Anastasis

Wide open.

Womp womp.

Paul is a bitch.

Tyson looks shook and almost tripped on a power cord.

You could almost see her perineum if you look close enough.

damn they just let her flap all around like that.

Entertainment wagers. I don't know shit about boxing. EITHER WINNER IN ROUND 1 +850 JAKE PAUL TO WIN IN ROUNDS 3 - 4 +750

LOL yeah I know. I was told the same thing in discussions here about nordstream, afghan bounties, alpha bank, prague, the steele dossier, etc. But maybe my memory is just selective.

Maybe. State, DoD, and NSA positions all seem to be filled with folks that are going to be more than happy to advocate expanding military interventionism. I mean Rubio? For Chrissake. He is the most slam dunk confirmation, the NSA guy right behind him.

Lots of reasons for market concern, including his views on DTC advertising and the industry revolving door at the agency.

I haven't gone down the Syria rabbit hole, but where did she support anyone dropping bombs or gas on anyone else? Here is the excerpt from the link provided above. It was a criticism directed at, wait for it, the fucking Trump administration for apparently carrying out missile strikes without an investigation being completed. Go tear apart her statement all you want, but she is fundamentally criticizing the Trump administration's response. What a strange worldview y'all weave when you are bitching about Tulsi shitting on the prior Trump administration as proof that she is a warmonger in the context of Trump appointing her to a role in his second administration. You guys just get totally twisted and untethered to reality with some of this stuff. "Tulsi is a warmonger and should not be DNI in the second Trump administration because she challenged his military interventionism during the first Trump administration." Real galaxy brained shit. There is evidence that both the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad as well as the armed opposition groups aligned against him have used chemical weapons (CW) during the Syrian war. However, I remain skeptical about two particular CW attacks, one at Khan Sheikhun on April 4, 2017, and the other at Douma on April 7, 2018. Both attacks occurred in towns under the control of al-Qaeda-linked opposition forces. Both attacks resulted in multiple civilian casualties, and both were immediately blamed on the Assad government. However, there is evidence to suggest that the attacks may have been staged by opposition forces for the purpose of drawing the United States and the West deeper into the war. Unfortunately, in both instances President Trump launched retaliatory missile strikes against the Syrian government before any investigation had even begun, much less been completed. Rather than wait for evidence, Trump relied on social media posts and unverified sources originating from within rebel held territory, many of which had ties to al Qaeda. The OPCW also relied on those sources.

Don't worry, I am ready to be disappointed. Some of the worst warmongers nominated will easily clear confirmation. Would be nice to have at least one opposing voice at the table.

But if she said that "It was an undeniable fact that Russia blew up the nordstream pipeline", you would not muster an eye brow raised. The portions between the actual quotes in that excerpt are doing a lot of work to spread misinformation. Here is what Tulsi actually said: And here is Victoria Nuland confirming the same and similar concerns. https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5005520/senator-rubio-questions-undersecretary-nuland-biolabs-ukraine "UKRAINE HAS BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH FACILITIES, WHICH, IN FACT, WE ARE NOW QUITE CONCERNED RUSSIAN TROOPS, RUSSIAN FORCES MAY BE SEEKING TO GAIN CONTROL OF, SO WE ARE WORKING WITH THE UKRAINIANS ON HOW THEY CAN PREVENT ANY OF THOSE RESEARCH MATERIALS FROM FALLING INTO THE HANDS OF RUSSIAN FORCES SHOULD THEY APPROACH."

You are being dishonest here jimmy. I told you that I do not know when the last one was completed, what level of clearance she currently holds, and that if it was meaningfully out of date or inadequate, it should be repeated. But I do agree that at a minimum she should have completed one as part of her promotion to Lt. Col. in July 2021.

The ability to move forward with a confirmation hearing of the DNI role. I don't think that assessing when her last background check was completed and what level of national security clearance she currently holds is irrelevant to this discussion. If instead of that, posters just want to screech about her being a Russian asset, I don't think that I am the one being unreasonable.

Again, when was her last one? If there is a reasonable need to repeat it, no problem with me. If it is just delay tactics from the likes of John Bolton and other clowns that claim that she is a Russian asset with absolutely zero evidence other than fundamental foreign policy difference, no thanks.

Running again for a subsequent congress would seem to be a loophole available to return him.

HIs resignation letter specifically said that he did not plan to take his seat in the next congress. That sets wheels in motion for DeSantis. Even if he wants to take it back, seems like there is an angle to push him out of that is the play.

Yes, yes I know.

I don't know what level of clearance she holds, nor when it was last updated. If it is meaningfully out of date, I agree. That does not excuse the lunatics like John Bolton that 986 always aligns with.

How many background checks has she previously undergone as part of her military service and how recently were those performed. She was promoted to Lt. Col. in mid 2021. Rather than just parroting people like John Bolton uncritically maybe we consider the fact that disagreeing with neocons about foreign policy is not disqualifying.

Pharma getting absolutely hammered due to CR shit. Might be some value to snipe.

My interest in polymarket is increasing. If I am understanding correctly, the entire market is built on block chain tech and is decentralized. An interesting article that unpacks some of the potential motivations at play here among the regulators: https://www.piratewires.com/p/cftc-attempt-to-destroy-election-markets-kalshi-polymarket?f=author The CFTC’s rationale for prohibiting political event contracts — the need to defend democracy from money and manipulation — parallels that offered by progressive groups and elected officials. But the ‘defending democracy’ argument is nonetheless confused about, well, democracy. As Kalshi’s CEO Tarek Mansour explains, prediction markets are “unbiased aggregators of individual convictions” — their inputs are highly democratic. So are their outputs, which provide key feedback to researchers, operatives, leaders, and voters. In a primary campaign, for example, ultimate electability is a key issue pertinent to voters. Given these markets’ utility as a public information source for the electorate, and as John Phillips (a co-founder of PredictIt) observes, it’s therefore ironic that unelected bureaucrats claim to be “defending democracy by stifling and trying to destroy” election markets during an election cycle. One can make sense of these contradictions by understanding the Commission’s manipulation concerns as a species of anti-“misinformation” campaign. Indeed, explicit fears about election markets incentivizing misinformation — e.g., tricking the public to swing the race to win a buck, or tricking the market to sway the public to win a race — are littered throughout the CFTC’s order blocking Kalshi’s election market, arguments to the D.C. Circuit and District Court, and proposed ban on political event contracts. The fear that prediction markets will encourage misinformation is nevertheless perplexing, given their relative accuracy and resistance to manipulation. But one of the concerns animating the backlash to DARPA’s prediction market was that amateurs would replace professionals. One reason Robin Hanson originally was attracted to prediction markets was the hope that through them, “established insiders could no longer suppress contrarian outsiders merely by silence or ridicule.” As is often the case, campaigns against misinformation, while ostensibly concerned with whether the truth will win out, are also animated by concern over whose truth will win out. Far from threatening democracy, election markets may be offering too much of it in the view of certain regulators. To their consternation, though, federal courts may just end up saving a democratic information source from the regulators themselves.

Miriam Adelson's hand picked state dept and defense secretaries along with NSA will ensure that any reductions are just redirected to Israel.

Sorry no take backs. The rules are the rules.