Merry Christmas, everyone. I hope you have a wonderful Christmas and a great new year. Enjoy your time with your family and friends!
Andrew
Tulsi Gabbard QUITS the Democrats: Ex-congresswoman says party is controlled by 'elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness' who 'stoke anti-white racism and protect criminals'That kind of sums them up pretty perfectly, doesn't it? Does she not know that we're not supposed to voice those truths? The only thing I would change is that they are only warmongers when they are in charge, otherwise they pretend to be peaceniks. Should we do the countdown before the first #metoo complaint comes about her? Or some claim of ancient racism? Perhaps knowing someone who knew someone who once laughed at a blackface portrayal? No doubt we'll see a relative who hates her. Heck, she might even secretly be a homosexual (//gasp) or paid for an abortion (//for shame!). Good luck, Gabbi...
(a) This does not apply to college students. You need to be paying it back already, so it entirely misses the "young people" they are trying to attract. Stupid.3. Now let's talk the politics.
(b) Check out this quote from the Miami Herald, a Democratic operative, meant to tell you how the "Biden-Harris" (Harris??) forgiveness will bring Heaven on earth:"With billions of dollars of student debt cleared from the books, millions woke up today to a different financial world. One where they have a higher net worth, more purchasing power and better access to financial products, like mortgages."That's the sales pitch. The thing is, that's utter crap. Most people have far more loans than $10,000. The average for people with loans is $57,000 and when you owe $60k, having $10k forgiven doesn't mean squat. It doesn't change your financial position in the least. You still owe years of payments. Your payment may go down, but we're talking $20 a month or so. Big whoop. In fact, forgiving $10k feels more like an insult to these people after being told there would be some genuine forgiveness. As for having better access to mortgages and more purchasing power, student loans never really stopped you from getting a mortgage before, so that's nonsense. And the rise in mortgage rates easily offset whatever benefit this gives. So, nice try. As for net worth, net worth is an illusory concept no one thinks about except near-retirees. Don't believe me? What are you worth? And purchasing power, as we said, is like a $20 a month raise. Short answer: this is a big yawn. Just like all the other bills they passed which the Democrats couldn't understand why they didn't win people over either. Way too little... way too late.
(a) If Biden really thinks this will help, why announce it in the summer when no one is paying attention? Announce it before the election when people care.This is one of those moments that shows that Biden's a fool. If he was going to do this, he needed to go big: forgive it all, not just a piece of it. Failing that, makes this meaningless. And if he was going to do this, he needed to take the money from the people who wrongly took it in the first place: colleges. Fix the system. Doing that would have been popular even with people who never had loans or paid them off. Instead, he put the cost on the least deserving people. He has no balls and no brains, so he tried to split the difference between bold action and doing nothing and he got virtually nothing but a lot of anger for his trouble, and he protected his Big friends once again.
(b) By ending the moratorium in January, he's ruining Christmas.
(c) The left is irate because this is regressive: it's working men and women paying off the debt of lawyers and doctors and elitists. That is kind of sh*tty if you think about it... but then, all socialism is.
(d) I think it probably isn't inflationary like some are saying because it won't actually work to give people more money to spend.
(e) People who paid off their loans are pissed because they aren't getting this.
(f) People who didn't go to college are pissed because they get to pay for it.
(g) How is it that once again, big rich institutions seem to get off scot-free? Big Banks, Dodd Franks. Big Health, Obamacare. Big Pharma. Big Auto. Big Tech. Big Billionaire. Now Big College, they all seem to do extraordinarily well when the Democrats claim they are helping the people. In this case, we're talking about colleges who have grown huge and fat and rich on pushing these loans on students with no choice, and yet they don't even get a slap on the wrist out of this? Why didn't Biden pay for this with a tax on college endowments? They have trillions. They could pay for it. They caused it. That makes sense. It makes no sense a McDonald's worker should pay for this so Harvard doesn't have to. Terrible policy, terrible optics.
"But perhaps the raid’s most sobering result is the increased yet unavoidable risk it ultimately poses of widespread civil breakdown. Watching agents search Mar-a-Lago could turn a large enough portion of Trump’s far-right base decisively against federal authority that its defiance could shift from episodic to systemic, eventually leading to regular armed resistance to federal law enforcement on the order of Ruby Ridge and potentially even Waco."This is such hypocritical crap.
(a) You try to calm things down with a pleasant speech telling people we are finding a new center ground.If you're Biden, you seem to think (c) is your best bet to calm things down. Said differently, Biden has chosen to stoke hatred at the very time he's being told we are in a dangerous period where hate is so out of control it may lead to the country fracturing. That's a Hitlerian choice. And if we had a competent news establishment, they would ask him why he's acting that way... but alas.
(b) You call in the opposition to find common ground and you pledge to work together to unite. You might even work on some bills that help both sides calm their people.
(c) You falsely and recklessly accuse whites of murdering Muslims, you appoint a black Supreme Court justice because she's black and radical, you swear to fight for the chemical castration of kids as young as possible to make sure gays have allies, you force through a series of laws with zero bipartisan support, you use rhetoric to destabilize the independent Supreme Court that keeps you in check, and you send the FBI to harass the leader of the opposition.
"Former FBI agents, including one who’s already investigated Trump, and ex-federal prosecutors told Yahoo News that obtaining a search warrant is a lengthy, difficult process, designed to be immune to political pressures."Not true. You can get one in minutes and it takes almost nothing. I've seen them gotten over the phone with the agent talking about vague conclusions based on years of experience.
"The bureaucratic, box-ticking process by which the FBI obtains a warrant under ordinary circumstances is complicated enough, they maintain, without factoring in the enormity of sniffing around an ex-president’s digs."Ha.
"'To obtain a search warrant, you need two things,' according to Barbara L. McQuade, the former U.S attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan. 'You have to have conducted a sufficient investigation beforehand to demonstrate probable cause that a specific crime has been committed, and you need to show convincingly that evidence of that crime will be found at the location. These are not blind fishing expeditions.'"True, but false. Probable cause is all an officer needs to get one and it can be manufactured with any statement by a witness including the agents themselves swearing that in their experience this search will likely yield results. Once the National Archives said Trump turned over documents but not all of them, that gave the FBI enough to find probable cause anywhere they want to search. All the words this woman uses are meant to distract. A specific crime means you can point to the code book to name the crime, e.g. Speeding. "Convincingly" is double speak, it just means your probable cause makes sense to the judge. A "sufficient investigation beforehand" means nothing at all, just that you looked and saw or heard something to give you probable cause. "I saw him unload boxes on television" is "sufficient investigation." Probable cause here is no different than what it takes a cop to pull you over and search your car. He crossed the white line. He was driving erratically. I smelled a substance I believed was drugs. He was driving in the part of town where drugs are sold (I've seen that one work). Probable cause simply means rational reason to believe there is evidence of a crime here. Only the dumbest of cops can't find probable cause, especially when you can judge shop to find a friendly one like the FBI does.
"Political affiliation, as a matter of Department of Justice policy, cannot have any influence on that process."And yet, it does routinely. This is also contradicted by the very next statement in the article:
"Given the sensitivity of this case, McQuade said, Wray will have almost certainly been briefed in detail and had to have approved the move to obtain a search warrant for Mar-a-Lago. Even then, there was never any guarantee it would be granted."So, you can't worry about political affiliation, but this would need to go through the head of the FBI's office because it involves someone important, i.e. political sensitivity. So, uh, it does matter?
"The warrant was issued by a federal magistrate judge in Florida. 'Even if you don’t believe politics isn’t involved in criminal investigations,' McQuade said, 'magistrate judges tend to be especially neutral and detached, because they’re selected by U.S. district court judges – entire benches – and so you end up with people who are really quite moderate.'"Good grief. I have yet to deal with a magistrate who isn't political or biased in some direction. That idea that these people are moderate is laughable. Has this woman never been to court? Or is she lying?