Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Xenomancers wrote: Dude - I really have to express myself here. Just leave. I am sick of people like you that try control discussions with school yard bully type tactics. YOU are the problem. We are having a civilized discussion here. It is not helped by your condescending drivel.
When someone claims that the GOP can't pass a budget because the don't have 60 votes, and then when someone asks if the Dems are filibustering and that's the problem, and the answer is crickets (because they aren't and it isn't), then it's a lazy, effortless lie that assumes everyone else reading this thread is stupid. It's worthy of being pointed out as the hot garbage that it is and is not what most people consider a civilized conversation.
If you establish a track record of that kind of posting over years, then at some point people are going to get tired of you sucking the oxygen out of every thread. The people that are tired of debunking lazy, easily disproven lies aren't the problem here.
So far as the wall being built in 6 months, which is obviously impossible on pretty much every level, lets switch to one that you haven't mentioned: land rights. How do you imagine all of the eminent domain cases are going to be heard, appealed, and resolved within 6 months?
Did you know the Hoover Dam took 5 years to build, and a proposed wall 1000 miles long would be 3 times larger? And of course, this was a project that added value to the US and so didn't have a 60% disapproval on polling.
.. worst thing is, one isn't even that shocked anymore.
That certainly seems to be a hairy situation for that person.
Bad...Just bad...Almost reported that post
Reported for what? Adding too much value to the thread, nay, the entire forum!?
At any rate I find it ironic that a candidate would get in hot water for what kind of porn he watches (barring child porn and the like) while connecting with white supremacists; catching flak over a detail that has no bearing on quality of character while associating with a group based around hatred due to a detail that has no bearing on quality of character. It does not make the heat he is getting justified in a principle sense but I cannot help finding it suitable justice in a way.
President Trump's campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, earned more than $60 million working for Russia-backed Ukraine politicians, special counsel Robert Mueller said in a new court filing Monday.
Mueller said government prosecutors expect to prove that Manafort earned the money and failed to report a significant percentage of it on his tax returns. The filing is the first time a tally of Manafort's earnings in Ukraine has been revealed.
“No ‘pay stubs’ or ‘paychecks’ reflect that income, rather, the invoices and bills submitted by various consultants provide proof on that issue,” he said in the filing.
“Accordingly, to prove that Manafort earned that much income, the government must be able to show the extent of the work that he performed for Ukraine.”
Mueller is fighting Manafort’s request for the court to exclude more than 50 trial exhibits that relate to his political consulting work in Ukraine between 2005 and 2014.
Mueller said the challenged exhibits, which include a memoranda, emails and photos reflecting tasks performed, are relevant to establish the extent of Manafort’s work.
The filing comes a day before Manafort’s trial on bank and tax fraud charges is set to begin this week.
Huh
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/31 00:13:17
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
President Trump's campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, earned more than $60 million working for Russia-backed Ukraine politicians, special counsel Robert Mueller said in a new court filing Monday.
Mueller said government prosecutors expect to prove that Manafort earned the money and failed to report a significant percentage of it on his tax returns. The filing is the first time a tally of Manafort's earnings in Ukraine has been revealed.
“No ‘pay stubs’ or ‘paychecks’ reflect that income, rather, the invoices and bills submitted by various consultants provide proof on that issue,” he said in the filing.
“Accordingly, to prove that Manafort earned that much income, the government must be able to show the extent of the work that he performed for Ukraine.”
Mueller is fighting Manafort’s request for the court to exclude more than 50 trial exhibits that relate to his political consulting work in Ukraine between 2005 and 2014.
Mueller said the challenged exhibits, which include a memoranda, emails and photos reflecting tasks performed, are relevant to establish the extent of Manafort’s work.
The filing comes a day before Manafort’s trial on bank and tax fraud charges is set to begin this week.
Huh
Tax Evasion! Who'da thunk the FBI might be interested in Tax Evasion?
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Ouze wrote: Is that even a crime, though? I saw Giuliani on TV today and I'm not sure anymore.
Apparently actions previously thought of as crimes suddenly seizes to be so, if you describe them using words not specifically present in the Federal Code.
.
-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."
The image represents the relentless intrusion of our president in every aspect of our lives and future. The image can be read as his next conquest or simply that there is very little inside that skull.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So if anyone hasn't seen this yet but
Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Monday that the Department of Justice is creating a "religious liberty task force."
Sessions said the task force, co-chaired by Associate Attorney General Jesse Panuccio and the assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy, Beth Williams, will help the department fully implement the religious liberty guidance it issued last year.
The guidance was a byproduct of President Trump’s executive order directing agencies to respect and protect religious liberty and political speech.
Sessions said on Monday that the task force will “ensure all Justice Department components are upholding that guidance in the cases they bring and defend, the arguments they make in court, the policies and regulations they adopt, and how we conduct our operations.”
The announcement came during the department’s religious liberty summit.
Sessions said the cultural climate in this country — and in the West more generally — has become less hospitable to people of faith in recent years, and as a result many Americans have felt their freedom to practice their faith has been under attack.
“We’ve seen nuns ordered to buy contraceptives. We’ve seen U.S. senators ask judicial and executive branch nominees about dogma—even though the Constitution explicitly forbids a religious test for public office. We’ve all seen the ordeal faced so bravely by Jack Phillips,” he said, referring to the Colorado baker who took his case to the Supreme Court after he was found to have violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.
Sessions said the guidance he issued in October lays out 20 fundamental principles for the executive branch to follow, including the principles that free exercise means a right to act — or to abstain from action — and that government shouldn’t impugn people’s motives or beliefs.
“In short, we have not only the freedom to worship—but the right to exercise our faith. The Constitution’s protections don’t end at the parish parking lot nor can our freedoms be confined to our basements,” he said, according to his prepared remarks.
Sessions said the federal government under the Trump administration is not just reacting but is actively seeking to accommodate people of faith.
“Religious Americans are no longer an afterthought,” he said.
Founding father's thoughts
There are so many things wrong with the argument of "Religious americans are an afterthought."
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/07/31 03:49:12
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
It will probably get shut down as unconstitutional sooner or later. It won't last beyond the current admin regardless. It is a hilariously brazen announcement of "we do not care about the law" in direct relation to the Constitution.
To be devil's advocate, there's nothing overtly unconstitutional or absurd about a religious liberty task force (though honestly calling it a task force just sounds silly...). I don't think there's anything wrong with the idea per se, as much as how its being framed. The good old "Christians are the real victims of societal oppression" complex going round for another spin.
whembly wrote: GOP hasn't changed the filibuster rules on budgets. So, any budgets (in traditional sense) will still need 60 votes to pass clotures.
So is that why the US is still without a budget?
Partly... but, I think it's mostly because there's no appetite to fight the Democrats over spending. Hence they wait the last minutes to pass the "Must Pass" Omnibus bills.
The Dems in senate are filibustering?
Not at the moment.
There's a finite amount of time and the Senate prioritizes other things over passing budgets the right way.
I'm not a fan of that, as passing budgets is like the most fundamental things Congress does... but, I understand the rationale.
Xenomancers wrote: I have heard horror stories about people dying in other countries waiting to get life saving procedures. Hospitals being extremely understaffed. Ect. I have heard specifically bad stories about healthcare in England. Waiting lists for surgeries are upwards of 6 months plus. Is that true? or False?
I am asking here - is there a model that the US should follow here? Because from what I see - I see a lot of the same problems no matter where you look - it's just that in the US we pay more for healthcare to cover the fact that it's not a complete cluster fck + the fact that insurance blows everything way out of proportion.
What's the waiting time for a surgery in the US if you're poor and don't have health insurance?
Do you have specifics?
I donated a kidney to my inlaw.
She was 26 at the time and was on Medicaid.
She qualified for medicaid because she was "poor" and didn't have employer healthcare insurance.
She was dealing with renal failure and was mere weeks (not months) away from doing full-on dialysis. During those weeks, me and family members got compatibility tested and received full physical (hey, donating solid organs is a mondo surgery!).
Once I found out I was a match, little more than a week... the transplant was scheduled.
The potential roadblock here wasn't money, nor skilled surgeons, nor lack of facilities. It was about finding a donor match.
While she was poor and had to apply for medicaid, she had her gak together. There ARE severe problems in educating the public how to get public-assistance like this as filing for medicaid can be a bureaucratic adventure.
Kidney transplant recipient here, donated by my father, 11 years back and zero problems since. From the initial decision to undergo transplantation (have had chronic kidney disease from birth and my function was getting to the point where dialysis might be needed in the near future) to surgery was around 2 months. That included all of the tests (physical and mental health checks), vaccinations, meeting the surgical team, meeting the nursing staff etc. I was a non-emergency case, my kidneys would have held out for probably another year or maybe two (puberty and growth spurts puts them under strain). Was on the ward for a week and then in a Ronald McDonald House (seriously folks, drop some change in those collection slots when you're getting a Maccy-D's, those houses do a lot of good) for 5 weeks whilst I was still undergoing daily visits to the transplant clinic. Couple of biopsies in that time and later when blood test results seemed high, add in tacrolimus induced diabetes necessitating insulin for a while. Didn't cost a penny.
Don't have to pay anything for my prescriptions or follow up checks, which are currently every 3-4 months.
We did not need to apply for anything or even think that we might not be able to afford the surgery.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'd also argue that a lot of people who call themselves conservative actually are reactionary. There is nothing conservative about wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade, for instance. It's been 45 years since 1973.
That's absurdly false.
No it isn't. I know you want it to be, because "reactionary" carries much harsher connotations than "conservative", but reality doesn't conform to your opinions. 45 years is more than half a lifetime. By any reasonable definition, you're not conserving anything by arguing for a change to something that's been the law for longer than a majority of your population has been alive.
Merriam-Webster defines "reactionary" as:
Definition of reactionary
: relating to, marked by, or favoring reaction; especially : ultraconservative in politics
where "reaction" is defined as
Definition of reaction
1 a : the act or process or an instance of reacting
b : resistance or opposition to a force, influence, or movement; especially : tendency toward a former and usually outmoded political or social order or policy
whereas the Oxford Dictionaries defines it as
adjective
Opposing political or social progress or reform.
.
This certainly applies to opposition to Roe v. Wade. In other words, whembly once again doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. Quelle surprise.
It is *you* who don't know what you're talking about.
The conservative movement in the US is largely pro-life and been remarkably consistent in opposition to Roe v. Wade (and Casey v. PP).
Pro life enough to doom woman to die over ideology. Yep yep. Pro life...nope. thaw is big bs lie
Xenomancers wrote: Dude - I really have to express myself here. Just leave. I am sick of people like you that try control discussions with school yard bully type tactics. YOU are the problem. We are having a civilized discussion here. It is not helped by your condescending drivel.
When someone claims that the GOP can't pass a budget because the don't have 60 votes, and then when someone asks if the Dems are filibustering and that's the problem, and the answer is crickets (because they aren't and it isn't), then it's a lazy, effortless lie that assumes everyone else reading this thread is stupid. It's worthy of being pointed out as the hot garbage that it is and is not what most people consider a civilized conversation.
No... it's a lazy argument to say that the GOP controls the Senate, while at the same time ignoring the cloture votes needed to floor a bill for a vote.
GOP would pass budget bills left and right if they didn't have to overcome the cloture (in short the filibuster).
What an unexpected outcome to this high drama! A nail-biter until the very end, it was.
That actually surprised me... as Rand was sucking up to Trump these last two weeks. I figured he was trying to earn some goodwill from Trump so that we can be a "no" vote for Kavanaugh.
But, really, there's nothing really objectionable about Kavanaugh, so maybe Rand didn't think it was worth bucking his party here.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2018/07/31 04:32:54
No he is qualified but he is in no way a good supreme court justice.
If he is nominated and successfully put in hopefully he recuses himself from anything dealing with Donald Trump and the Russian Investigation. As he might be biased (due to his ruling and appointment).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/31 04:43:53
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
LordofHats wrote: To be devil's advocate, there's nothing overtly unconstitutional or absurd about a religious liberty task force (though honestly calling it a task force just sounds silly...). I don't think there's anything wrong with the idea per se, as much as how its being framed. The good old "Christians are the real victims of societal oppression" complex going round for another spin.
Hm, I guess I can see how it might be interpreted in a legal way but I am having a really hard time thinking of it in a manner that does not run afoul of seperation of church and state. The part about not respecting an establishment of religion really seems to be violated here, even if it were not obviously Christianity. From what I read it is about defending individuals breaking the law on religious grounds.
We're all shocked! Well ok perhaps not all of us, maybe just those few that really fell for that warm handshake.
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
This, people. And also, sign up to the organ donor register and tell your family that you have done so and want that wish respected after you have gone. You don't need your organs once you're gone but there are thousands of people who do and it can completely transform someone's quality of life or even save their life period.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
LordofHats wrote: To be devil's advocate, there's nothing overtly unconstitutional or absurd about a religious liberty task force (though honestly calling it a task force just sounds silly...). I don't think there's anything wrong with the idea per se, as much as how its being framed. The good old "Christians are the real victims of societal oppression" complex going round for another spin.
"RELIGIOUS LIBERTY TASK FORCE: (PG) James Woods is an unconventional fundamentalist Christian cop with 24 hours -- because it's Saturday and, obvs, he doesn't work on Sunday -- to find fundamentalist Christian baker Roseanne Barr, who has been kidnapped by a newlywed sadistic gay couple and is being forced to bake them a cake"
-- gay couple to be played by whichever British actors are available/desperate for work.
Guest cameos from Fabio and that guy who played Hercules.
4% score on Rotten Tomatoes.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
I think we all know that the purpose of the religious freedom taskforce is to demonstrate support for Trump's white evangelical christian supporters, glossed over with a bit of varnish from the 1st amendment.
Going to have to go back and respond to this, because it really demonstrates the fact-free world that many US conservatives are living in and the sheer absurdity of founding father worship.
whembly wrote: We think it’s the height of folly and hubris to accept that a few self-appointed experts can order things better than the collective wisdom of free people attempting to maximize their personal liberty and happiness.
And yet you accept that a few self-appointed experts can order things better than the collective wisdom of free people, as long as you call them "founding fathers". In fact, not only do you accept it, you make it a core principle of what it means to be conservative.
They're experts on the Constitutional Republic that we have... and understanding their intent goes a long way.
First of all, no, they weren't experts by any reasonable standard of the term "expert". As many founding father worshipers will point out, the idea of a republic with no monarchy was a fairly new concept with little history behind it. It's absurd to claim that the original founders had more knowledge and experience than political science experts 200 years later working with the benefit of not only US history, but also many other similar governments in other countries. There is no credible argument that they were exceptionally qualified relative to modern experts, only ridiculous hero worship and conservative ideology.
Second, you're blatantly demonstrating my point about your double standard in response to an accusation of having that double standard. You originally claimed that it's hubris to suggest that a few self-appointed experts know better than the majority, and when called on the fact that US conservatives believe the exact opposite as long as you call the self-appointed experts "founding fathers" your response is to state that yes, you believe that we should listen to the self-appointed experts over the collective wisdom of the people. If the collective wisdom of the people is in fact what matters then that is true even when that collective wisdom says to change our government in ways that the founding fathers would have disagreed with. But, because you can't let go of conservative ideology even when it contradicts itself, you have to completely reverse your principle and reject the collective wisdom of the people in favor of a few self-appointed experts. And somehow you think that this works as long as you emphasize that the self-appointed experts are experts!
“Conservative” in the American political sense tends to mean a vision for government that is more modest in terms of size and scope than establishment Republicans and Democrats. It’s a political sphere more in line with the constitutional limits placed on the federal government at the founding.... or more precisely, a hearty defense of federalisms.
Except when it involves having a bigger military
True.
And here you admit that "conservative" does not mean small government. You openly accept the idea of spending vast amounts of money, more than every possible threat combined and far in excess of what is actually required for defense, as long as it goes to the military. You are perfectly happy to have a large and powerful government as long as that government is using its power in ways you approve of.
, or obsessing over what bathrooms people use,
Major overreaction... yes.
It is not an overreaction at all. Conservatives advocate exactly that: obsessing over what bathrooms people use, to the point of passing laws regulating the subject. Where is the authority to regulate bathroom use mentioned in the constitution? What commentary do your beloved founding fathers offer on the subject? Nowhere and none, of course. It's a clear case of the government exceeding its original scope for ideological reasons, but because those ideological reasons align with conservative doctrine it's acceptable. The idea of modest government as an inherently valuable principle disappears the moment conservatives see a way to use the power of the government to get something they want.
or whatever the latest conservative desire for government intervention happens to be.
Conservatives does want an engaged governance, we don't want anarchy.
And here we see the solution: simply label anything conservatives want the government to do "engaged governance", and label everything else "big government" or "socialism" or whatever. Where is that principled demand for a minimal government bound by the explicitly stated powers found in the constitution? Nowhere. The only difference between conservatives and progressives is that the progressives are more honest about wanting a powerful government that does the things they want.
Irrelevant minority? O.o Sure, there isn't really a "Conservative" wing in the political party (closet is probably the Freedom Caucus)... but, to say that we don't have any "pull" is literally burying your head in the sands....
Yes, they are an irrelevant minority. You have defined "conservative" so narrowly that no federal-level politician qualifies, and only a handful of voters might. Meanwhile your party elected, by a considerable margin, a president who is fine with big government and has little concern for limiting it by the constitution. Where was the "conservative" candidate by your standards? Somewhere in the pile of irrelevant fringe lunatics who couldn't even get a seat in the debates, won essentially zero percent of the votes in the primaries, and dropped out after using the election as little more than an opportunity to sell more copies of their book.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/31 08:45:16
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Did anyone see Ed Balls Travels in Trumpland on Sunday Night?
It was quite a good programme which put a human face on to the supposedly typical southern Trump supporter.
Balls was open and friendly and was welcomed by the people at "Rednecks with Paychecks" festival, at a woodland retreat for ex-military, and at a small town wresting match.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think we all know that the purpose of the religious freedom taskforce is to demonstrate support for Trump's white evangelical christian supporters, glossed over with a bit of varnish from the 1st amendment.
Which is precisely why no one will take it seriously, and I doubt it's a serious effort anyway.
LordofHats wrote: To be devil's advocate, there's nothing overtly unconstitutional or absurd about a religious liberty task force (though honestly calling it a task force just sounds silly...). I don't think there's anything wrong with the idea per se, as much as how its being framed. The good old "Christians are the real victims of societal oppression" complex going round for another spin.
"RELIGIOUS LIBERTY TASK FORCE: (PG) James Woods is an unconventional fundamentalist Christian cop with 24 hours -- because it's Saturday and, obvs, he doesn't work on Sunday -- to find fundamentalist Christian baker Roseanne Barr, who has been kidnapped by a newlywed sadistic gay couple and is being forced to bake them a cake"
-- gay couple to be played by whichever British actors are available/desperate for work.
Guest cameos from Fabio and that guy who played Hercules.
4% score on Rotten Tomatoes.
Perfect
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/31 10:21:59
LordofHats wrote: To be devil's advocate, there's nothing overtly unconstitutional or absurd about a religious liberty task force (though honestly calling it a task force just sounds silly...). I don't think there's anything wrong with the idea per se, as much as how its being framed. The good old "Christians are the real victims of societal oppression" complex going round for another spin.
"RELIGIOUS LIBERTY TASK FORCE: (PG) James Woods is an unconventional fundamentalist Christian cop with 24 hours -- because it's Saturday and, obvs, he doesn't work on Sunday -- to find fundamentalist Christian baker Roseanne Barr, who has been kidnapped by a newlywed sadistic gay couple and is being forced to bake them a cake"
-- gay couple to be played by whichever British actors are available/desperate for work.
Guest cameos from Fabio and that guy who played Hercules.
4% score on Rotten Tomatoes.
A random reviewer:
"This film is actually pretty good, don't let the rotten tomato score fool you - it's actually been downvoted by the deep state trying to keep TRUE AMERICANS down, while propping up the gay anti-white anti-gun snowflake agenda."
warboss wrote: Is there a permanent stickied thread for Chaos players to complain every time someone/anyone gets models or rules besides them? If not, there should be.
Whereas you have Trump Jr. having a meeting by two Russians who wanted to discuss the Magnitsky Act, but claimed to have opposition research on HRC in order to gain an audience to Trump officials. This is *not* illegal either.
How so? This is how :
which prohibits “a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution” from a foreign national for the purpose of a political campaign. A contribution could be money, but it could also be any other “thing of value,” and dirt on your opponent would seem to qualify. In addition to the crime of accepting the contribution, they could also be charged with conspiracy to violate election laws, or with aiding and abetting another person’s crime.
Read election law that took me two minutes
And that thing you stated AGAIN has not been proven, and is falsified. Hillary DID not HERSELF do it or work WITH A FOREIGN ENTITY
So no Whembly your wrong. bark up another tree.
I've posted sources, cited them even. Do not insist you are the better for it. Argument over.
Okay Asherian... you want to posit that the argument's is over.
What "contribution" did the Trump campaign receive that is in violation of the FARA statute?
That law is ridiculously ambiguous "things of value". WOW. Pretty sure they mean diamonds that you could sell for money. Not literally baring you from communicating with a foreign national about politics (just their perspective on things could be considered a "thing of value".
"Things of value" would not pass a legal test as dirt on a candidate. That would violate the first amendment.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in...
They had me at Bigfoot Erotica:
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Here’s a political attack you don’t hear every day — or ever: A Virginia congressional candidate says her opponent is unfit for office because he is a “devotee of Bigfoot erotica.”
Democrat Leslie Cockburn said on Twitter that Republican opponent Denver Riggleman fetishizes the mythical ape-like giant, sparking viral online interest in what’s surely the most out-there line of attack in this election cycle.
“This is not what we need on Capitol Hill,” Cockburn said in a tweet Sunday. Her posts included pictures from Riggleman’s Instagram account showing nude drawings of Bigfoot with his — assuming that the made-up creature is male — genitalia covered with a black rectangle.
“These images are very disturbing, I think everyone should just look at them to see who this candidate is,” Cockburn said in an interview.
But Riggleman said allegations that he’s into Sasquatch’s sex life are big hairy lies from a failing candidate.
“When people are desperate they do desperate things,” he said.
Riggleman, an Air Force veteran, said he and his military friends have been interested in people who believe Bigfoot is real for years. He’s listed as a co-author of a short online book detailing a Bigfoot hunt in 2006.
The drawings on his Instagram account are jokes, he said. One is from a birthday card from a friend, the other is a mock cover art for a satirical book he’s writing called “The Mating Habits of Bigfoot and Why Women Want Him.”
Riggleman said he’s found Cockburn’s attacks “hilarious” and warned that she was in danger of losing support of pro-Bigfoot potential constituents.
“She needs to learn her voters better,” Riggleman said, in jest.
Jokes aside, the bizarre back-and-forth over Bigfoot underscores the high stakes in a key race.
Cockburn and Riggleman are competing to represent Virginia’s 5th Congressional District, which stretches from northern Virginia to the North Carolina border. Incumbent Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Garrett announced earlier this year that he will not seek re-election to focus on a recovery from alcoholism.
The District is one of four currently GOP-held seats in Virginia that Democrats are bullish on their chances of flipping in this year’s election. That would go a long way in helping the party take control of the House. Nationwide, Democrats need to flip 24 seats to take a majority.
Republicans have been targeting Cockburn, a former investigative reporter and political newcomer, for months. Because of a 1991 book she wrote criticizing the U.S.’s relationship with Israel, opponents have called her anti-Semitic. She denies that claim.
fetishizes the mythical ape-like giant
Don't we all?
"Sometimes the only victory possible is to keep your opponent from winning." - The Emperor, from The Outcast Dead.
"Tell your gods we are coming for them, and that their realms will burn as ours did." -Thostos Bladestorm