.
Jena Griswold was a dem...SoS Co.....So it wasn't repubs that tried to keep him off the ballot
The repubs you speak of ask the SC to rule,,,
Worse, the other states that followed her lead were dem.....Now it looks like pure abuse of power by a single party
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_State_of_Colorado
So exactly 'who doesn't get 'what ?
So their Strong Hint was Charge the MF.....Or at the least should have....Had you (dems or prosecutors) it would have been a different outcome.....
It stained the dems and fell into the rights narrative, at a bad time too........Where was the forethought?
What's more democratic than elections.....The SC stepped in before Super Tuesday to ensure that....You speak of John Roberts, 3 liberal judges agreed they couldn't...Like Bush v Gore an expedited ruling was necessary....
So the SC agrees what CO did was undemocratic......
You got what you wanted with the immunity case now you sound like whiney spoiled children not getting the whole cookie jar......Will you whine if they find 9-0 in your favor (decent chance they will)
And make all the excuses you want but dems slow played charges, its their own fault they are now under the gun...
Simple fact trump has not been charged with Insurrection....Right?
Supreme court found CO could not be taken off the ballot using Section 3 of the 14th and that is exactly what CO tried to do.....Right?
9-0 means nothing eh.......note the goose egg
That is total bullshit.
So CO didn't try to keep Trump off the ballot using 'insurrection'????
He has been
And I don't see any insurrection charges....
Yes, Jan6 was bad, very bad indeed......A wake up call to the USA.....
So couple other points need to made after that agreement...
First and Foremost....... Trump should have been charged with insurrection, then there would be many mute points as of now...
Dems now have used righteousness to be anti democratic to......CO as an example
I could easily see the progressive wing go against moderate dems just like the repubs and lower themselves to a Jan 6 type ordeal....
In the name of righteousness, it always a problem too as history points out....If dems had risen to this time in our history, you had 3yrs, and govern for those times,,,,perhaps things would be different.......Dems have only themselves to blame that Trump is the front runner....
Gotta go for now, have a good afternoon
How Democrats Could Disqualify Trump If the Supreme Court Doesn’t.
Even without legislation, could a Democratic-controlled House refuse to certify a Trump victory?
How Democrats Could Disqualify Trump If the Supreme Court Doesn’t...The Atlantic
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/how-democrats-could-disqualify-trump-if-the-supreme-court-doesn-t/ar-
(No doubt progressives could actually be this stupid .........too)
Near the end of the Supreme Court’s oral arguments about whether Colorado could exclude former President Donald Trump from its ballot as an insurrectionist, the attorney representing voters from the state offered a warning to the justices—one evoking the January 6 riot that had set the case in motion.
By this point in the hearing, the justices had made clear that they didn’t like the idea of allowing a single state to kick Trump out of the presidential race, and they didn’t appear comfortable with the Court doing so either. Sensing that Trump would likely stay on the ballot, the attorney, Jason Murray, said that if the Supreme Court didn’t resolve the question of Trump’s eligibility, “it could come back with a vengeance”—after the election, when Congress meets once again to count and certify the votes of the Electoral College.
Murray and other legal scholars say that, absent clear guidance from the Supreme Court, a Trump win could lead to a constitutional crisis in Congress. Democrats would have to choose between confirming a winner many of them believe is ineligible and defying the will of voters who elected him. Their choice could be decisive: As their victory in a House special election in New York last week demonstrated, Democrats have a serious chance of winning a majority in Congress in November, even if Trump recaptures the presidency on the same day. If that happens, they could have the votes to prevent him from taking office.
In interviews, senior House Democrats would not commit to certifying a Trump win, saying they would do so only if the Supreme Court affirms his eligibility. But during oral arguments, liberal and conservative justices alike seemed inclined to dodge the question of his eligibility altogether and throw the decision to Congress.
“That would be a colossal disaster,” Representative Adam Schiff of California told me. “We already had one horrendous January 6. We don’t need another.”
The justices could conclude definitively that Trump is eligible to serve another term as president. The Fourteenth Amendment bars people who have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office, but it does not define those terms. Trump has not been convicted of fomenting an insurrection, nor do any of his 91 indictments charge him with that particular crime. But in early 2021, every House Democrat (along with 10 Republicans) voted to impeach Trump for “incitement of insurrection,” and a significant majority of those lawmakers will still be in Congress next year.
If the Court deems Trump eligible, even a few of his most fervent Democratic critics told me they would vote for certification should he win. “I’m going to follow the law,” Representative Eric Swalwell of California told me. “I would not object out of protest of how the Supreme Court comes down. It would be doing what I didn’t like about the January 6 Republicans.” Schiff, who served on the committee that investigated Trump’s role in the Capitol riot, believes that the Supreme Court should rule that Trump is disqualified. But if the Court deems Trump eligible, Schiff said, he wouldn’t object to a Trump victory.
What if the Court declines to answer? “I don’t want to get into the chaos hypothetical,” Schiff told me. Nor did Representative Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, who served in the party leadership for two decades. “I think he’s an insurrectionist,” he said of Trump. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who would become speaker if Democrats retake the House, did not respond to questions sent to his office.
Even as Democrats left open the possibility of challenging a Trump win, they shuddered at its potential repercussions. For three years they have attacked the 147 Republicans—including a majority of the party’s House conference—who voted to overturn President Joe Biden’s 2020 victory. More recently they’ve criticized top congressional Republicans such as Representative Elise Stefanik, the House GOP conference chair, for refusing to commit to certifying a Biden win.
The choice that Democrats would face if Trump won without a definitive ruling on his eligibility was almost too fraught for Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland to contemplate. He told me he didn’t know how he’d vote in that scenario. As we spoke about what might happen, he recalled the brutality of January 6. “There was blood all over the Capitol in the hypothetical you posit,” Raskin, who served on the January 6 committee with Schiff, told me.
Theoretically, the House and Senate could act before the election by passing a law that defines the meaning of “insurrection” in the Fourteenth Amendment and establishes a process to determine whether a candidate is barred from holding a particular office, including the presidency. But such a bill would have to get through the Republican-controlled House, whose leaders have all endorsed Trump’s candidacy. “There’s absolutely no chance in the world,” Representative Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat who also served on the January 6 committee, told me.
In late 2022, Congress did enact reforms to the Electoral Count Act. That bill raised the threshold for objecting to a state’s slate of electors, and it clarified that the vice president, in presiding over the opening of Electoral College ballots, has no real power to affect the outcome of the election. But it did not address the question of insurrection.
As Republicans are fond of pointing out, Democrats have objected to the certification of each GOP presidential winner since 2000. None of those challenges went anywhere, and they were all premised on disputing the outcome or legitimacy of the election itself. Contesting a presidential election by claiming that the winner is ineligible, however, has no precedent. “It’s very murky,” Lofgren said. She believes that Trump is “clearly ineligible,” but acknowledged that “there’s no procedure, per se, for challenging on this basis.”
In an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, a trio of legal scholars—Edward Foley, Benjamin Ginsberg, and Richard Hasen—warned the justices that if they did not rule on Trump’s eligibility, “it is a certainty” that members of Congress would seek to disqualify him on January 6, 2025. I asked Lofgren whether she would be one of those lawmakers. “I might be.”
The scholars also warned that serious political instability and violence could ensue. That possibility was on Raskin’s mind, too. He conceded that the threat of violence could influence what Democrats do if Trump wins. But, Raskin added, it wouldn’t necessarily stop them from trying to disqualify him. “We might just decide that’s something we need to prepare for.”
refusing to jump ahead of the Court of Appeals on the matter
Supreme Court Denies Jack Smith's Extraordinary Gamble
https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-denies-jack-smiths-extraordinary-gamble-1855121
On to
The unsigned order from the high court granted special counsel Jack Smith's request for the justices to decide the issue. The justices are set to decide the question: "whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office."
Trump immunity claim taken up by Supreme Court, keeping D.C. 2020 election trial paused
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-immunity-ruling-supreme-court/
Well, Smith did ask the SC, they are taking the case and it will be settled once and for all....
Speak clearly then, that was a side note, I do have it right about Smith.....
Jack smith didn't specifically ask? Now they will, just not they way you want them too? I think I have that right
Jack Smith asked the SC......The SC is taking the case,,,,,,,,,But The SC didn't jump through the hoops Smith and dems want......
First its a careful what ya wish for, Secondly the SC jumps through hoops for no one.....They will however make expeditious rulings when needed....
The CO ruling is a case in point.....Dems will do about anything to distract from their feeble record the last 3 years.....Too bad you didn't govern for the times.....
No you are and its a shame, once credible people are willing to stoop as low as their political rivals.......Sad, especially coming from you dear lady...
The Hill,,,everyday at 6, news nation, thanks for confirming my first observation
They said dems are stupid.....section 5 of the 14th
However, all 9 Supremes noted stupidity today....