We both know that violates the 4th amendment Denny. And your boy Rick Scott has already had his overturned in FL due to unconstitutionality.
So the playground bully tossed a couple dimes out for milk money? That doesn't mean anything man, c'mon. I don't care Denny, you could send me and my family a XMAS present, but if you act like a prick the other 11 months it doesn't mean a thing.
No, it doesn't violate the 4th amendment. Your link proves it. Nor is the court's decision the final say.
$80B is not milk money. It gets Puerto Rico out of a very deep hole. He's proposing to rebuild everything there and forgiving the massive debt.
It most certainly does violate the right to illegal search and seizure. There is no probable cause to search someone's urine. Being on welfare is not probable cause and there is also no search warrant.
I imagine the counter-argument is that receiving welfare benefits is voluntary, so it's not unreasonable to place prerequisites on the distribution thereof. Honestly, the fiscal argument against drug-testing for benefits is much more compelling.
Members of Congress don't have to pass a drug test but we should make welfare recipients? Aren't members of Congress just welfare recipients themselves?
Trump is doing just fine driving down his approval ratings on his own. One tweet at a time. Media doesn't have to report shit, slanted or not. His whole existence speaks for itself.
It has nothing to do with the 4th amendment. If people don't want to be drug tested, they can opt out of the government program. That makes it no violation whatsoever.
This story has changed since yesterday, when the headline was "committee hasn't ruled out collusion." CNN ran with that headline all day yesterday, repeating it on air like a broken record. Yet, the truth is the committee hasn't proven a negative (which is near impossible) - that there was no collusion. The committee has interviewed at least 100 people, including all 7 who were in that meeting with the Russian lawyer, and reviewed thousands of documents, if not tens of thousands or more. They've found not even a "hint of collusion." Not a whiff. Isn't the really big and important news that they've interviewed and reviewed documents and haven't found even a hint of collusion? I'll give credit where credit is due. CNN has it right in their WWW article (but not on TV). Compare these news sources/headlines: http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/04/politics/mark-warner-richard-burr-russia-investigation/index.html Hill Russia investigators: Committee still searching for 'any hint of collusion' (CNN)Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr said Wednesday that the panel "has more work to do" to determine whether there was collusion between Russian officials and Donald Trump's team during last year's presidential election. "The committee continues to look into all evidence to see if there was any hint of collusion," Burr said at a Capitol Hill news conference, standing alongside the committee's top Democrat, Mark Warner of Virginia. http://thehill.com/policy/national-...rs-collusion-still-open-part-of-investigation Intel leaders: Collusion still open part of investigation https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...g-christopher-steeles-dossier-trum/731126001/ Senate Intelligence Committee still investigating possible collusion between Trump campaign and Russia https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-open-issue-senate-panel-chiefs-idUSKBN1C92G3 Russia-Trump campaign collusion an 'open' issue: Senate panel chiefs
^^^ From the reuters article, 11th paragraph: “The committee continues to look into all evidence to see if there was any hint of collusion,” Burr said. “Now, I‘m not even going to discuss initial findings because we haven’t any. We’ve got a tremendous amount of documents still to go through.” He said the panel has conducted more than 100 interviews lasting more than 250 hours in its nine-month-old probe, and “we currently have booked for the balance of this month 25 additional interviews.” Those who have already come before committee members or investigators include the president’s son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner, former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, and social media executives such as officials from Twitter Inc (TWTR.N)
Or better yet. The panel announced they hit a wall in its investigation of the "Trump Dossier" and cannot give it any credability.
Oh my. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/wh...ury-trump-required-intervention-pence-n806451 Tillerson’s Fury at Trump Required an Intervention From Pence https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rex-tillerson-statement-today-leaving-resigning/ Rex Tillerson refutes report that he was on verge of resigning over the summer
While this is a right leaning news source, I find the argument interesting. CNN is making it look like there were ads targeted at Michigan and Wisconsin that had to be coordinated with someone sophisticated enough to strategize those buys. See #7 and #8. You won't see the Truth on CNN. #9 confirms what I've written before - that the amount of these buys were really small. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/b...out-those-russia-facebook-ads/article/2636711 The latest excitement in the Trump-Russia investigation is a set of Facebook ads linked to Russia, about 3,000 in all, that some of the president's adversaries hope will prove the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in the 2016 election. "A number of Russian-liked Facebook ads specifically targeted Michigan and Wisconsin, two states crucial to Donald Trump's victory last November," CNN reported on Wednesday, attributing the information to four sources "with direct knowledge of the situation." ... Put aside whether Michigan and Wisconsin were in fact "crucial" to Trump's victory. (He would still have won the presidency even if he had lost both.) The theory is that Russians could not have pulled off such "highly sophisticated" targeting by themselves and therefore may have had help from the Trump campaign or its associates. But is that the whole story? Not according to a government official familiar with the Facebook ads, who offers a strikingly different assessment. What follows is from the official and from public statements by Facebook itself: 1) Of the group of 3,000 ads turned over to Congress by Facebook, a majority of the impressions came after the election, not before. Indeed, in a news release Monday, Facebook said 56 percent of the ads' impressions came after the 2016 vote. 2) Twenty-five percent of the ads were never seen by anybody. (Facebook also revealed that Monday.) 3) Most of the ads, which Facebook estimates were seen by a total of 10 million people in the United States, never mentioned the election or any candidate. "The vast majority of ads run by these accounts didn't specifically reference the U.S. presidential election, voting or a particular candidate," Facebook said in a Sept. 6 news release. 4) A relatively small number of the ads -- again, about 25 percent -- were geographically targeted. (Facebook also revealed that on September 6.) 5) The ads that were geographically targeted were all over the map. "Of those that were targeted, numerous other locales besides Michigan and Wisconsin, including non-battleground states like Texas, were targeted," the government official familiar with the ads said, via email. 6) Very few ads specifically targeted Wisconsin or Michigan. "Of the hundreds of pre-election ads with one or more impressions, less than a dozen ads targeted Michigan and Wisconsin combined," the official said. 7) By and large, the ads targeting Michigan and Wisconsin did not run in the general election. "Nearly all of these Michigan and Wisconsin ads ran in 2015 and also ran in other states," the official said. 8) The Michigan and Wisconsin ads were not widely seen. "The majority of these Wisconsin and Michigan ads had less than 1,000 impressions," the official said. 9) The Michigan and Wisconsin ads (like those everywhere else) were low-budget. "The buy for the majority of these Michigan and Wisconsin ads (paid in rubles) was equivalent to approximately $10," the official said. 10) The ads just weren't very good. The language used in some of the ads "clearly shows the ad writer was not a native English speaker," the official said. In addition, the set of ads turned over by Facebook also contained "clickbait-type ads that had nothing to do with politics." And in general, the official's view is that the ads simply were not terribly sophisticated, contrary to how they have been portrayed. None of this proves anything about the Facebook part of the Trump Russia affair. It doesn't prove there was no collusion, and it certainly doesn't prove there was. But it does suggest this particular set of ads might not be a very big deal.
