Yes. Around 120% of them.
Forensic Audit in Maricopa County, AZ
- Thread starter AC
- Start date
Probably not in the USA alone. That's true. Across the world it definitely is true.
Seattle Horn:
You sir, are obnoxious here and seem to generally hate America. I have followed your sordid leftist socialist posts.
RIDDLE ME, why do you always want to seem to take the low road / side, give benefit of the doubt to the bad guys, the obvious human traffic bad guys and mince the actual # of HUMANS harmed?
What they report we "know" is about 35% worse than what they think / know / report.
Oh, I suspect you would blow it off, these people are just misunderstood.
Smugglers, human traffickers, cartels, gangs, pedophile types are misunderstood?
I am a man. I have to think I understand men as good or better than you.
Bad MEN, with no moral compass, no basic principles of right & wrong, no Christian-Judeo values, eco- hungry for $ to survive, will take all the worst actions to better themselves.
Generally you seem to support or pass the great Joe Biden border invasion experiment as compassion, why ?
Are you going to wait until someone in your family is assaulted, wounded for life, raped, or murdered to say: let's get serious, close the borders and vet anyone coming into America?
Last edited:
AC
2,500+ Posts
So if I buy a whole table are any of you coming to the gala on 1/14/22 and or the summit at smart financial center, SugarLand on 1/15/22? I need to help them raise money for this, you guys can help, no? $650 per individual ticket. Child Proof America helps these trafficked kids get their life back. It’s not easy, we need help. DM me with questions.
Huh, overinflated like rona numbers. And my obvious response to you is.....every child matters. Why don't you care? Your lack of empathy for those kids is the reason this problem continues to spread and grow.
humahuma
1,000+ Posts
Just like vote fraud.
Yeah your right I bet you all the people who committed voter fraud are pedophiles who voted for democrats.
AC
2,500+ Posts
My daughter is not disadvantaged nor a runaway! 115 sex trafficked in the whole US is a ridiculous number. I know of 6-8 in my suburb of Houston!
I am soo sick of MSM lying talking points. They’re poisoning this country! 200K in the US is from Child Proof America. They are NOT associated with Q! Q is military but that’s a whole other talking point. Undocumented migrant children is much higher. Did you know Biden Admin is flying 10K undocumented migrants from TX & AZ into NY, NJ every night! Why, nobody knows but to just say this doesn’t exist is laughable. This is my ministry personal to me. Anyone with a daughter should try to help.
Thank You!
I am soo sick of MSM lying talking points. They’re poisoning this country! 200K in the US is from Child Proof America. They are NOT associated with Q! Q is military but that’s a whole other talking point. Undocumented migrant children is much higher. Did you know Biden Admin is flying 10K undocumented migrants from TX & AZ into NY, NJ every night! Why, nobody knows but to just say this doesn’t exist is laughable. This is my ministry personal to me. Anyone with a daughter should try to help.
Thank You!
Maybe we should ask Ron Johnson what he thinks.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
He think the stolen election movement is bunk. So, maybe.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Typically Strawmen are reserved for cornfields. Your front yard might be a good spot for this strawman but I indulge in part because for some reason you think your masculinity is superior for unknown reasons.
Who's giving the benefit of the doubt to bad guys? If you've followed closely you'd notice that I do not defend shitheads on the left which is more than many on West Mall for those with R after their name.
If you're specifically claiming I'm defending pedophiles I ask for you to quote me defending them. All I've said is that some vastly exaggerate the numbers. 200k sex trafficked each year as @AC just claimed? 0.3% of all children in the US between the ages of 0-17 are sex trafficked each year? Does that remotely seem possible? I'm not defending pedophiles but calling ******** to serial exaggeration.
Strawman, strawman, strawman. I've never defended any of these groups and would say they should all be targets of law enforcement.
OK. Since you say so. I am a man to but clearly your opinion of men is somehow superior...because you claim it is.
Yep, men with Christian-Judeo values prey on youth as well as the Catholic Priest scandals have clearly proven. Anyone who preys on youth should faith judgement by the law. That doesn't mean we should exaggerate the problem.
I do? Please quote me or is this something where you go "HEY...their is a liberal so I'll assume I know what they believe".
Here is what I know. My wife is at greater danger from sexual assault from a US citizen than she is from an illegal immigrant. Does that mean I support letting them all in? No, I support only legal immigration. It means I won't practice xenophobia and try to claim an illegal immigrant is somehow worse or a greater risk than some pervert John beating up a prostitute right now or some pedophile hiding behind the cloak of religion. Bad people can appear to be good. We taught our children long ago to beware of any adults, family, friends or strangers and rarely let them spend the night at friends house until they were well into secondary school.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
There are 75M children ages 0-17 in the US. Claiming 200k are sex trafficked annually (0.3%!) is crazy. I'm NOT saying bad things don't happen to children nor are they at risk. I'm calling ******** to that 200k. Yes, an organization that wants to raise $600 per table (ticket?) at a fancy dinner has a built in reason to exaggerate. If they were to say only 15k-30k children are sex trafficked would that merit the same amount of fundraising? They need the problem to appear to be as significant as possible, like it's the #1 problem facing America because to them it is.
Now, before anyone claims Seattlehusker supports pedophilia I'd say even 1 child victim is too many. Fighting it is a noble cause.
Exxagerating the problem and calling random people pedophiles (see @AC claiming pedophilia rings within political and government circles) does a disservice to the cause. The greatest risk to children still are some of those closest to them, Family members, church leaders, and neighbors. The ones that are in positions of trust too often abuse that trust and take advantage of children, not some pedophilia ring kidnapping children at random.
Horn2RunAgain
2,500+ Posts
You live in the pac NW... Watch our local news (DFW) and you'd damn sure be more concerned about your wife's safety from illegals.
We live in Sunnyvale, a fairly nice and crime free area. When we go to the grocery store or into another/ bordering burb, it's like entering a 3rd world country oftentimes. It's why we're looking into east Tx to retire
My wife teaches middle school math. I could go on about how illegal's kids have dragged our public school system down, but it would fall on your deaf ears.
So I had an extensive answer written over a period of days, and somehow the website lost it. So I had to prepare it again.
I didn't say Kendi was more totalitarian than those guys. I said his policy agenda (as he describes it) is. It's the agenda, not the guy. I'm not a fan of Erdogan, Orban, or Putin, but I'd rather live under them than under Ibram X. Kendi if he or others like him gained power.
Actually, I think he's a good comparison to raise. They have quite a bit in common. The only problem with it is the gross disparity in their influence. Duke has very few followers (and even fewer with teeth) and pretty much no influence in any institution that has power. In fact, people far less controversial are pariahs in most institutions that have power. I don't see colleges and governments throwing money at David Duke to hear him or incorporate his ideas. Hell, they cancel and deplatform people who disagree with Kendi on affirmative action. I don't see media outlets giving him a platform or pitching his books.
If it was never going to happen, then why not take it off the table? Biden could have simply said, "packing the Court is a nutty idea, and I'll veto any attempt to do it." One sentence, and it would have cost Trump my vote. It wouldn't have given it to Biden, but it would have taken it from Trump. Instead, he flirted with it and danced with it. He even put together a commission to "study" it, as if it needs study.
You guys both basically adopt the idea that court packing wasn't going to happen and that it's not that big of deal if it does. 9 is just a number. Let's unpack that.
For starters, you're right. The number is arbitrary. We could have 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, or any odd number, and it would basically make no difference at the superficial level. Who cares? So, I have no problem with stipulating that the number is pretty irrelevant and arbitrary.
However, you don't have to take the issue very deep to see that it's a very big deal. If the GOP had decided to expand the Court when they had the chance in the early 2000s and the first two years under Trump, I would have raised holy hell over it. Why? Because it would have ruined the federal judiciary for the foreseeable future. Even if I had liked the outcomes, Democrats would have expanded it again once they gained power and justifiably so. Republicans would have done the same again when they gained power and so forth. The result would be that the Court would simply bounce back and forth between whichever party happens to control the executive and legislative branches at any given moment, and there would be no consistency or predictability of what federal law would be or how it would be applied in court from year to year. Eventually the other branches and states would just start ignoring them, or worse, they'd ignore them when they don't like their decisions and enforce them when they don't. (Keep in mind that the court has no enforcement power on their own.) You can't run a country, an economy, or have the rule of law that way.
Even flirting with court packing is dangerous, because it puts undue and corrupt influence on the Court as it did in the late 1930s. Remember, the court packing plan under FDR died, but to a great extent it died because the threat ended up being enough. It's bad. If Trump had vacillated on the issue and Biden had rejected it, I would have voted for Biden even with all the profound disagreements I have with him and his party. No ****. That's how much I hate it.
Switzer brings up previous changes in the Court's size to downplay the significance of court packing. It's true. We've changed the size before and it didn't ruin things, so why would it be so destructive now? The reason is that there was less difference in nominees' judicial philosophies back then, so it simply wasn't anywhere near as consequential. I'm not saying everybody was the same, but they usually didn't have wildly different worldviews and methods of constitutional interpretation based on party affiliation. The Court also didn't decide anywhere near as many hot button issues. In short, it simply didn't make anywhere near as big of a difference.
I'll also readily admit that I'm more defensive about Democrats packing the Court than about Republicans packing it. If conservatives tried to pack the Court, I'd strongly condemn them and would do whatever I could to stop them including voting for a Democratic presidential nominee for the first time in my life. However, I go to Defcon 1 on Dems when they toy with it, because there's a profound asymmetry between the parties when it comes to the impact of their appointments. The media often misses this, but it's the reason why conservative voters prioritize the Court more than liberal voters do.
If the entire Court was made up of Neil Gorsuches, it really wouldn't make that big of a difference to blue states, because he generally respects federalism. He's not as strict as I'd be, but he's fairly strict. And when he deviated from it, there would be a textual basis for it (and therefore a limiting principle). He'd basically let California be California and let them fly their freak flag. He'd let them have all the abortions they want and pay for them with taxpayer money. He'd let them preach Ibram X. Kendi in their schools. He'd let them tear down monuments of Thomas Jefferson and replace them with Harvey Milk. He'd let them get rid of the death penalty and tolerate people taking a dump on the sidewalks. He'd let them force girls to shower with biological men. He'd let them have illegal aliens vote in local elections, allow ballot harvesting, and generally have loose election laws. However, he'd also let Alabama go the other way on that stuff. That's what someone who believes in the constitutional structure does.
If the entire Court was made up of Sonia Sotomayors, it would basically go to war with the Right on every cultural issue and allow the Court to be an instrument to establish and entrench Democratic partisan power. They'D force Alabama to fly California's freak flag, and they'd do it with little or no regard for what the law actually says, which means there'd be no limiting principle. Whatever action a state took that a handful of Democratic judges on the Court didn't like for whatever reason, they'd strike it down. We know it because when they've had the power to do it, that's what they've done. So yes, if Democrats do it, I think it's worse, but it's terrible if anyone does it.
Now, let's compare court-packing to McConnell's flip-flop to allow Trump to fill both Scalia's seat and Ginsburg's. There's absolutely nothing wrong with calling him out on that. I readily acknowledge that he was being inconsistent and called out his distinctions as the ******** that they were. He should have either allowed a vote on Garland and Barrett or allowed a vote on Gorsuch but not Barrett. Nobody can seriously reconcile his two positions. However, what makes it less of a problem than court-packing is that it's impact is limited to a fairly unusual scenario. Basically it invites Democrats to fill or not fill vacancies near an election on a partisan basis when they have the Senate. OK, I don't like that, but that's not going to shake the judiciary at its core. Court-packing creates new vacancies out of thin air based on nothing but partisan advantage at a given time, and it invites reciprocal action every election. That's a much bigger impact.
I could go further, but that's enough for now.
I didn't say Kendi was more totalitarian than those guys. I said his policy agenda (as he describes it) is. It's the agenda, not the guy. I'm not a fan of Erdogan, Orban, or Putin, but I'd rather live under them than under Ibram X. Kendi if he or others like him gained power.
Actually, I think he's a good comparison to raise. They have quite a bit in common. The only problem with it is the gross disparity in their influence. Duke has very few followers (and even fewer with teeth) and pretty much no influence in any institution that has power. In fact, people far less controversial are pariahs in most institutions that have power. I don't see colleges and governments throwing money at David Duke to hear him or incorporate his ideas. Hell, they cancel and deplatform people who disagree with Kendi on affirmative action. I don't see media outlets giving him a platform or pitching his books.
If it was never going to happen, then why not take it off the table? Biden could have simply said, "packing the Court is a nutty idea, and I'll veto any attempt to do it." One sentence, and it would have cost Trump my vote. It wouldn't have given it to Biden, but it would have taken it from Trump. Instead, he flirted with it and danced with it. He even put together a commission to "study" it, as if it needs study.
You guys both basically adopt the idea that court packing wasn't going to happen and that it's not that big of deal if it does. 9 is just a number. Let's unpack that.
For starters, you're right. The number is arbitrary. We could have 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, or any odd number, and it would basically make no difference at the superficial level. Who cares? So, I have no problem with stipulating that the number is pretty irrelevant and arbitrary.
However, you don't have to take the issue very deep to see that it's a very big deal. If the GOP had decided to expand the Court when they had the chance in the early 2000s and the first two years under Trump, I would have raised holy hell over it. Why? Because it would have ruined the federal judiciary for the foreseeable future. Even if I had liked the outcomes, Democrats would have expanded it again once they gained power and justifiably so. Republicans would have done the same again when they gained power and so forth. The result would be that the Court would simply bounce back and forth between whichever party happens to control the executive and legislative branches at any given moment, and there would be no consistency or predictability of what federal law would be or how it would be applied in court from year to year. Eventually the other branches and states would just start ignoring them, or worse, they'd ignore them when they don't like their decisions and enforce them when they don't. (Keep in mind that the court has no enforcement power on their own.) You can't run a country, an economy, or have the rule of law that way.
Even flirting with court packing is dangerous, because it puts undue and corrupt influence on the Court as it did in the late 1930s. Remember, the court packing plan under FDR died, but to a great extent it died because the threat ended up being enough. It's bad. If Trump had vacillated on the issue and Biden had rejected it, I would have voted for Biden even with all the profound disagreements I have with him and his party. No ****. That's how much I hate it.
Switzer brings up previous changes in the Court's size to downplay the significance of court packing. It's true. We've changed the size before and it didn't ruin things, so why would it be so destructive now? The reason is that there was less difference in nominees' judicial philosophies back then, so it simply wasn't anywhere near as consequential. I'm not saying everybody was the same, but they usually didn't have wildly different worldviews and methods of constitutional interpretation based on party affiliation. The Court also didn't decide anywhere near as many hot button issues. In short, it simply didn't make anywhere near as big of a difference.
I'll also readily admit that I'm more defensive about Democrats packing the Court than about Republicans packing it. If conservatives tried to pack the Court, I'd strongly condemn them and would do whatever I could to stop them including voting for a Democratic presidential nominee for the first time in my life. However, I go to Defcon 1 on Dems when they toy with it, because there's a profound asymmetry between the parties when it comes to the impact of their appointments. The media often misses this, but it's the reason why conservative voters prioritize the Court more than liberal voters do.
If the entire Court was made up of Neil Gorsuches, it really wouldn't make that big of a difference to blue states, because he generally respects federalism. He's not as strict as I'd be, but he's fairly strict. And when he deviated from it, there would be a textual basis for it (and therefore a limiting principle). He'd basically let California be California and let them fly their freak flag. He'd let them have all the abortions they want and pay for them with taxpayer money. He'd let them preach Ibram X. Kendi in their schools. He'd let them tear down monuments of Thomas Jefferson and replace them with Harvey Milk. He'd let them get rid of the death penalty and tolerate people taking a dump on the sidewalks. He'd let them force girls to shower with biological men. He'd let them have illegal aliens vote in local elections, allow ballot harvesting, and generally have loose election laws. However, he'd also let Alabama go the other way on that stuff. That's what someone who believes in the constitutional structure does.
If the entire Court was made up of Sonia Sotomayors, it would basically go to war with the Right on every cultural issue and allow the Court to be an instrument to establish and entrench Democratic partisan power. They'D force Alabama to fly California's freak flag, and they'd do it with little or no regard for what the law actually says, which means there'd be no limiting principle. Whatever action a state took that a handful of Democratic judges on the Court didn't like for whatever reason, they'd strike it down. We know it because when they've had the power to do it, that's what they've done. So yes, if Democrats do it, I think it's worse, but it's terrible if anyone does it.
Now, let's compare court-packing to McConnell's flip-flop to allow Trump to fill both Scalia's seat and Ginsburg's. There's absolutely nothing wrong with calling him out on that. I readily acknowledge that he was being inconsistent and called out his distinctions as the ******** that they were. He should have either allowed a vote on Garland and Barrett or allowed a vote on Gorsuch but not Barrett. Nobody can seriously reconcile his two positions. However, what makes it less of a problem than court-packing is that it's impact is limited to a fairly unusual scenario. Basically it invites Democrats to fill or not fill vacancies near an election on a partisan basis when they have the Senate. OK, I don't like that, but that's not going to shake the judiciary at its core. Court-packing creates new vacancies out of thin air based on nothing but partisan advantage at a given time, and it invites reciprocal action every election. That's a much bigger impact.
I could go further, but that's enough for now.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Go on...
Seriously though, one could make the same statement about federal judicial districts. They're just as arbitrary. I think 90% of the GOP and 99.8% of the base would be all about packing the court if they had the horses to do it. Just like McConnell's move with the Barrett nomination.
That may be true, but l doubt it, because they didn't do it or even toy with it when they had the horses to do it. And I think Schumer would have done the same thing McConnell did if he had the horses to do it. Honestly, I don't think we'll see a Senate confirm a nominee from the other party again anytime soon unless there's some major change in the role of the Court.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
As a simpleton I'm more concerned about the people in power that have the wherewithal to execute their totalitarian views. Recognizing Kendi is a bit more influential with his ideas than the homeless person I used to pass on my way to work every day, his ability to execute on his ideas is extremely limited. At best he'll move the needle, spark the conversation but the chances of executing the ideas to their fullest are non-existent. Whereas Erdogan is changing laws, rules and the economy to his whim with the goal of consolidating his power.
Kendi gets some airtime because the media loves an eloquent speaking black person. Still, it's not his more controversial comments that get the airtime. In fact, he's less controversial than Al Sharpton in the interviews I've seen. Whether he's playing to a moderate NPR audience or not, his more mainstream persona isn't radical.
He said he wasn't in support of packing the court. Any time a politician says lets have a "commission" to study it that's a method for killing the idea while buying time for their supporters to forget about it. I thought it was a deft move to placate the extreme left of the party at the time. Remember, he needed their energy to beat Trump.
McConnell's antics should be seen in the same light as increasing the justices. The difference, McConnell actually did pack the court with unprecedented maneuvers whereas the D's simply talked about it. First he gets rid of the SCOTUS filibuster while blaming Harry Reid. Then he ends up with both the LONGEST and SHORTEST selection processes in SCOTUS history simply to ensure he got to select the justice. If McConnell can blame Harry Reid for his filibuster antics then I'd argue the D's have every right to pack the court by increasing the number of justices and lay the blame at Mitch's feet. They shouldn't but the maneuver would be similar to Mitch. Democrats should be fighting mad because McConnell stole 1-2 seats from them on SCOTUS upsetting the balance on the court.
Nice concession that the 1.6 Commission is a complete waste of time and resources.
I don't.
How come Clarence Thomas never gets fawning media attention?
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
This statistical analysis should cause any reasonable person to doubt Biden's win.
Biden’s Inexplicable Victory
Biden’s Inexplicable Victory
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
How about Ben Carson, Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder and Walter Williams? Yet they are considered the black faces of white supremacy.
I thought the point was made with just one name. We could pile up a LOT of black, eloquent conservatives, and there would be no media fawning over any of them. You named a bunch more good ones right there.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Facts, yo! A house built on sand. Also, there are many things happening that change long held trends. A once in a century pandemic, the shifting of the rust belt, etc. But, don't let it get in the way of a good conspiracy! Ask Ron Johnson (R-Moscow) He said Biden won.
Fact Check-U.S. Census did not confirm that ‘millions less voted in the 2020 election than official results’ showed
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
They've "looked into it". REPUBLICANS!
Looked into it? All they do is count and recount. That's it. The chance of catching anything is next to nil. When I say look into it I mean that it be done by outsiders. Trust me, if you let these election officials keep policing themselves no problems will ever be found.
If we let corporations police themselves in the real world like we do election officials I promise you there would also never be anything found either.
Last edited:
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Journalism majors fact checking as their first job out of college is one of the biggest scams in media today.
I get it, statistical anomalies aren't interesting to you. I get it, looking at the data 10 different ways doesn't matter to you since said journalism major is your self appointed expert.
I didn't claim the article contained conclusive evidence. But to dismiss it so frivolously and so incuriously is why Conservatives think the Ds have something to hide.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
