Yes. What’s your point? You seem to agree with me, except you go back to the 20’s instead of early 30’s. I’m not a Palestine scholar, sorry if I get details or dates slightly wrong, sources vary on many points. It doesn’t change my point, that under British rule European Jews were allowed to immigrate in huge numbers despite opposition from the native population that was being overwhelmed by increasing unwanted forced immigration. At first it was accepted even encouraged by the empathetic natives, but quickly became an overwhelming unwanted invasion of people intent on taking over, not some moderate number of refugees looking for temporary refuge.

Who the fuck cares what the reason they wanted to invade was? Palestinians weren’t responsible for their plight, but still stood ready to help until invaded and subjugated harshly by the invaders.
Should Venezuelans be allowed to take over Pennsylvania because they want out of Venezuela for good reason? Or Chinese? Or any African? Or Central American? Certainly Haitians have it bad enough to make it ok to take a state for themselves! Yes, Europe was dangerous…for anyone. That’s not an excuse to invade, murder another person and steal their land and subjugate their descendants for decades, but that’s what they did…and what you’re attempting to excuse.

Well, that explains it then. You think because the Jews had it worse once, it excuses being the Nazis today. I do not, I believe it gives them more reason to never be anything like the Nazis, not emulate them. The Palestinian plight is worse than many Jews in Europe besides Poland or Germany. They’re already in the ghetto, not free to travel and maybe get out. They’re already oppressed, subjugated, starved, dehydrated, often without power or communications, and 100% under the thumb and control of their oppressors. Sounds pretty shitty to me. Your family murdered at a whim with no repercussions sounds pretty bad. Your ancestral home taken by force and family shot for existing sounds fairly bad. I’m not sure how you think it’s OK because someone else maybe had it worse once.

When they “arrived in Palestine”, it was as an illegal unwanted invasion intent on taking over and expelling or eradicating the native population. They deserved violence 100%. The population was doing more than their share accepting refugees, then for their humanity was invaded and dehumanized in their own country. No excuse can make that acceptable unless it had happened in Germany post war.

Yes, Jews were the bad guys, invading a land they had and have no right to. You got it! They didn’t even have a right to refugee status there, it was a gift, they absolutely had no right to take control and possession by force, nor to become the inhuman monsters they were fleeing in Northern Europe.

Absolutely not. What even was his plan, I ask you. It wasn’t securing the borders.

I support the plan to FUND border parol and immigration courts to not only secure the border but repair the immigration process that does not function today. With a functioning immigration process, most would use it, making stopping illegal entry much easier.

I support refugee camps in the East Texas desert, not open release before processing.

I absolutely do not support actual open borders, nor allowing other countries to just send plane and train and boatloads of unvetted people in in numbers that would make natives the minority in quick fashion, nor do I support returning Texas (including Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico) to the Mexicans even though they are fleeing near the same level of fear, oppression and death from narco gangs and have some hereditary claims (which European Jews did not, they were mostly not Semitic genetically). I disagree the circumstances were much more desperate in the 30’s outside of Germany, and I disagree that the choices are Trumpism or no-border free-for-alls.

You’re a liar. Watch the video.

He said some “dinners”….with the justices families at their second or third estate in I think Wyoming (definitely including private jet travel there and back, and limousine rides to and from airports) and hunting trips to South America were what he was personally specifically aware of and could recall off the top of his head, not that that was ALL they gave the justices, he certainly did not say the efforts were limited to cards and prayers. Watch it, you must not have or you wouldn’t be making up such easily disproven lies.

I have issues with anyone hosting a judge they have cases before….or will. More so a justice. Major problem if it’s a billionaire getting hours of private lobbying time for personal gains. I don’t and won’t have a case before the Supreme Court, but I don’t want any of them at my home either, I’m not starstruck by celebrities or public figures….but yes, any citizen is worthy of such. They are justices, not gods.

Definitely a problem for justices to socialize with senators….but you’re just posing hypotheticals about Pelosi and Soros not anything that actually happened ever, I’m talking about what HAPPENED regularly with Con justices who have no ethics, and reality is 10000 times worse than your fantasy hypothetical.

If you are a justice, the appearance of impartiality is as important as the impartiality….and they failed miserably at both.

Having a normal social dinner is a far cry from what he testified to, lavish almost certainly multi day vacation-“dinners” at billionaires estates across the country and lavish first class hunting vacations to South America for the family all as ways to get days of private lobbying time with judges they have cases before at a minimum….but you are deathly allergic to honesty so it’s no surprise.

The Con justices sold their decisions and time. You excuse this with a whataboutism fantasy hypothetical that still wouldn’t be acceptable if it were true, but it isn’t. Every baseless accusation is an admission….what other senators and billionaires did the conservative justices sell out to? You just told me there are more.

I’m a blind tool to think that, as they are required by sworn oath to do, Supreme Court justices should avoid even the appearance of impropriety, bias, or favoritism and should certainly avoid actively engaging in them or be impeached and removed from the bench. Ok buddy. Noted.

Such an infantile mind you have. Always prepared to defend the indefensible with nonsense and blather, never fact.

Your point?
States with highest gun violence rates
Mississippi -- 28.6 per 100000
Louisiana -- 26.3.
Wyoming -- 25.9.
Missouri -- 23.9.
Alabama -- 23.6.
Alaska -- 23.5.
The list, and trend continues.
Republican states consistently have higher gun death rates, the top ten states for gun deaths are all Republican led….so much for blaming Democrats.
Republicans don’t care. The #’s point this out horrifically and consistently.
Republican states also don’t care about keeping the lights on or having running water in their cities anymore…I’m looking at you, Texas and Mississippi. Florida has abandoned education in favor of far right wing indoctrination for children (maybe with field trips to Epstein island with the ex president if they’re good and pretty and will sign a binding NDA).

(Pretty chicken shit to claim Dems don’t care, while Cons block every attempt they make to solve the issue, but you do you.)

Um….did I EVER advocate gun free zones, or even indicate I think they’re possible in America? I don’t think so. Why must you always fight windmills and paper tigers? It doesn’t make you sound sane.
It would be excellent…if it were possible. No one is hunting inside city limits, if no one had guns, no one would need guns. It’s not possible unless we take drastic, unconstitutional actions (or change the constitution like the founders intended).

There aren’t enough gun regulations when a schizophrenic person can legally buy as many guns and as much ammo as they wish, and so can murderous gang members who served their sentence/probation.

They DO need MUCH better enforcement of existing gun laws, we agree there. If laws were applied consistently regardless of the perp, there would already be less gun crime. The problem with that being prisons are so overcrowded they simply cannot house more, and most police seem to not be interested in or capable of legal crime-preventative policing, so making illegal gun possession/use come with harsher sentences simply isn’t going to happen….and has never worked to stop crime.

They also need to remove “loopholes” (intentional back doors) that allow mentally ill and violent criminals to legally purchase firearms with absolutely no background checks and no paperwork. Seems to be a no brainer, but your ilk calls that “terkin’ er guns” (I have to believe because you know you’re all insane and can’t pass mental health screenings), not sane regulation.

No surprise you think more draconian punishment is the answer….how’s that been working out? Not great. Countries that focus on rehabilitation of convicts instead of simple housing for profit have recidivism rates near zero, unlike the US.

Using a gun in the commission of a crime already comes with pretty harsh penalties, btw….often turning misdemeanors into felonies just by having it, not using it.

Prison reform is one part of any functional answer, not more, bigger, worse prisons for longer sentences. Funny, you thought the same when Jan 6 defendants started being rounded up and denied bail…odd you cared about all those ANTIFA and BLM activist though. 😂

Lies and racist stupidity from a stupid racist liar.

Yes, with a license you can have full auto military weapons. You’re just wrong, as usual. Because they’re so highly regulated you never hear of legal full auto weapons being used in crimes, but they are obtainable. Thanks to the left, kits to turn legal semi auto rifles into full auto are no longer legal to sell. The right opposed making full auto mod kits, ghost gun kits, and 3d printed unregistered guns (semi or auto) illegal to build or sell.

Who told you that idiotic racist lie? 98% of killings are done by thuggish black people? (we all know exactly what you mean when you say “inner city thugs” bob. You don’t hide the racism at all, not one bit.) Just another fact free racist lie, just like when you tried to say 98% of crimes are black on black crimes and I proved that to be a total lie. Just obvious racist fantasy. Cite your source, I bet it’s the KKK, white nationalists, or neonazi sites again, no one else would make up such nonsense and actually think people might believe it. Only crazy right wing cultists are that delusional and gullible. Just so incredible racist and stupid, you fuckwit.

Not only are “inner city thugs” (we know the word you wish you could use) not committing 98% of gun crimes, the most gun crimes per capita don’t happen in cities, definitely not 98% of them by FAR. Here’s some citation for you to ignore and dismiss because it contradicts your racist fantasies-

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-06-07/is-new-york-city-more-dangerous-than-rural-america

https://johnjayrec.nyc/2018/05/24/databit201801/

Yes, more gun crime happens in cities where approximately 85% of the population lives. Per capita counties are usually worse, almost always if you count deaths from external sources. Red counties and states consistently lead with the highest gun deaths per capita by far. In 2020, firearms were involved in 79 percent of all homicides and 53 percent of all suicides. Mississippi, Louisiana, Wyoming, Missouri, Alabama, and Alaska have the highest firearm mortality rates in the country, according to the CDC. Here are the 10 states with the highest gun deaths per capita:

Alaska (24.5 per 100k people)
Alabama (22.9 per 100k people)
Montana (22.5 per 100k people)
Louisiana (21.7 per 100k people)
Mississippi (21.5 per 100k people)
Missouri (21.5 per 100k people)
Arkansas (20.3 per 100k people)
Wyoming (18.8 per 100k people)
West Virginia (18.6 per 100k people)
New Mexico (18.5 per 100k people)
Notice a trend?

No bob, most shootings are with legally purchased guns, many bought legally by nut jobs that should be banned from buying them. It’s another lie from you. Cite your source…but wipe it first, I don’t want to have to read through your dingleberries. (I feel I need to explain because your comprehension is non existent…I’m saying you got it out of your ass).
This case, the seriously troubled kid waited until he was 18 to legally buy the gun he intended to use to murder people. If he had to wait until he was 21, it would have helped. If he had to pass a mental health screening, there would have been no Uvalde.

The right is willing to lie, obfuscate, try red herring false deflections like you just did, try racist deflections like you just did, try nonsense conflation, exaggerate to the extreme like stating a 21 year age limit for semi auto weapons or a mental health component to the licensing application process is taking your guns…anything but addressing the issue.

The right is also 100% opposed to funding mental health facilities/programs to help the underlying mental health disaster we have in America (that single payer health care would cover). Gun deaths went up 35% 2019-2020 under Trump and have dropped precipitously under Biden.

Just idiotic obvious racist lies here from you, nothing more, no facts, no ideas, no solutions, not even correctly identifying the problem, but scapegoating a group you clearly are prejudiced against (although you’re too cowardly to admit it, but there’s zero doubt).

Shame, you cowardly racist liar….if only you were capable of shame you would end yourself in contrition.
.

Your video, Winter Swing Set Fun in Wyoming, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Who is this fucking moron?
This kind of brainless provocation by falsehood is why religion should be abolished. It's nothing more than a xenophobic weapon today, and has lost any and all redemptive value it might have once had.

Side note- be sure to boycott products from these states if you want your displeasure noticed. Money speaks far louder than words today, it worked in N Carolina.
In no particular order, the state's knowingly violating the constitution in a disingenuous plot to erode women's rights to self autonomy are-Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, Utah, Arkansas, Idaho, Wyoming, Mississippi, Tennessee, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, N Dakota, S Dakota, Missouri.

Wind River.

Heavy stuff set in breathtaking Wyoming. Much better movie than I expected. Have a look, you won't regret it.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Devils Tower, Climbing, Nature, Amazing' to 'Great Big Story, Wyoming, Devils Tower, Climbing, Nature, Amazing' - edited by oritteropo

Your video, Wyoming wind gust blows semi truck on top of police car, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

She's wrong, the school in Wyoming verified that they have a fence and bear mace, no firearms, and they've never needed one.

#potentialgrizzly is apparently a thing now

I think that the GOP is in full-on panic mode, and doesn't care about legitimacy / shot at winning for this election.

They (the party elites) will do absolutely everything they can to prevent Trump from getting enough delegates to lock up the nomination. Hence Colorado and Wyoming. Those actions make it seem like they prefer Cruz, but actually they dislike him close to as much as they hate Trump.

Although it is still mathematically possible for Cruz (559 delegates) to get enough delegates to lock up the nomination (1237 needed), realistically it is out of reach (826 still available). Trump (756 delegates), on the other hand, could well manage it. So, the GOP strategy is to avoid that at all costs by encouraging people to vote for Cruz or Kasich in primaries, or even better to encourage more state GOP offices to hold a smoke-filled room convention that grants all the delegates to #NeverTrump instead of even bothering to let people vote.

If they manage that, the contested national convention will get ugly. They (GOP elites) would turn on Cruz instantly -- cast aside. In any other election cycle they would have turned on him already, but with juggernaut Trump, they have to use him to get to the contested convention.

So the question becomes who if not Trump or Cruz? Who will the GOP try to push in? I think that right now, they aren't as worried about answering that question as they are about trying to get there. That being said, they have some options:

Mitt Romney was their first thought. He took some tentative steps towards playing along with the GOP plans, failed to generate any excitement, and has since faded back into relative obscurity. But he remains an option.

Next up was Paul Ryan. A lot of the GOP see him as the future of the party; the "great white hope". There was a flurry of activity making it seem like he was going to take up the flag, but has since denied that he would be interested in or even accept getting the nod. However, he was cagey and close to as vocal against getting the nod to be speaker of the house, and then accepted that. You never know.

Kasich would be another option. He's relatively benign, and wouldn't offend many more of the republican base than the GOP is already ready and willing to offend in order to prevent Trump (and to a lesser extent Cruz).


Of those, I tend to think that Romney is the most likely choice for the GOP in the end. I think it would be extremely stupid to foist "future of the party" Ryan into this election, which would certainly taint his political future. Kasich makes a lot of sense, but on the other hand, "in for a penny, in for a pound" -- as long as the GOP is willing to go to these great lengths to keep Trump out they might as well just own the illegitimacy of it, shoot the moon, and hand pick someone that a) they have complete control over, and b) has nothing to lose in terms of political future. Voila, Mitt Romney.


I also don't think that the GOP will just throw in the towel if Trump locks down the number of delegates needed for the nomination. I'm sure they already have some last-ditch, scorched earth preliminary plans in place for that contingency.

However, I think that they essentially already have thrown in the towel with regards to the election in general. At least to a sufficient degree that they don't give a rats ass about the chances for whoever is the republican nominee winning. That's a *distant* priority behind NOT TRUMP, among other things. Which is pretty stupid, because the likely nomination of Hillary on the democrat side gives them what should be a *golden* opportunity to steal the election. IF they could come up with a vaguely tolerable candidate ... which they won't.

I think Cenk is getting a little bit overexcited at around the 5:30 mark, when he thinks that these polls show that America is center-left, as opposed to the long-standing belief of Fox News that America is center-right.

What I think they show is that America is much more radically anti-"sleazy politician" than ever before.

Trump has the biggest portion of the republican side of things, because he is clearly NOT a normal politician, and however you feel about him you must admit that he is not an "establishment" kind of figure. Sleazy? Sure. But not "sleazy politician". Cruz doesn't appeal to the republicans that like Trump, because he is closer to being a "sleazy politician".

On the Democrat side of things, it is a similar picture if you just go by opinion polls rather than delegate count. Hillary is another "sleazy politician". Even among Democrat-leaning respondents, a high percentage of people polled prefer straight-shooter NOT establishment-friendly Sanders to Hillary, precisely because of that. Democrats are tired of sleazy politicians too.

To be fair, the Democrat side is less divided, because a lot (possibly most) of the real pro-Sanders people will hold their nose and vote for Hillary over any of the opposition, if she is the nominee, even though they would (greatly) prefer Sanders.

Trump supporters will *never* vote for Cruz, especially now that Colorado and Wyoming just gave all their delegates to Cruz without even bothering to allow their residents to vote. Cruz doesn't actually *have* any supporters -- the GOP is only trying to persuade Republicans to vote for him so they can deny Trump the delegates needed to lock up the nomination and go to a contested convention -- at which point the GOP will have no further need for Cruz and ditch him like a used condom. The few registered Republicans that want Kasich are very likely to NOT vote for Trump if he is the nominee, and will likely be similarly displeased with whichever asshole the GOP tries to shoehorn in in the event of a contested convention.

So yeah, the Republican side of things is a real clusterfuck. But the likely nomination of Hillary for the Democrats seems like a very big mistake to me, mitigated only slightly by the dog and pony show that is their opposition in the GOP.

If you noticed, they only get to pay the lower state tax rate in Delaware, Wyoming, or Nevada. LLCs don't shield them from federal taxes like off shore shell companies do. The shell companies allow them to pretend they don't have the money at all, and pay NO federal taxes.
Some Americans have been named already, with more to come. WOO HOO!

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/04/06/panama-papers-americans-with-past-financial-crimes/82704788/

Straight after submitting my earlier comment, I came across an article on the BBC site that covers this - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35966612

The author of that article shares my suspicions about Delaware LLCs (and drags out a quote that "Somalia has slightly higher standards than Wyoming and Nevada."), and also says that those who wanted to avoid taxes preferred other places, like Bermuda, the Cayman Islands or Singapore, and not Panama. FATCA has also made things harder.

While I find it entertaining and hilarious, this is simply horrible strawmanning. The US has one of the simplest systems of inclusion of any major nation. He either is not understanding, or he's simply being a demagogue about it.

It's really, really simple.

Want full rights? Then join permanently. Become a state. It's literally the exact same thing that Tennessee, Ohio, Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama, Missouri, Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin, California, Minnesota, Oregon, Kansas, Nevada, Nebraska, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Alaska, and Hawaii did.

Guam, the Marianas, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands have the EXACT SAME OPTIONS as those states listed above had when those states were territories.

Samoa is different because they don't meet the minimum population requirement (60K) to be bumped up to qualify for statehood.

They're pretty close tho.

But yeah... it has nothing to do with race or bigotry or anything like that. If John Oliver can't understand that simple system, then how does he explain the different rights of citizens in the British Overseas Territories vs the British Crown Dependencies, or how Wales and Scotland are sort of countries and sort of not countries.

I'm assuming he can understand the wonky UK system, and if that's so, he should easily understand the simple US system (want full rights, vote to join permanently).

Just last year, there was a movement in Guam to call for a vote of statehood. Basically a glorified (but meaningful) petition. They didn't get the required % of people wanting to vote, so, in essence, Guam doesn't even care enough to vote for statehood.

They have every right that every other territory has had in terms of what category they fall under.

Basically, just look at states as permanent (and thusly more rights as well as more responsibilities) and territories as temporary until they decide what they want to be. Or territories can stay in limbo forever.

Guam, PR, and the rest can go the route of Hawaii (okay, that was naked imperialism but whatever) or the route of Cuba and the Philippines... or just stay how they are.