Message from @MRporpiose
Discord ID: 597404194693185566
Jerry suck my ass lol
well this won't suffice i'm sure but example A:
On April 26, 2016, Papadopoulos, a campaign foreign policy adviser, met in London with a professor he “understood to have substantial connections to Russian government officials,” according to a plea agreement that Papadopoulos reached with the Justice Department. At the meeting, the professor — later identified as Joseph Mifsud — told Papadopoulos that the Russian government had “dirt” on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails,” the plea agreement said."
"...On April 26, 2016, Papadopoulos, a campaign foreign policy adviser, met in London with a professor he “understood to have substantial connections to Russian government officials,” according to a plea agreement that Papadopoulos reached with the Justice Department. At the meeting, the professor — later identified as Joseph Mifsud — told Papadopoulos that the Russian government had “dirt” on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails,” the plea agreement said."
not perfect examples, but a campaign foreign policy adviser meeting with a whole lotta people who are like 1 degree separated from the russian government is somethin to me
and this ain't a quote from the report directly, but to cap it off:
"On Tuesday, when news broke that Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort had shared internal polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian business associate with ties to Russian intelligence, the through line between the campaign and the Kremlin began to look incontrovertible."
im not tryna say these things are examples of impeachable conduct, or a direct conspiracy link to the president... but I am saying that there is a whole lot more than a nothing burger with this investigation in my opinion
Granted, George P. did meet with Russians, but he did not directly receive the “dirt” on Hillary Clinton, as the emails were released before they had even met, by WikiLeaks, not Russians. Their meeting was a waste;
no doubt about that, and thats part of why i made that last comment saying I know these examples aren't a smoking gun
but I like to think that both sides of the aisle can agree in thinking that type of conduct is pretty fuckin deplorable
I know people love trump for not being a normal politician and changing the status quo, throwing a wrench in the styem yada yada
but I dno, I like to think that the standard for how your average everyday citizens behave is a heck of a lot lower than the standard for how I personally think a POTUS should conduct themselves
but thats getting into my own feelings on the matter and nothing related to the evidence in front of us re. the mueller report
his recent comments didn't help the situation either https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-election-foreign-assistance-mueller-20190614-story.html
Yeah... if Trump could stop trying to get his citizenship question added to the 2020 Census, that'd be great.
When a new question is considered for the census that shit takes 5 years, stop tryna force feed that question in at the finish line
What if they just dont allow non citizenz to even take the cencus?
@MRporpiose it would defeat one of the core purposes of the census which is counting the number of people living within our borders
whether they are a US citizen or not is really not important, at least for the purposes of just getting a raw head count
but we should still know how many
I believe it would be necessary, considering there are hundreds of thousand illegals who are registered to vote, and we know how much you people are against foreign interference in the elections
@SDKtheway It is not about a raw head count. It is about an allocation of representative votes and federal funds, which are for citizens. Citizenship question was on past census. It is not something new. It only became politicized for free votes and for Orange Man Bad. It is partisan football bullshit.
@MRporpiose *you're
based
@MrThatGuy i don't disagree with that, but there is absolutely a component to the census that is about getting the straight data on just how many people are living here
GG @SDKtheway, you just advanced to level 4!
yeah, ideally federal resources should go to citizens... cool
we still need to know how many people are living within our borders don't we?
and for a whole lot of other reasons besides the representative votes
Census is not about a raw head count. Article 1 Section 2 of the constitution states that this collection of information is SPECIFICALLY about "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States... according to their respective Numbers"
If you want to make a case about whether or not we need a raw head count for 'reasons', that is fine... But it is not, nor has it ever been, the purpose of the Census.
U do want a raw head count tho
Otherwise saying there are 11 million illegal immigrants
their respective numbers....
Completely fake news
sounds synonymous with a head count
never claimed to say it was the sole or primary purpose i dont think though
Oh I am not saying you dont want a raw head count.... I am saying that the Census is SPECIFICALLY about the allocation of resources, and a tallying of CITIZENS to make that determination... Article 1 Section 2 specifically excludes non-tax paying residents like Indians..... These is no gray area here.
@Techpriest *you *though