Five bucks says he was told to wait for a budget to be provided from the DOGE.

The headlines leave out the part where this is a requirement of their security clearance. It is not uncommon for those holding a security clearance to be discouraged or prohibited from relationships with foreign nationals. It also isn’t a direct prohibition, it would just result in a loss of their clearance, and you are absolutely correct that this will result in more leverage against US personnel.

I agree, many of those articles are not news. The are opinion editorial pieces just like this one. This is political article and should be posted in politics, not news. I contend that the failure to differentiate opinion pieces from objective news is the reason so many people are able to fall victim to misinformation campaigns.

Fair point.

This is not a news article. It is a history article. The opposite of news.

It’s ok, because it says congress shall make no law. /s

Let me clarify, I disagree that people should not be informed about jury nullification. Too many people forget that we grant our government power. One way we continue to enforce that power grant is by reserving the right to a trial by a jury of your peers. Too many people take that message to heart that they need to rule in accordance with the law.

I disagree, we also want people to nullify laws that are unjust, such as prosecuting a woman who decides to have an abortion. This is one of the means the people retain to fight tyranny.

Nice informative comment.

I mean, he bought the presidency so….

What you linked doesn’t provide any data that Kamala would have 3.5 million more voters, or that 4.7 million voters were purged from the rolls prior to the election. That claim was also made by the article, and it said that information was from the US Elections Assistance Commision I couldn’t find that report anywhere. Best I could find is a blank survey for the 2024 election and a report from the 2022 election.

Do you understand how to properly cite and source the information you are trying to use to make an argument? Be better, provide sources so people can go to the data and make their own conclusions instead of wanting them to believe whatever was written. My whole issue doesn’t have anything to do with the election or voters, I just dislike articles that claim something and don’t actually provide data.

No I am not and I would thank you not to put words in my mouth. What I’m saying is that article makes claims but provides no data to backup the claims.

That article has no citations. It quotes many things and makes claims but doesn’t provide any references for those claims. Without a link to the data they used, their conclusions are not substantive.

Posts like yours are why I read comments. It actually has content and I’m able to learn something from it. Thank you for you contribution.

Thank you both for a positive example of challenging someone’s post.

For those not familiar with it, it is an aptitude test that covers a wide range of topics. The results can be informational. Beware if you score well enough to fill a job in the army that is really understaffed, you will never get the recruiters to stop calling.

From what I could find, she isn’t eligible to run until she is 35. https://www.usa.gov/requirements-for-presidential-candidates#:~:text=The U.S. Constitution states that,United States for 14 years

That says anyone who meets the requirements can declare their candidacy.

7th amendment provides for a jury trial in common law. The 6th provides for a jury in criminal cases.

Would be nice to see the faces of those proud boys showing up at school board meetings too. If they realize that, expect the bill to die quickly.