I came across this is little story today, it's not breaking news. I suspect that a member of the housekeeping staff knows something about the bomb threat that required the sweep for weapons.
According to police in Secaucus, the bomb threat — which later was determined to be bogus — was called in to Hudson Regional Hospital on July 18. During a search, bomb detection dogs led investigators to an unlocked office closet containing dozens of firearms.
Among the weapons were 11 handguns and 27 rifles or shotguns, according to police. The closet also contained a .45 caliber semi-automatic rifle with a high-capacity magazine that was determined to be an assault rifle, and a 14-round high-capacity handgun magazine.
The arrested the guy the next day.
What the heck do you think this guy was doing? It sounds very ominous that he was keeping those weapons there.
I was merely addressing your question "I think it's appropriate to question early voting ,mail in voting and the amount of time it takes to calculate the votes as to its accuracy. Is that election denying? " and my answer was no.
You say "Do I think there was enough to tip this election? Maybe, the tally was so close so I am more likely believe that it could have been. Can I prove it? No." You believe something without proof.
The Gore-Bush election was very close, as was the Clinton-Trump election. But a close election in which Trump lost is suddenly suspect? Ultimately we have to trust the process and keep the checks and balances in place, and learn from cracks in the system.
I has questions about the Bush election so it wasn't new for me with Trump. I find a simularity with the electoral college.It didn't seem too important until Trump won that way.
Checks and balances are required to ensure trust in our elections. Questioning the process or asking about irregularities is not the same as denying the election result.
However it seems that even the usual questioning is now synonymous with election denying. That doesn't help build trust either.
2 hours ago, subee said:
I counted mail in votes. It takes a long time because it's important to be accurate. If a ballot that came into the building wasn't tabulated, we don't go home until it's accounted for. Somehow you believe this is associated with fraudulent counts? This is a made up problem. I can't figure how to cheat the system but I'm not of a criminal mind. Perhaps you could explain it to me.
No. I do not associate how you counted mail in votes with fraudulent votes. It's not that simple.
You don't understand the horses and train references? Why do you think we even have an electoral college? What was it's purpose at the time? We changed legal slavery; we can change the electoral college to make the process more ethical.
Then if the people vote for it through a democratic process, then so be it. However to date, any proposed amendments to have it removed have not passed congress.
Not bothered so much as amused. Seeing how that I often admit that I agree with a point on the other side, usually you. When on the other hand there are multiple people here that if I said the sky was blue would argue that I'm a victim of right wing propaganda and that I need to expand the variety my media sources.
.....then be called a magaphile and wanting to overturn our democratic republic!! I'm new but I think I'm catching on?
I find a simularity with the electoral college.It didn't seem too important until Trump won that way.
I disagree. There was discussion about the Electoral College because Gore won the popular vote but barely lost the Presidency because he lost the electoral college votes in Florida. Fans of Gore said Bush "stole the election" , not because they thought there was a fraudulent election but that he won the popular vote. But Gore conceded, people accepted the results and people moved on.
Alright, my bad. I thought you agreed with the article.
I was posting the article because it talked about the border in relation to fentanyl smuggling because you mentioned to border. I acknowledge that fentanyl comes to us mostly from Mexico. I acknowledge that along with the spike in use in Fentanyl there's been a spike in seizures at the border.
The opioid crisis has been around for decades, but the fentanyl crisis is relatively new and I don't necessarily contribute it's rise to the current border situation of migrants trying to get into the country.
It gave the reason that fentanyl comes into the country because of demand by Americans yes that's "well duh".
The main point is that it seems to be US Citazens doing the smuggling not those trying to get in. So your point about "And, do you think the exploding fentanyl crisis has anything to do with the out of control border situation? I know you believe the border doesn't affect many of us, so m guessing not." has some flaws in it.
Even so I don't see how " Fentanyl smuggling is ultimately funded by U.S. consumers who pay for illicit opioids: nearly 99 percent of whom are U.S. citizens." translates to "Sounds like you're saying it's their choice to do what they want with their body? I guess I hadn't thought of it from that pov."
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
17 hours ago, Weetywill said:
Sure. There are many intricacies that are not inappropriate to discuss. However what those intricacies are and depending on what/who they reference, seems to be a different standard of appropriate.
We the people voted in a democratic elections in which makes up our democratic republic. The electoral college is part of that democratic process. So no, it's not appropriate to discuss that. Not in today's standard where questing something/anything makes you just as bad as Jan.6 insurrectionist .
Perhaps you should provide your definition of deniers. Are they people who questioned the accuracy of the 2020 election considering the adaptations to the voting process due to covid? Or are they the riotors on Jan.6? Are they the same? Are megaphone people who support Trump but do not agree the election was stolen? When we make up words, it's hard to haveva consensus of what they mean.
I think it's appropriate to question early voting ,mail in voting and the amount of time it takes to calculate the votes as to its accuracy. Is that election denying? Or is it the same as questioning the electoral college? Am I a election denier? I have a suggestion, let's make up another word. How about MAGAdenier? We can use it for its accuracy , not to apply anything negative of course.
Hahaha...I stopped at the notion that we shouldn't discuss the electoral college. That's a laugh.
I was posting the article because it talked about the border in relation to fentanyl smuggling because you mentioned to border. I acknowledge that fentanyl comes to us mostly from Mexico. I acknowledge that along with the spike in use in Fentanyl there's been a spike in seizures at the border.
The opioid crisis has been around for decades, but the fentanyl crisis is relatively new and I don't necessarily contribute it's rise to the current border situation of migrants trying to get into the country.
It gave the reason that fentanyl comes into the country because of demand by Americans yes that's "well duh".
The main point is that it seems to be US Citazens doing the smuggling not those trying to get in. So your point about "And, do you think the exploding fentanyl crisis has anything to do with the out of control border situation? I know you believe the border doesn't affect many of us, so m guessing not." has some flaws in it.
Even so I don't see how " Fentanyl smuggling is ultimately funded by U.S. consumers who pay for illicit opioids: nearly 99 percent of whom are U.S. citizens." translates to "Sounds like you're saying it's their choice to do what they want with their body? I guess I hadn't thought of it from that pov."
I'm not saying that it's migrants who are responsible.
The administration maintains that the border is secure.
Anyone who sees the skyrocketing number of fentanyl OD deaths and the pictures of thousands of migrants walking across the border knows that the border is not secure.
I'm not saying that it's migrants who are responsible.
The administration maintains that the border is secure.
Anyone who sees the skyrocketing number of fentanyl OD deaths and the pictures of thousands of migrants walking across the border knows that the border is not secure.
I can see why you're making the connection between the surge in fentanyl deaths and a surge at the border. I can agree the border isn't secure and have to wonder has it ever been secure in relation to drug smuggling?
I don't give the administration a pass on their failure with regards to fentanyl coming into the country and killing so many people.
How over the decades we've been unable to stop illegal drug trafficking is a mystery (but probably because of billion dollar drug cartels).
I won't say the border isn't a problem. It's just not necessarily the root cause of American demand that's been there for decades. US Citizen drug smugglers and drug dealers have somehow found a way to meet that demand. That's a problem in addition to the border being relatively easy to smuggle drugs in.
Most people I've heard that are overly concerned about the border rarely mention fentanyl which is why I ask "how does that affect your day to day life?".
I has questions about the Bush election so it wasn't new for me with Trump. I find a simularity with the electoral college.It didn't seem too important until Trump won that way.
Checks and balances are required to ensure trust in our elections. Questioning the process or asking about irregularities is not the same as denying the election result.
However it seems that even the usual questioning is now synonymous with election denying. That doesn't help build trust either.
No. I do not associate how you counted mail in votes with fraudulent votes. It's not that simple.
NBC remains silent, an award-winning journalist suspended, and body cam footage hasn't been released. Something stinks.
"A new NBC Bay Area report about the assault on Paul Pelosi last month includes several of the same details in NBC News' retracted national report that suggested Pelosi may not have been in immediate danger when police arrived prior to his attack."
NBC News reporter Miguel Almaguer had what seemed like a scoop on Friday about an intruder’s attack last week on Paul Pelosi. The curious new details he presented on the “Today” show quickly went viral on right-wing sites and social media accounts.
One problem: Much of Almaguer’s account was inaccurate, based on flawed information provided by a source who was unnamed in the report, according to people at the network. Those people said Almaguer was incorrect when he reported that the husband of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) gave police no indication he was in danger when he answered the door. In fact, San Francisco police have said that Pelosi was struggling with the intruder, David DePape, when they first saw him.
But before NBC News’s hasty removal of the video from its website — accompanied by a vague note that the story “did not meet NBC News reporting standards” — it spawned a sinister new narrative.
NBC did the responsible thing and retracted a conspiracy theory they couldn't back up. Who knows if it's true or not but the reporter acted hastily. The damage in done.
Weetywill
147 Posts
I has questions about the Bush election so it wasn't new for me with Trump. I find a simularity with the electoral college.It didn't seem too important until Trump won that way.
Checks and balances are required to ensure trust in our elections. Questioning the process or asking about irregularities is not the same as denying the election result.
However it seems that even the usual questioning is now synonymous with election denying. That doesn't help build trust either.
No. I do not associate how you counted mail in votes with fraudulent votes. It's not that simple.