Uh no? I don't watch Fox so no idea what the extremist right thinks. As an independent that has voted for both parties ... it's not about race, sexual identity etc. Most times its just stupid, entitled Americans that think they can get past other country's laws.

Google on YT Border Security Canada on all our idiots from "I've got medical marijuana so I can bring it over" to "I've got conceal carry so I can bring my gun over" to "NAFTA allows me to work in Canada without a work permit" etc.


There's evidence on the security cam at security Brittney Griner detained: Video shows her going through security at airport in Russia - YouTube

There also her "I did it but didn't mean to" 'Honest mistake': Brittney Griner speaks in Russian court ahead of sentencing | LiveNOW from FOX - YouTube

I get there's always going to be the argument that FSB planted the drugs. That may well be true but there's no evidence that happened, nor was that part of the defense.

Do you believe she was framed and she did not bring the cannabis in her bags?

Let's see what Griner says in the inevitable forthcoming news conferences now that she doesn't need to worry about ramifications. If she says "I was framed", I'll take it back. If she doesn't say that, will you concede that she brought the cannabis in her bag?

Ok so that was what I needed the video footage and I missed she pleaded guilty. Also my “right” comment was not directed at you as I remembered you are an independent.

I have this funny image in my head of a TV with a split screen with Biden and Putin in their literal war rooms, surrounded by generals. Then Adam Silver comes on the air with the little NBA draft chime and says "For the first pick of the prisoner exchange draft, the country of Russia selects..." Then you have Mel Kiper and George Stephanopoulos debating the relative merits of the person. Silver: "We have a trade to announce. The country of Russia sends Britney Griner to the USA for Viktor Bout". Stephen A. Smith jumps in and is just incredulous.

SI

Specific to the 5,000. I've seen it used in Dem talking point as a whatabout. No problem with whatabouts (but not the excessive one-after-another) as they are good to make sure we consider both sides. However, IMO the comparison with Griner is not great. That swap, at that time, was a pretty good trade and for good intentions. It didn't turn out well, but we (including majority of GOP & Dems) were looking for excuses to get out of the country and try for a Taliban-Afghan peace talk ... one last time.

Trump admin. agreed to release of 5,000 Taliban prisoners | verifythis.com

She admitted it?


I'll admit I haven't followed the case closely and have only followed some of the major network's coverage. IE I don't read the bloggers, twitter, or any other social media. To my recollection nobody, not her, her partner, or anyone else has denied the cannabis was there, have they?

Honestly the "I wasn't there" argument sounds like something a former President and his supporters would say when confronted with facts. This type of denial from the right is why I have gone from voting independent to voting straight (D).


Surely she was treated the way she was because of politics. Deportation should have been the result and we all move on. I can only hope all athletes and entertainers took note and will no longer perform there.

Edit: Sorry, was writing this when Edward posted his answer and you replied.

From what I've been able to read, a prison term of a few years is typical for this in Russia. Deportation is not considered sufficient by their legal system. It's almost certainly political that she got a longer sentence, but a slap on the wrist was never on the table really.

I appreciate this post. Thank you.

At the same time, I am also appalled. Who is it that has been saying these things? I didn't even bring up Whelan/Reed/Fogel and I don't know of anyone on these forums who made the 'deserving their fate' comparison. Or derided releasing a WNBA player. If Griner is guilty of the accused crime - she may have said she was for legal reasons/minimizing sentence etc. so I don't know - that has to matter, and whether these others are guilty of what they are accused of has to matter also, as well as the fact that Bout is indirectly responsible for the deaths of how many thousands of people, but ... this is not at all the conversation that's been brought up. The only way the 5,000 have been brought up on this forum, and not by me, is explicitly as an apples-to-apples comparison.

My main question here is, is this how you view discussions on this forum and how you think others on this forum do it? Is it automatically assumed that anyone who doesn't think the trade is a good idea (or whatever other issue) is carrying water for every dumb thing said in popular culture about it by anyone who might agree with some facet of what they said and not just speaking for themselves? That's certainly not how I go about it. When I read you posting something or whoever else on the forum, I assume you are speaking for yourself and only for yourself in expressing your opinion. I think that's entry-level, fundamental decency in engaging with another human individual and that there's really no way to have productive conversations on pretty much anything without doing that.

If saying 'this was a bad trade' causes someone to be lumped in with what Trump said or McCarthy or whomever else, that's just ... there aren't really words that come to mind to fully express how bad I think that is, but one thing it definitely means is that real discussions can't happen. I.e. I don't think you're 'part of the societal group that disagrees with me on an issue'. You're a person who disagrees with me on an issue. That's it, and that's all, and that's how you deserve to be treated.

As I said it is not an apples to apples comparison. For me, the comparison is based on the assumption of risk to the US. Worse case scenario with Bout is he will recreate his network and sell guns that will kill Americans. Worse case scenario with Taliban prisoners is they will recreate what they had and that recreation will result in the killing of Americans. My guess is the current administration believes that Bout is not enough of a threat to the US to force Griner to remain in a Russian prison. My guess is the administration of the day believed that the released Taliban prisoners were not enough of a threat to prevent the pursuit of peace in Afghanistan. If Bout goes home and becomes a family man and never involves himself in the illegal gun trade, then this is a pretty good trade and for good intentions. If a terrorist attack happens and we find out that some of those former prisoners were a part of that attack or money changed hands to bring about the prisoner release,then that is not a pretty good trade and/or not for good intentions.

Of course none of this addresses why it seems people(besides Brian) would have been ok if the swap was Whelan for Bout as oppose to Griner for Bout.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...nabi-rcna37938

This women actually received a presidential pardon after spending less than a year in prison. Interestingly, the convicted Russian cyber criminal that was associated with her case was released last year which was a year before his time was up.

Russia Fines U.S. Student With Drug Possession Over Medical Marijuana - The Moscow Times

This woman was fined the equivalent of $230.

And then there is this interesting tidbit.


It seems that anything can be on the table if the system wants it to be.

Come on now Brian what are we doing here? I specifically said YOU were the only one who were discussing this from a different POV than what I had seen from anyone else both here and on the wider internet. I specifically acknowledged that if this was THE discussion point as opposed to exclusively YOUR discussion point, WE as in the royal WE would have more common ground. If the overall discussion remained in that realm.

That is not where the overall discussion has been had. THAT is what I was speaking of in that part of my post. The debate has been about Britney Griner and the merits of whether she should be part of any prison release. You know we traded a basketball player for the Merchant of Death or I am uncomfortable with her getting released and Whelan staying or uh aren't there other American prisoner who could have gone etc. As long as that is the overall framework of the discussion here and elsewhere as opposed to what YOU said, no there can not be common ground.

It was not meant to be an attack on you. If that is the way it was taken, I apologize for that. It was meant as an explainer as to why I think there can't be common ground with the discussion going down that path. Here is what I said in my first post about this.


I have no problem with anyone saying it was a bad trade. I have an issue with the idea that among the people who have been spotlighted as worthy of being traded, Britney Griner should not have been one of them.

It's whatever serves Russia. Whether it's good will, attention, or something they can gain. They gain by holding a 'spy' and they gain by making a big show out of big USA "western" basketball star. Nobody gives a shit about a random 'student.'

You did? Where? What I saw was you quoting me talking about the lack of common ground specifically with another poster on this forum, and then saying we don't have that common ground because the discussion hasn't taken place in a vacuum, etc. So ... I guess it's just a big giant misunderstanding?

By the way, I think your characterization of the wider internet is ... really off. Over half the news I've seen on this has been talking about it in the way I did, same framing although often coming to a different conclusion. Lots of talk about how Biden took the deal that was available, not the ones that weren't, the merits or lack thereof of 'hostage diplomacy', and so on. What I consume is pretty mainstream, so it leaves me wondering what you are seeing about it and where are you getting it from?

I didn't take any of this as a personal attack. But I've read the same thread here as you have. Your quote above equates the discussion here on the forum with what you've read on the wider internet, but again ... who here has said those things about Griner? I haven't read anyone on this forum saying 'shouldn't trade for an NBA player' etc. I mean, by my count on this forum there's more people in favor of the trade than against it. So I'm left honestly having no idea what you're talking about. :confused:

I was not the only one who read it as a negative as this was the next poster replied with a "fixed that for you" replacing basketball player with American citizen.



This reads like why Brittany as opposed to someone else jailed in Russia, no?



This is not meant as to cast any aspersions on any of the posters I quoted. They are entitled to their opinions. But I don't think I am being unreasonable to read these comments and have the impression that they think BG had less of a case to be traded than the others detained in Russia. I think she does. That is why your comment stood out because you were the one who questioned the trade no matter which of the candidates would have been selected.

I was looking for the like button on that post,

This is specific to above quotes as I was mentioned in and not to the broader conversation (because I don't want to be that guy who jumps in without fully understanding the discussion). Just want to clarify my specific position on the Griner trade.

I can see why one believes that I preferred Paul Whelan to be released first based on my first paragraph. But note that was in response to a question that Henry296 asked if there were any other prisoners. I just answered him and was not meant to imply I preferred Whelan over Griner.

My second and third paragraphs show that I am conflicted. It is primarily because I don't know if Bout would continue his escapades. If he is able to help Putin substantially (beyond just pure propaganda) with his old contacts, the havoc he would cause to the Ukrainians in deaths, prolonging the war etc. would far outweigh a Griner or Whelan release. In other words, if you can tell me for sure that Bout will ramp up again, neither Griner or Whelan or Tom Brady or LeBron James would be worth the trade.

I don't know the answer to that question and hence my internal struggle on whether this trade was worth it (regardless of Griner or Whelan).

I think for me to type another involved response would just get unproductively devolved into semantics. I'd rather not contribute to another such trainwreck.

I'll summarize thusly:

- Some posts I missed somehow even after re-reading multiple times.
- Others I think could be taken multiple ways, and I think there are some unwarranted conclusions being drawn.
- I still think this issue is being discussed in a very slanted manner, but I don't think there's any useful way I can make clear the how & why without doing more harm than good and further exasperating people.

I really think DeSantis going full anti-vax probably kills him in the general election.

Article on how China dominates rare earth elements and what the US is doing

China Dominates the Rare Earths Market. This U.S. Mine Is Trying to Change That. - POLITICO
US company mining in the US. Have to read up on the stock

And will be bringing some/all of the processing back to the US.

Good move by Trump & Biden Admin to support

And not worry as much about environmental impacts (right now, at least)

Apparently earlier versions of this company failed because wasn't profitable enough. Seems like $10M is a small investment to help reduce our reliance on China for these strategic materials. Shoot, give them $1B to expand

It's going to come down to whether dems fear a DeSantis term as much as they feared a 2nd trump term. He'll get GOP turnout.

I think DeSantis is our next president.

The anti Trump voters will stay home, all republicans will vote him and he will appeal to a lot of independents. Factor in the contrast between a young polished guy and a rapidly aging Biden and I think he wins easily.

I think things like the measles outbreak in OH and DeSantis's really vocal anti-vax stance will kill him with the suburban voters he needs to win back. I'm for putting diseases closer to your children is toxic.

I wouldn't underestimate the number of suburban people who are either anti-vax or vax hesitant. I also think that will be a blip on the radar compared to other issues such as immigration, economy, etc...

Immigration doesn't matter much to persuadable voters. The GOP has tried to make several elections about immigration and it never works. It pleases the base, but doesn't change much in the way of voting.

Who knows what the economy will look like in 2024.

The number of people pro-vax, even pro-Covid vax is much much higher than those opposed. Being anti-vax is about as popular as being pro-Social Security cuts.

I think DeSantis is the latest in a long line of popular governors that doesn't play well on the national stage.

I hope you are right. I just think when you put him side by side with Biden it is a stark contrast that people won't be able to shake.

I agree with that, but I also think there's a near-zero chance of most pro-vax people voting for DeSantis anyway on other grounds. How many of the pro-vax people are in the persuadable category is the question, and there's a non-trivial amount of independents who think the government has lied to them about covid/the vaccine.

I also think DeSantis vs. current Biden is another absolutely horrible choice. Please someone stop this from actually being the general election matchup.

I think Biden is likely to lose to almost anybody not named Trump.

Funny enough I was reading through the thread ready to say the exact same thing.

Put me in the camp that vaccines will be about 30th in the list of things voters care about in a general election, and as posted the people who feel strongly about it the other way aren't voting for DeSantis (or a generic R) in the first place.

We just watched an election turn on whether or not the GOP candidate was nuts and being anti-vax, not just for Covid but in general, is a clear indication of crazy for I bet 70% of the population. It's absolutely baffling why he's making such a big deal out of this. Either he's a true believer or someone giving him lots of money is.

We also watched an absolutely horrid, unqualified person get nearly 49% of the vote in GA in a statewide election. If that were Desantis he would have gotten 60% of the vote.

My default position.

However, Trump can (arguably) beat any Dem not named Biden.

With Trump seemingly committed, I'm thinking Joe has to run (unless there are some major health, cognitive decline issues). His backroom pitch to the Dem leadership should be "I've beaten him once, I'll beat him again. Who else do you think can do it? Do you really want to risk it?"

But yeah, with a Biden vs DeSantis, I think the age disparity will work against Biden.

In 2020, the 7 states with a margin under 5% were (closest first) Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Nevada, Michigan, Florida.

Whichever candidate can win some good number of those states is the candidate you want.

This is probably oversimplifying, but I agree with those above who feel like if Trump runs, Biden is a good nominee. If DeSantis runs, he's a bad matchup and the Dems need someone younger.

It feels like it's destined to be Biden vs DeSantis but this time before 2008, it was a lock that it was going to be Giuliani vs Clinton and instead we had Obama over McCain.

SI

I don't think Trump beats anyone but a really horrible candidate. Put a young veteran up against him and he would get crushed. Just about anyone under 60 beats him in my opinion.

I can see DeSantis not winning the nomination. Big difference with 2008 of course is that Biden is the sitting president. If the sitting president runs again, they don't lose their party's nomination.

I agree

I think the dems could run just about anyone against Trump and win. Yet at the same time leave it to the dems to find the candidate that would lose to Trump.

Kentucky is such a weird state. I have underestimated the extent that people 'feel Libertarian' here. They say KY has an unusually high amount, but it's not really Libertarian. Instead it's a state that loves govt support, has some strong unions, hates the government telling them to do anything at all, and is socially conservative. That's not libertarian at all. But I do think it says how the state has been swayed by the culture wars. It used to be about the unions and dems (when the dems were socially conservative), but it's flipped totally with the culture wars taking center stage in any race.

I'll agree on that point.

I will say that if he's not the nominee -- barring someone not currently on the horizon -- then Biden wins.

I'm not saying DeSantis would be a lock to win in November, I'm just saying that no other (R) currently in the discussion has any chance of winning in November. (None of them could motivate starving dogs toward fresh meat)

Biden shouldn't win, because he shouldn't run.

He is going to run.

I think the DeSantis/Trump battle comes down to how many other people get involved. If it is a crowded primary Trump wins it. If guys like Pence, Pompeo, etc...drop out and it is 1-1 Desantis wins.

Is there really any support for Pence, Pompeo or anyone other than Trump or Desantis? Nikki Haley maybe, but she has gone too pro-Trump to really turn to challenge him at this point.

The Religious Right is not returning to Pence, and there aren't enough Neocons left in the GOP for Pompeo. It is going to be Trump or a Trump-lite like Desantis or Abbott.

100% agree, but he's also made it clear that he's going to run, so it is what it is.

The phrase I've used in the past 12-24 months is "Trump is the GOP version of Hillary at this point"

edit to clarify: as in, the one person guaranteed to mobilize the opposition all the way to the polls

You are not wrong. He has also burned too many bridges for independents to ever vote for him again.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

I just wonder why it took the GOP this long to accept it when they could have tossed him under the bus, and gotten much stronger by this point without him.

Just like with the Impeachment. They had a perfect chance to bury him, run with Pence, and keep the exact same concepts alive. Instead they just couldn't help themselves slathering all over trumps dick.

Oh, I like this. I absolutely hadn't thought about it this way, but I think you're right.

Because no one was going to be excited about supporting a milquetoast dilweed like Pence - certainly not Trump's base, least of all - and the impeachment for J6 was a problem because of how deep into the events leading up to J6 some prominent GOPers were. If you convict Trump it's fair to ask for a full accounting and then the same questions are asked about likely at least a dozen or more elected officials - all from their party.

The GOP still can't cast him out. The rank and file still love him. They still have the flags flying. Still have the bumper stickers on their trucks. The elites of the party have long wanted to move away from him. They can't because it is still his party.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

I guess the pitch worked

'I don't think we should talk about him while we're eating': Pelosi reacts to Trump run | CNN Politics

A lot of it is that people still make what I think is a bad mistake; thinking of Trump in ideological terms. A lot of his appeal is 'post-policy'. His attitude of never apologizing for anything, of always being on the attack against the perceived enemies of everything but the kitchen sink, and so on. That's just as terrible an appeal, but it's also not something you just take an establishment politician to pick up and carry - being not-establishment is a big part of Trumpism. Pence et al. can't carry that torch.

Love it.

(But assume Biden doesn't know how to tweet and this was done by staff)

Biden mocks Trump’s ‘major announcement’ of digital trading cards | The Hill

I like the idea of investing in Africa but have doubts about the seemingly broad based approach. Many African countries are a mess. I'd think it's better to select key countries that we believe are somewhat friendly, and really develop & invest in those.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-63982818

Love it Joe. I assume Blinken came up with the plan.

Biden launches ‘China House’ to counter Beijing’s growing clout - POLITICO
You've come a long way since 2019 in acknowledging the problem. First step in fixing it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...-pols-n1001236

Fun fact related to this; for whatever reasons that could be debated endlessly, support in general for vaccine requirements is down significantly from 2019. 23% of parents opposed requiring vaccines for measles and other similar, that's now 35%, a 50% increase. Anti-vax sentiment is bordering on becoming a mainstream opinion.

Yes, I think he and others are pushing some sort of revisionist history regarding Covid vaccines and a general sentiment that we should revisit vaccines altogether. We all had them and gave them to our kids without much thought for the past 50-60 years and there's more chatter about whether we need to "do our own research."

The one way this fits in with the general GOP approach is questioning people's faith in government. Whether it's public education, intelligence, or the federal "regime," that's been a constant and this goes right along the same lines. "You can't trust what you've been told."

Also the amount of things white people are willing to overlook to vote for fascism.

"He made the trains run on time."

The NYT story on George Santos, a NY Republican who won a Dem Congressional seat, is wild. Where the hell was the Dem Party - you don't do opposition research to confirm someone's resume? I don't know how many of these potential falsehoods end up being legit, but it kinda would have mattered during the campaign.

Nice work Congress. Hope it passes

Lawmakers unveil sweeping government funding bill to avert shutdown | CNN Politics
Working during the holidays.


Misc notes:


And maybe only of interest to me. Saw Patrick Leahy's name in the article and wondered how long he's been in Congress ... like 48 years.

This seems like . . . legislation how it has historically been done. It's been a while.

I am glad that the Dems saw the leverage that the GOP had and were willing to bend to reality.

When you've got a weak hand, you take what you can get b/c it's better than the alternative. And that's what they did.

Happy retirement, Senator Leahy.

More detail here, without being the full 4000 page text of the bill: https://www.appropriations.senate.go...%20FY%2023.pdf

A little more on the updates to the Electoral Count Act:


There's also raises for the Capitol Police and funds for refurbishment of Capitol buildings because I wonder why....

There's also a graduated ban on driftnet usage, which I quite like.

I’m sure McConnell/Schumer have Cruz-proofed the procedures for getting it done in time. But it will be fun to watch him grandstand and try

Literally every part of his life seems to have been a lie.

The extent to which the NY Democratic Party appears to have been asleep at the wheel in this election cycle (and perhaps earlier ones, note AOC's primary victory over a long-time incumbe?) is astonishing.

This endorsement of Santos' opponent by a local paper raises so many questions you would either have to be stupid or oblivious to vote for Santos. Even as a GOPer, he apparently has supported reparations and the Dem's strategy of boosting questionable GOP candidates. And that's not even considering all of the possible questions about where he got his money.

Endorsement: Robert Zimmerman for US Congress (NY3)

If true, I'd like to se an expulsion. Most recent ones ...

https://history.house.gov/Institutio...ure-Reprimand/

• 1980 Michael Myers (probably made a lot more money in the Halloween franchise :))
• 2002 James Traficant

Nice surprise meeting. There was a reddit report that Zelensky visited the front lines at Bakhut yesterday, met with the troops, gave out medals, and accepted a Ukrainian battle flag. I'm going to guess the US will get it in the meeting.

Biden and Zelensky planning to meet in Washington for Ukrainian president's first foreign trip since war began | CNN Politics
Although not finalized, looks like its for real. Looking forward to what he has to say. Suspect both Dems & GOP will be clapping a lot.

Oh great. I'm going to guess that Israeli saboteurs & hackers will be working overtime, and plans are being refreshed for strikes.

Iran nuclear deal is "dead," Biden says in newly surfaced video
Sure hope the US is supporting the Iranian protestors behind the scenes. But not sure if it'll be welcome or what we can do that would have significant impact.

Welcome! Nice to finally get to meetcha.

Patriots to Ukraine!

(Sure hopes it performs well and can avoid the counter battery etc)

Good press conference. Some nice banter between the 2.

Bidens answer on why the US hasn’t given more/quickly was a little weak, attributing the alliance as part of the reason. He should’ve had a better answer

Congress is next at 7:30pm.

Their job has always been to fight progressives, not Republicans.

Good speech so far. Looks like vast majority is clapping and standing up. Good they have subtitles though, he was a little difficult for me to understand some words.

Zelenskyy had a tough message calling out Iran & Russia collaborating.

10 points for talks. Fat chance that Russia will accept.

Nice Ukrainian flag. Looks signed by the soldiers.

Pelosi giving him the US flag seem somewhat diminishing (?) though.

I hope MTG stayed seated the whole fuckin time and never cheered anything because nothing screams hypocrisy than her tweets yesterday and today and then standing to clap. She sucks.

Remember when we were on the verge of abandoning NATO and Russia was our friend

I can’t recall why that would be and so would support such shocking behavior convenient to an autocrat? Hmmmmmm could it be……

If trump were in office Russia might have our HIMARS… I kid but it’s not impossible based on Trumps lips on Putin’s ass


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is assuming she or any of the far right cultist even showed up. The6 said all R Senators were there be us they have to vote later but only approximately 80 of the House Republicans were there.

A little more on Patriots.

Also kinda expensive per missile


We're going to provide 1 Patriot system and that'll likely be in the Kyiv area. Wonder how well it will perform if Russia decides to send a flood of missiles, drones etc. to Kyiv. Why limit to one, why not provide a bunch that can provide overlapping zones of coverage?

Also, you gotta think its going to be a primary target, so wonder how well it'll do "moving around" and protecting itself. Another piece of military weapon that will be tested in real combat conditions.

My cynical belief is US or NATO troops will be overseeing the Patriot system use inside Ukraine. Hard for me to believe we'll leave the Patriot execution & maintenance to just newly trained Ukrainian forces.

Fair chance they'll act on Iran somehow.

Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu informs Israeli president he has formed government | CNN

I think this was also McConnell deciding to take what they can get before the crazies take control of the house next month. Trying to get any spending bill through this upcoming GOP controlled house would be impossible.

It's been reported that 86 of 213 GOP attended so about 40%. Toss in another 7 or 8 that attended but seemingly pouted throughout so about 38% seemed publicly friendly to Ukraine. Not great but, if representative, workable/enough for next 2 years.

I can believe weather, last minute unplanned event etc. played a role for some of them (who knows how many).

It would be helpful to also know how many Democrats couldn't make the session. I'm pretty sure it'll be a greater % but I was not able to find any stats.

Zelensky address meets divided House GOP preparing to grab purse strings | The Hill

Good move Taiwan. I have been reading that Taiwan isn't ready for China (even with her Porcupine strategy) and not taking it seriously enough as evident by her 4 month mandatory service.

Military service for women is voluntary and about 15% (same as US).

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-64100577
Looks like it'll be a big election platform for them to vote on.

I'm thinking just now how many people would be infuriated if we adopted such a requirement in the US.

Majorly pissed. In some ways it would be good. Instill civic duty and what not. Also, greatly reduce the desire to use the military if your son or daughter is forced to take part. But it would degrade the military, as a volunteer army is much better trained and has better morale than a conscript army. Plus, massive resources are burned in training short-term troops better spent on long-term volunteers.

A lot. But price they have to pay.

Taiwan is in a "clear & present danger" situation. They either need to beef up military capabilities or get nukes. I personally don't believe they should depend on the US, I have doubts if we would stand by them in a shooting war.

I may have to catch a re-run of last night's Tucker.

She should take him up on his offer.

The stuff I'm seeing on Twitter about Santos being partially funded by the cousin of Russian oligarch and then his campaign expenditures that have a ton of expenses priced out at $199.99 is fishy as hell. It sure looks like someone created one or more fake companies to funnel money to him to give to his campaign.

This thread is pretty interesting. Did he make his money as president of Vandelay Industries?

did santos explain who was suddenly pouring money into his fake family company?

— Laura Rozen (@lrozen) December 27, 2022

Sure seems like the Russians bought themselves another Congressman.

Seems like a bit of a money laundering venture.

Assuming these tweets are real, this dude has a full-blown sickness. These tweets aren't a few years apart, they are a few months. He may actually be a more prolific liar than Trump if you consider how little time he's spent in the public eye.

Ooof!😬 pic.twitter.com/FbRtlLUYuk

— Kaylan_TX💙 (@Kaylan_TX) December 29, 2022

This shit can't be real. Elon is playing a joke getting people outraged and then gonna make some anti-Lib statement about the reactions, right?

Two years ago George Santos claimed to be half Black (h/t @C00KE_) pic.twitter.com/fgGNstGeAw

— Roger Sollenberger (@SollenbergerRC) December 29, 2022

He is a liar but not sure he has really done anything illegal yet. But this investigation is good and hope we get some (preliminary) results quickly.

Federal prosecutors are investigating Rep.-elect George Santos' finances | CNN Politics

The Biden Presidency - 2020
 

Deleted to reclaim my energy tonight

Joe is up to 43.3% approval on 538.

His low was 37.9% back in June. In early November it was 41-42% so he's picked up some. I wonder why there was an uptick - the economy & markets seem to be worsening, likely increased political gridlock etc.

There isn't a mid-term coming up, so the pressure to dislike him from the other side is lessened.

Also, to the extend Presidential approval is a proxy for "how do you feel about the political situation," I think that a lot of Dems and moderate Republicans are happy that election deniers lost in the midterms and ECA reform passed. And GOPers are happy that they got a house of Congress and an activist Supreme Court.

This is one of the weirdest stories I can remember. With people looking into his finances, I have a feeling this will only get weirder.

Still shocked that no one noticed this till now. How did the NY Dems not have someone go through his old tweets?

It almost seems like performance art to show how silly the process is for our elections because it is just so blatantly absurd. But, it is also scary to consider that a foreign government may have bankrolled this guy into the US House of Representatives. It's been awhile since I have seen the Manchurian Candidate, but I recall it being far more sophisticated than this clown show.

They did. They just did not think those tweets needed to be highlighted.

https://dccc.org/wp-content/uploads/...earch-Book.pdf

Full List of George Santos Claims That Have Now Been Debunked

It's comical at this point.

His 501c3 animal rights group listed here turned out to be a gofundme btw

McCarthy has given in on the motion to vacate, which means he'll allow a vote on a motion to fire him, possibly with as few as five members allowed to bring it. This is going to be a disaster when it comes time to pass budget items.

And even with that, he doesn't have enough votes to be speaker. This isn't the only hold outs.

Tonight NINE GOP signal skepticism over a future McCarthy speakership.

Tuesday the fight goes to the floor… pic.twitter.com/sxA9QEoZkt

— Haley Talbot (@haleytalbotnbc) January 2, 2023