I live in the district she is moving to, she won't get through the primary. Far too many other Republicans have been waiting for that seat. And, other than being heavily Republican, it's about as different from her district as there is in Colorado.

Internal polling had to be awful for her to make this move. She had been relatively quiet since the theater incident and from I had read she's spent a lot of time and effort in her district trying to repair her image.

She's assured a House seat if she wins the primary, but this is going to be a tough primary for her.

The 5th Circuit agreed with Texas that hospitals can't be forced to perform lifesaving abortions.

dola

GOPers in the House are now saying they won't negotiate on immigration because they don't want to help Biden.

So obvious this is where this was heading.

I'm wondering if they flat out told her they wouldn't support her in that district. Almost losing a fairly safe R seat (and likely losing it if she ran again) had to force the party to step in.

Yes, some GOP outliers are saying that. But majority are saying House GOP passed the "Secure the Border Act" in May 2023 and that should be used vs (their view) half-baked Senate version.

So yeah, it is obvious that both sides are playing politics and not wanting to push for a comprehensive immigration bill. Let's have one and not try to "slip" one in to another important, non-related bill or slip it in a couple months before elections.

To be clear. I'm also personally okay with using the Senate compromise version. From what I've read so far, the Dems are willing to compromise some and that's better than the total frak up we currently have at the southern borders. Anything is better than the current status quo brought on by Joe's policies and inactions.

The issue isn't the Senate, it's the house. The democrats could give 99% of what the republicans want, but the house won't vote on it because it's working with the democrats. There are just enough crazies who think their only job is to get 100% of everything they want.

This is where the GOP has been for twenty years. There's a majority that could vote on an immigration bill, but the GOP will block it from reaching a vote. A lot of this should have been solved with the McCain bill during the GWB presidency.

That wouldn't sate them. They'd vote against it even if they got 100% if they had to work with Democrats to get it.

The plan is to burn it down, punish the other side, and take what they want... not work with the other side to get itml.

We'll agree to disagree.

If the Dems were willing to give 99% of what the House GOP wanted back in May 2023 with "Secure the Border Act", we would not be where we are today. The Senate Dems didn't even consider taking it up.

And what happened with Joe's immigration bill in 2021 and 2022 when the Dems owned the Presidency and Congress?

A Harris poll has 2/3 of GOPers saying Trump is a man of faith while only 1/3 say the same for Mitt Romney.

Fucking cult.

“We never had mass shootings like this with republicans in office!”

biden giving a strong speech on who trump really is today on the eve of Jan 6. and then we have Trump put out a video-God made Trump;


https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/s...09644200583366

NRA'S President Wayne Lapierre resigns on the eve of his fraud trial in NY on Monday

Immigration will never get passed because, deep down, no one actually wants to change the system. It's a great tool to rile up racial resentment with the Republican base. And Democrats don't really have a position at all on it. But illegal immigrants are so valuable to big business and big agriculture, that they'll never allow politicians to actually act on it.

Florida passed a strict immigration law last year but is not even enforcing it. For all the tough talk, it's a tourist state with lots of immigrant workers and those businesses are funding campaigns.

This seems bad.

Biden, top White House officials were not informed for days about Austin's hospitalization - POLITICO

Yeah. Unless there’s something I’m missing, people should be fired over this

Yeah, if Austin was incapacitated, it falls on whoever is next in line to notify. If Austin wasn't and hid the information, he needs to be removed immediately.

It is really a weird situation. He wasn't going to lose his job for being in the hospital. Why not let the White House know? There is something more to this story than meets the eye.

I agree. Jan 1 to Jan 4 seems weird, something is missing from the story.

I can see him going in for what he consider a minor, no big deal, thing but then possibly there were bigger complications which extended his stay.

Hospitalized on New Years Day, Jan 1 so understandable that maybe it wasn't communicated on Jan 1 or even Jan 2. But certainly, by Jan 3.

TBH I'm actually surprised that President and Defense Secretary aren't talking every day or every other day, even on holidays. Lots of crap happening in Ukraine, Israel and Red Sea.

Bobo had the police called on her after she punched her ex-husband in the face after getting into an argument at a restaurant last night.

The odds of her going to jail before she dies are clearly going up.

Nice, ahead of schedule. Now the fun begins with the unruly kids.

Looks like the deal is essentially the same deal McCarthy negotiated. So why did they vote him out again?

On one hand domestic violence is bad. On the other, punching pedophiles is good.

Well she was ok with that and said the girls asked to see it so it was ok.

We don't have a dedicated healthcare thread so figured this was as good as any.

I was impressed today. I changed from Anthem to Kaiser Silver HMO and found a new PCP (old one didn't take Kaiser). I met him in person today, get some vaccinations, blood work & prescriptions, nothing big.

I was expecting a private practice Dr. who took Kaiser insurance but instead he was located inside a Kaiser building.

It was pretty squared away. Checked-in at a kiosk, better experience than any others in the past. There was an attendant that helped people check-in and answered any questions in the lobby area. There was the Dr. area, a Lab area, a Pharmacy and couple other areas. Kaiser also has other buildings that dealt with specialties and emergency stuff (e.g. no more of the private emergency clinics).

After seeing the Dr., I went to the pharmacy and then for a blood test. Results available tomorrow online.

Bottom-line. It was an "industrialized" process (efficient, repeatable). I never felt that I was just a number. It was convenient and relatively quick. Online app is solid except for one annoying refresh.

So, if you guys are on Kaiser HMO, suggest you give the "Kaiser practice" a shot vs private practices that takes Kaiser insurance.

My friend is on Kaiser and likes it. His only problem is there isn't an office local to him and he has to drive an hour away for all his appointments.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Hunter Biden showed up at Congress to watch them discuss the subpoena on him, then he got up and left when MTG began to talk while the press followed him out.

Is so appropriate that most parties dream of public hearings to show the world the scum bag they’re going after

Until now of course cuz Q & T


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hopefully it's the one I work on!

Now word is that Rep. Johnson is going to back out of the funding deal he negotiated.

It's the one where there is a Check-in and Walk-in.

Check-in was what I initially did, entered in my info and then had my photo taken. After seeing the Dr. I had to do the walk-in for my lab blood test appt which they did 20 min later.


BTW if you work on below, the refreshing of screens is way, way too slow.

https://healthy.kaiserpermanente.org/georgia/front-door

Picking a random backbencher with no leadership experience as Speaker was always going to end up with stuff like this.

The only surprise there is that it has taken this long.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

I mean we've been bombing them or having proxies bomb them for 15 years. Still feels like something that should require Congressional approval, but Biden and following the laws in this conflict don't go together.

Why? We have long-standing orders that the President is allowed to act on terrorist activities, and this definitely qualifies.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Happening, no details on how extensive yet

We shouldn't be fighting battles for others.


Also, Biden has been outspoken in the past about this exact thing being illegal. Guess it's different now that he's in charge.

They attack US Naval ships, not to mention numerous civilian ships. The War Powers Act allows action as long as he notifies Congress within 72 hours, which they already had.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

I know what it says. I'm saying Biden has for decades opposed what he is doing. He has said it is illegal and unconstitutional. He wrote a famous law review article on the topic decades ago.

Regardless of that, providing military aid and weapons to Israel remains illegal by U.S. law. I know that every President breaks this law, but it is still illegal and he should be called out for it just like Trump, Reagan, and others.

As a part of that law review he stated the president should be allowed to use force " to protect, through defensive measures and with maximum emphasis on multilateral action, internationally recognized rights of innocent and free passage in the air and on the seas;"
Literally what is happening here. Further: "The authors noted that the Korean intervention (at least the initial stages), the Cuban missile crisis blockade, the Iranian hostage rescue attempt, the Dominican and Grenada invasions, Reagan’s bombing of Libya, and the Persian Gulf escort operations in 1987 would have been permitted under the proposed framework. In other words, the language put forward would have authorized virtually every controversial use of force undertaken by presidents between World War II and the time of writing."
I think you pretty heavily misrepresenting Biden previous statements.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Innocent passage. They are trying to block weapons that are being used in a genocide. The UN has a fairly detailed definition of innocent passage which this does not fit.

Piracy is bad but weapons that are being sold or given illegally for a genocide seems worse. I know US Presidents violate this law all the time, but providing any weapons to Israel is still illegal under our laws.

If you want to bring up the UN, it has called for the Houthis to stop attacking shipping.

reuters.com

U.S. law forbids the sale of weapons and providing military aid to Israel.

Which US law is that?

Foreign Assistance Act

Reminder that Israel went into international waters in 2010 and murdered 9 people on humanitarian ships, including an American citizen. Biden publicly supported those actions at the time.

Food for thought if you really think this is about "shipping freedom".

https://abcnews.go.com/WN/Media/amer...ry?id=10814848