Conn McQuinn

JD Vance is outright LYING when he says Democrats are giving health care to illegal immigrants in our funding bill. How do I know? Because I wrote it!

Undocumented immigrants are NOT eligible for federal health care programs. But our bill DOES stop your premiums from doubling next year.

I think we could have some interesting discussions. I'm a retired educator and spent most of my career in educational technology, working at a regional level. I totally agree that reforming systems is close to impossible, but have come to believe technology has minimal value as part of improvement.

Education at Risk: Fallout from a Flawed Report Nearly a quarter century ago, "A Nation at Risk" hit our schools like a brick dropped from a penthouse window. One problem: The landmark document that still shapes our national debate on education was...

Bear in mind that report was an political effort to blunt Democrats' public strength on the education issue. It was very successful in that regard, but not because it was accurate. This article from 2007 gives a good overview - www.edutopia.org/landmark-edu...

One of the main giveaways is that the shark being cleaned in the first segment is inconsistent in appearance. The amount of stuff on its hide changed, and the markings are different from one cut to the next. Also, the gills don’t move as it’s sitting there for no apparent reason.

All but one of the swing states have some form of post-election audit to look for irregularities, and nothing was found. Harris had a team of over 100 lawyers focused on election integrity, headed by bulldog Marc Elias. If there was any evidence of fraud, they would have been all over it.

True, but the government was hard pressed to afford the tax waiver without the financial assistance from the U.S.

The World’s No. 3 Soybean Producer Cuts Export Taxes, What U.S. Farmers Need to Know Reacting to the news out of Argentina on Monday, U.S. soybean market prices were at their lowest levels in more than a month.

The Argentinian soy bean prices are now more competitive because Argentina dropped their export taxes. In a very direct way our bailout is subsidizing their capture of soybean market from U.S. farms. www.agweb.com/news/worlds-...

Bytedance has a CCP party committee as part of its corporate structure. The vice president of the company is the committee secretary. Can you point out which of the companies you mentioned have government representatives in executive roles, particularly governments with a long history of espionage?

But can you think of any that are run out of China and are used for multiple hours a day by tens of millions of Americans? ByteDance partners with the Chinese Ministry of Public Security and has other connections to the CCCP.

I totally agree the ban was dumb, but the security concerns were valid.

"Workslop" is now firmly embedded in my vocabulary, and my sole regret in being retired is having fewer opportunities to put it to use.

*From the TikTok Wikipedia page. No mention of Singapore.

TikTok was developed in China, and is still headquartered in Beijing. Ownership is divided up between a number of investors, but they still operate from within China.

Because cybersecurity experts believe the data TikTok harvests from millions of U.S. users for the Chinese government is a serious security concern. Some politicians clearly voted for it due to content issues, but the bill was focused on national security concerns.

Unfortunately, Fox News is a cable channel, not a broadcast channel. FCC only has authority over licensees for broadcasters using federally-managed airwaves, so Fox News isn't subject to FCC regulation. (Also why the idea of returning the Fairness Doctrine isn't relevant - it didn't impact cable.)

This is a nation that honors our Constitution. We do not reject it. (Applause.) This is a nation that believes in the rule of law. We do not repudiate it. (Applause.) This is a nation that respects free and fair elections. We honor the will of the people. We do not deny it. (Applause.) And this is a nation that rejects violence as a political tool. We do not encourage violence. We are still an America that believes in honesty and decency and respect for others, patriotism, liberty, justice for all, hope, possibilities.

So I want to say this plain and simple: There is no place for political violence in America. Period. None. Ever. (Applause.) We saw law enforcement brutally attacked on January the 6th. We’ve seen election officials, poll workers — many of them volunteers of both parties — subjected to intimidation and death threats. And — can you believe it? — FBI agents just doing their job as directed, facing threats to their own lives from their own fellow citizens.

We can’t allow violence to be normalized in this country. It’s wrong. We each have to reject political violence with — with all the moral clarity and conviction this nation can muster. Now.

But I took the time to look at the transcript of the speech in your photo. Here are the kinds of statements he made.

It’s irrelevant because it has nothing to do with my original statement. I’m not going to participate in “whataboutism” and go off on distracting tangents that serve no purpose other than to change the subject.

If you want to discuss other leaders, you have the option to start your own thread.

If you can’t quote him condoning violence or those who commit it, this isn’t relevant to the discussion.

Most importantly, what Biden did or didn't do isn't relevant. I'm talking specifically - and only - about political violence and how to deal with it. A politician who has defended and lionized people who committed political violence is not a credible voice in that dialog.

Ulbricht got all of the millions and millions of dollars back that he earned poisoning people with his drug site. 2/2

The 1,600 pardons were done in one day.

The difference between commutations and pardons is not
"splitting hairs." Ross Ulbricht was convicted of running the largest online illegal drug website in history. DJT could have commuted his sentence, but chose instead to pardon him. The difference? 1/2

Show me some evidence contrary to my statement - from trustworthy sources - and I may learn something new. If you can't, then the conversation is at an end. Take care.

They were almost all commutations, not pardons, and for minor drug crimes. He did not pardon or commute sentences for anyone committing political violence. The preemptive pardons were for people DJT threatened with persecution for non-existent crimes.

And DJT's 1,600 pardons were autopenned.

I learned long ago that advice from untrustworthy sources has little value.

What I learned more recently is that conservatives are perfectly comfortable with political violence condoned by the head of their party.

I refuse to be lectured about political violence by a person who pardoned 1,600 people convicted of political violence.

I don’t doubt your experience. But while OpenAI is projecting a 1500% increase in revenue in five years, they also project that they’ll still be burning money. Their fantastical target for 2030 of $200 billion will still be a small fraction of their total expenses spent up to that point.

The subtitle says it all: “There is no middle ground.” Generative AI has no place in education. It was developed through theft of intellectual property, trained through exploitation, powered by environmental destruction, and is intellectually damaging to its users.

I realize they have a model. I just don’t see how it can ever be viable. Their expenses are in the hundreds of billions, but their revenues are less than 5% of that. They project far more in the future, of course, but business adoption rates are dropping, not increasing. There isn’t enough value.

After the tariffs in his first term clobbered agriculture, he sent about $30 billion in new bailout funds to farmers. That's why they still support him, and why they expect him to throw more money their way. All those "profits" from tariffs/taxes just get shuffled to the president's favored few.

Remember stats such as these when people say politicians should react to public sentiment rather than work to shape it.