search results matching tag: Independent

» channel: motorsports

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.002 seconds

    Videos (704)     Sift Talk (52)     Blogs (39)     Comments (1000)   

What did Reagan think about the right to vote?

newtboy says...

Bob, these are ALL right wing ploys, not left. Now you're so far gone you people are "auditing" votes using a company built on the big lie, a lie they started trying to sell in 2018 but couldn't gain traction with until 2020.

98/100 death threats were by "conservatives" (a misnomer) against democrats, independents, and even Republicans that refused to ignore the law and or lie for Trump....like Pence who you idiots still think had the power to just install Trump as president. Yes, there were a few against Republicans, usually after they announced they would break the law or support the big lie using taxpayer's money, but they were by far the minority. It's pretty insane you would complain, since Trumpsters have made that a feature of right wing American politics for 5 years now, including dozens to hundreds of actual attempts at kidnapping and murder not including Jan 6.
It's like you were complaining that a few Democrats are fat, prejudiced, ignorant, and uneducated....or another way of saying that is you're bitching only because you don't like the competition, not because you don't like death threats.

bobknight33 said:

As you stated""" inserting partisanship into vote counting, assaulting the integrity of the process and subjecting poll workers to death threats isn't creating a "honest vote system", it's degrading the most fundamental principle of democracy.""

That is what happens to conservatives in major democrat cities during the counting. Glad we are on the same page.

What did Reagan think about the right to vote?

luxintenebris says...

A quick summary of the HR1 'duckery'...

This bill addresses voter access, election integrity and security, campaign finance, and ethics for the three branches of government.

Specifically, the bill expands voter registration (e.g., automatic and same-day registration) and voting access (e.g., vote-by-mail and early voting). It also limits removing voters from voter rolls.

The bill requires states to establish independent redistricting commissions to carry out congressional redistricting.

Additionally, the bill sets forth provisions related to election security, including sharing intelligence information with state election officials, supporting states in securing their election systems, developing a national strategy to protect U.S. democratic institutions, establishing in the legislative branch the National Commission to Protect United States Democratic Institutions, and other provisions to improve the cybersecurity of election systems.

Further, the bill addresses campaign finance, including by expanding the prohibition on campaign spending by foreign nationals, requiring additional disclosure of campaign-related fundraising and spending, requiring additional disclaimers regarding certain political advertising, and establishing an alternative campaign funding system for certain federal offices.

The bill addresses ethics in all three branches of government, including by requiring a code of conduct for Supreme Court Justices, prohibiting Members of the House from serving on the board of a for-profit entity, and establishing additional conflict-of-interest and ethics provisions for federal employees and the White House.

The bill requires the President, the Vice President, and certain candidates for those offices to disclose 10 years of tax returns.

...what is so offensive? where is the downside?

sounds more than fair, honest and these Americans are pushing for an honest voting system. where's your evidence there's any 'duckery' in the bill... 🦜 bob

Jyoti Ram

BSR says...

At about 0:45 the first vertical stick in the foreground has another stick horizontal to the vertical stick. As he goes through his routine the horizontal stick appears to wiggle independent of the vertical stick. Then he plucks it away.

Bruti79 said:

If he's doing it the way I think he's doing it, he has some invisible string set up to an anchor point somewhere. I want to know how he's doing the circling of it with his hands and fingers without flicking the string.

It's a really cool illusion.

GOP Purging Anyone Who Won't Embrace Trump's Election Lies

newtboy says...

This is purely a Trump thing.

It's a realization that the party has been taken over by RINOs, specifically Trumptards claiming to be Republicans, most without even knowing what the party stood for before Trump. Anyone who supports Trump isn't a Republican by pre 2016 definitions.

Edit: As late as 09, Trump was a democrat, then switched to Republican, then by 11 left Republicans and went independent, and under a year later went back to Republican and ran for president before dropping out and backing Romney....you know, the guy you say is a RINO because he doesn’t back Trump. In a July 2015 interview, Trump said that he has a broad range of political positions and that "I identify with some things as a Democrat." Previously he said -"In many cases, I probably identify more as Democrat", explaining: "It just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans. Now, it shouldn't be that way. But if you go back, I mean it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats...But certainly we had some very good economies under Democrats, as well as Republicans. But we've had some pretty bad disaster under the Republicans.". During the last week of his presidential term, Trump was reportedly considering founding a new political party and wanted to call it the Patriot Party. Hardy a real Republican, and a prime example of the definition of a RINO.

Hopefully they will all be shown the door and the party will die along with toxic Trumpism.

McConnell, Graham, Gaetz, Green, McCarthy, Cruise, all those RINOs do all need to go, you're right.

bobknight33 said:

This isn't a trump thing.

Just realization that the party can no longer tolerate RINOS.

Hopefully there will be a good handful will be shown the door in 2022.

McConnell, Graham, Romney all need to go.

STRONG INDEPENDENT WOMEN

BSR says...

These stats show the problem must be testosterone. Men.

If 45% of children are born to unwed mothers then there must be 45% of unwed fathers. Unless the father is married to a different woman of course. Then he will probably have a high alimony bill.

So yes, strong and independent.

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

ROTFLMFAHS!!
You actually just said that. Holy shit!

You only say it's ok to lock him up now that Trump has turned his back. If Trump still stood with him, you would too.

Bob, you need some serious self examination. You are a high ranking cultist in the cult of Trump.
You yourself said lying is fine and proper even under oath, making up any bullshit that supports your position. You said that, you said only idiots tell the truth if it hurts their case. You absolutely do not look for, or care about truth or facts. You have been crystal clear about that.


Bob....I'm a registered independent. I don't have a party.
I see your party, the most criminal, dishonest, and divisive in American history that repeats like a mantra that they have no obligation to tell the American people the truth....I see them and wretch. The pedophilic, anti science, anti equality, anti ecology, anti truth, pro secret unlimited bribe money in politics party of say anything is what Republicans have become.

You are so deep in the cult, you only see what the Trump party tells you that you see, and you damn your eyes if they disagree.

bobknight33 said:

If true then lock him um.

That the difference between me and I look for truth and facts regardless of party or else.

You just blindly see your party.

Viral How Much Did Your Divorce Cost

scheherazade says...

"What on earth are you talking about?"
-newt

The rules for property and income when one or both parties decide they no longer want to be in the relationship.




"not having a marriage means you almost certainly will pay for them for 18+ years but won't have many rights to be in their lives"
-newt

Incorrect. If you are on birth certificate, you have the same rights and obligations.
The only pitfalls are that :
- Child support is calculated from the income of the parent with less custody (rather than from the true cost of raising a child).
- Women almost always get custody if the choice is between two parents (like when they live far apart and child can only be at one or the other).



"and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first"
-newt

Negative. Co-parenting does not conflate property.

Shared assets when not married are divided either by percentage of purchase price contribution, or by percentage stated in a contract.




"My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas"
-newt

"My brother won."
-newt

Won by your own definition. Hence I congratulate.




"You assume women take off time to raise the kids"
-newt

No assumptions. Although afaik they still do it more often.




"You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. "
-newt

Top result from a zero effort google of "men working hours vs women working hours"

https://towardsdatascience.com/is-the-difference-in-work-hours-the-real-reason-for-the-gender-wage-gap-interactive-infographic-6051dff3a041




"Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that"
-newt

I admit that women [as a group] under 35 out earn men under 35 because of preferential admittance (such as to higher education) and preferential hiring (such as to managerial positions).

I did not say that women earn more in the same position for the same hours worked. Young men are simply getting shut out of opportunities, so their incomes are lower. As by design.

It does however highlight how affirmative action is being poorly controlled.
The target statistic is based on overall population at all ages.
The adjustment is skewed to younger ages (school admission is typically for younger people).
So the system is trying to balance out incomes of older men by trimming up incomes of younger women, with no accounting for the effects on younger men or consequences of older men retiring.
The situation is doomed to overshoot with time.

A natural result is the popularity of people like Jordan Peterson, with messages like : "Young men, nobody will help you, stop waiting for someone to help you, stop lamenting your situation, you gotta pull yourself up by your boot straps. Start by cleaning your room, then go make something of yourself".






"Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk[etc]" -scheherazade "
-newt

Straw man argument.

You know I stated that those marriageability criteria exist specifically due to risk of consequences of divorce.

I never stated that I have personal issues with those attributes.
I have dated women on that list. I didn't /marry/ them.

My only criteria for a relationship that I am happy being in is :
- We are mutually attracted
- We like each other
- We are nice to each other
I don't care what your religion is, your politics, your family status, whatever. It's all just noise to me.





" And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are?"
-newt

Prenups can be negated by these simple words :

"I did not understand what I was signing"
or
"My lawyer was not present".

Poof. Prenup thrown out.




"their husbands are more likely to break their vows first"
-newt

A woman to cheat needs a willing man (easy)
A man to cheat needs a willing woman (hard)

Times have changed. Online dating made chatting someone up in person and make an impression uncommon, and even considered creepy/unusual. Now people are picked on their online profile based on looks/height/social-media-game.

Dating apps and sites publish their statistics. Nowadays, around 20% of men match with around 80% of women.
Most men aren't having sex. Most men can't find a match to cheat with if they wanted to.

The tall cute photogenic guys are cleaning up.
The 20% of men that match the bulk of women are going through women like a mill. They will smash whatever bored housewife crosses their path.

A 2 second google result :
https://usustatesman.com/economics-of-dating-2-the-brutal-reality-of-dating-apps/




"Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches"
-newt

Agreed.

Fortunately, I never say that about women.






" you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks"
-newt

False equivalence.

Cohabitation and Partnership are mutually independent.
Meaning both can exist at the same time.


-scheherazade

newtboy said:

What on earth are you talking about?
Do you believe the government dictates your vows? What "rules"? You just cannot grasp the concept of no fault divorce or prenuptial, can you?

I guess you never planned on kids or shared assets. If you do, not having a marriage means you almost certainly will pay for them for 18+ years but won't have many rights to be in their lives, and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first. Uncle Sam is in your relationship, married or not....without a marriage contract, he makes ALL the rules and you have no say.

My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas that in my state would have cost under $10K and you congratulate him? You are one strange person.

Again, your perception, not based in fact since the 60's. You assume women take off time to raise the kids and take care of parents and assume fathers don't take paternity leave or have obligations outside work. How 50's. You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. It certainly hasn't been my experience, I've seen women in the workplace working harder and longer for less pay, sacrificing just like their male counterparts if not more, putting off having families until it's too late while men can have kids long after normal retirement age, putting themselves in dangerous situations where those with power over them have opportunities to abuse that power and abuse those women in ways that rarely happen to men. These aren't exceptions, they're the norm.

Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that, meaning soon women in most catagories will out earn men and have more to lose, you admit you're wrong in your position now, right? Of course not, I expect you will still start from a point that hasn't been correct since the era and sexual revolution, early 70's at latest.

No, many of the studies I've seen compared people in the same exact positions in the same industries, even same companies, and women consistently get paid less for the exact same job and hours, and women rarely work less today, and just as often out work their male counterparts knowing they are often token hires not valued by the bosses so have less job security. If I recall correctly, 80% of job losses due to Covid were women, and the men are getting rehired faster. I think you are thinking of some studies from the 80's that made those assumptions and accusations. Comparing apples to apples, women still get shortchanged and as often as not overworked.

Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk
Tends to have short relationships? Too much risk
Likes attention? Too much risk
Single mother (non-widow)? Too much risk
Any mental issues (depression, bipolar, narcissist, anxiety, etc)? Too much risk
Older (why you still single...)? Too much risk
Likes to party? Too much risk
Drinks? Too much risk"

And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are? Specify what you expect and agree, and you walk with exactly what you agreed to, no government rules or split involved. Geez. You speak as if you had never heard of them.

Most divorces may be initiated by the woman (if that's true, I expect it's just another assumption) because their husbands are more likely to break their vows first, but are not willing to pay to end the marriage, including penalties for breaking the marriage contract, and we're too dumb to get a prenuptial (or got one that spells out harsh penalties for cheating). Yes, I am assuming men cheat on their spouses more often than the reverse, because men are wired that way.

You are not more likely than not to face a divorce, because it's unlikely any woman meeting your criteria would give you a second thought, and you need to get married to get divorced.

I bet if you show your significant other this thread your 20 year relationship will be in big trouble, or at best enter a long dry dark spell. Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches that take more than they deserve or even could give back and destroy you whenever they think it serves them. It's probably a good thing you aren't married.

Laws and family court aren't as you describe. Maybe when you enter the 21st century you'll recognize that. The rules of your marriage can be whatever you agree to, including the specifics of the split if it ends.

It's a sad thing you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks.....almost always unless one or both of you are total douchebags.

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

There is that possibility, but as a cult of personality, no one could get his base as excited to vote as if he were running.

I think, if his named successor looks like they could possibly win, it will drive independents and liberals to the polls in droves....but who knows by then.

Then we disagree. I say prosecuting a criminal is never the wrong move, especially when so many insist it’s not over yet, and that there was election fraud so no democracy, and that the treasonous insurrection was a patriotic act by law abiding patriots. Showing the unedited video evidence might snap some back to reality, stopping another domestic terrorist.
As for wasting money, estimates are we’ve spent well over 1/2 BILLION because of the coup attempt. Trying for some accountability to give the next attempted dictator pause, and force the right to distance themselves from their cancer or publicly embrace treason, is well worth the price, if it avoids a repeat it’s a 100/1 savings.
Then there’s the ‘sending a message to Biden that this isn’t ok’ angle. If he loses, do you want a repeated attempted coup? Consider Biden’s approval rating is insanely higher than Trump’s ever was....and if a January coup has no consequences, he’s obligated to try.

I must point out that, if, as he now claims but lost the vote, you can’t hold trial on an ex president....didn’t McConnel intentionally subvert justice by delaying a trial until he said it was too late and now unconstitutional? Shouldn’t he have a consequence?

Mordhaus said:

Let's say they actually get the votes, I still think it's a waste of time. They bar him from being elected again, but nothing can stop him from naming an 'heir'.

If you think about it, that is even worse than him running again. If he runs, he will still unite every liberal leaning person and most fence sitters against him. If he designates a person for his supporters to align behind, they will get the almost half of voters that voted for him AND a lot of the middle who might be sick of Biden/Dems by 2024.

A victory here is, at best, a moral one. It won't stop a future President of Trump's nature from trying the same thing because that is the way a person like him acts. It does nothing but provide a feel good moment while wasting more of my tax money.

What Still Works - SNL

newtboy says...

No problem...she allegedly privately disavowed something unspecified she said in the past (while publicly stating she apologises for nothing and retracts nothing). Problem solved.

Republicans have decided her insanity is washed clean, like her decades of insanity never happened, and won't even vote to see if a school shooting denier and student survivor harasser that believes Jewish space lasers caused California's wildfires to clear land for trains and called for the murder of other representatives publicly should be on the education committee.

But voting for impeachment over inciting a deadly insurrection, that they thought called for a vote for expulsion.

It sounds like today they get to make that position public when the full house votes to remove Green. Let's hope democrats have grown a spine and vote her off committees without Republican support....and let's hope independents remember who the right stands with come election time....racist, antisemitic, vitriolic, total nutjobs that spout incendiary and inflammatory nonsense constantly while calling for the death of high ranking government officials.

surfingyt said:

jewish space lasers... the republicans are off their rockers

A Reporter’s Footage from Inside the Capitol Siege

eric3579 says...

Over 500 videos taken as rioters stormed the Capitol building have been arranged in chronological order and can be scrolled through by users.

ProPublica published the interactive timeline using videos sourced from Parler, the social network favoured by supporters of the president, which was also gathering users’ GPS data.
- The Independent

Videos can be viewed chronologically here..
https://projects.propublica.org/parler-capitol-videos/

Rudolf gets Hamiltoned a cappella style

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

Notre Dame Faculty Pens Open Letter To Delay Hearings

Mordhaus says...

That is on top of insurance. We pay roughly 275 dollars per paycheck for both of our insurance. Before the ACA, that insurance was sufficient to cover our doctor, etc.

After the ACA, more and more independent doctors are going to the concierge or direct pay method. Most of the reason given is the extra red tape. They apparently would rather charge for the office visits and minor tests via fee/concierge payment instead of trying to wade through the post-ACA insurance hoops.

Here in Texas, it is rapidly splitting into 3 groups. Lower quality doctors that remain independent, good doctors like my old one who are going direct pay/concierge, and doctors that are part of a multi doctor clinic.

newtboy said:

You're kidding. You can get good care (I assume anything non surgical?) For $1800 a year and you don't?!? I pay that three times over for insurance that pays almost nothing until I'm $4500 out of pocket, and compared to today's market here that's a bargain.

Here I'm lucky to have a doctor at all. We have a huge shortage, always have since I've lived here.

Do you really see it getting better without the aca? Can you tell me why, since normally any improvements wouldn't go to patients or level of care but instead to higher profits?

I sure don't recall when advancements of any kind led to lower health care costs on average...my thought was the aca just spread the pain of paying for the indigent, and gave them preventative care to lower their need for expensive treatments we pay for either way, with higher insurance rates covering care for the poor and lowering overall costs or with higher care cost, leading to higher insurance and more unhealthy poor skipping out on higher bills.

I absolutely think single payer is best. Costs can be negotiated by the entire country, leading to lower costs. Everyone gets basic care, no one skips on their bill, leading to lower costs. 20% that the insurance industry takes from every medical dollar goes away, leading to lower costs. Like other nations with universal healthcare, anyone who chooses can buy supplemental insurance that covers better, more comfortable care like private rooms or choice of top doctors, so nothing's lost for patients. The only issues I see are ideological.

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

The Supreme Court: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

newtboy says...

You mean like Trump promised them if they would just, please oh please, dig up dirt on Joe so Trump doesn't go to prison in January.... Or if they just won't come cut his thumbs off on live tv because he isn't paying his hundreds of millions in debt?

>$300000000 in debt +$100000000 in past due taxes, >24 sexual assault cases in the courts, every Trump business hemorrhaging money badly, dozens of non sex crime felony cases in the pipes or courts, >204000 dead Americans on his hands of all ages, and millions permanently disabled of all ages, failed trade talks, riots and unrest, zero international credibility, worst business man in America for multiple years (possibly ever), doubled the debt and quadrupled the deficit term one, biggest GDP loss EVER, biggest jobs loss EVER, biggest socialist handouts ever (to businesses and the rich), debt skyrocketing, infrastructure ignored completely, billions-trillions in deferred payments or obligations hidden from the budget, the entire federal government politicized as a weapon for one dictatorial idiot, exactly who is voting for him? Absolutely not patriots, independents, minorities, definitely not disillusioned Democrats, not even white women, just uneducated white men, Russian trolls, bots, and felonious Trumpchumps who have already been caught dozens of times defrauding the election, collecting and filling out and submitting ballots, thousands of them. Firing squads seem insufficient.

No thanks, pedotroll. Another red tsunami....coming out your ears, out your....wherever. Never again with Moscow's Emissary Governing America....The biggest loser pedophile rapist will be feeding the fishes in the Baltic as soon as the Russians get hold of him, and in an institution for the criminally insane if they don't.

bobknight33 said:

And you want this guy to pick?
Joe would off shore the SCOTUS job to China.
No thanks. Landslide MEGA 2020



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon