@Typo-MAGAshiv I don't think they are, and don't think there was any conspiracy from what I've seen. I'm just saying that the prevailing view of Israel being behind it doesn't make a lot of sense to me, and that the GOP side of the uniparty has more of an interest in low turnout than Israel would. They spend their money on keeping people like Cornyn and Murkowski afloat, and it's better for them to be in the minority with Trump as president.

Israel's at no risk of its relatively modest funding being slashed no matter who is in charge. It's been known to back rabid anti-semites when it sees some strategic objective. Kirk wasn't on the radar of its lobbyists.

@MentORPHEUS We'll see what comes out at the trial. Israel's funding isn't all that large and wouldn't be affected by Kirk. A lot of anti-Israel dems are posturing and would keep the money flowing if push came to shove. That's why neither side will even attempt to do a budget. The GOP would have to explain why they are funding NGOs that start riots and want to destroy Western civilization, and Dems would have to explain why they are funding Israel.

@Typo-MAGAshiv McConnell and crew would rather be the minority party since the president is more populist. They've done nothing to help further his agenda. The GOP isn't making much effort to win the midterms, just like 2018. They sure wouldn't back Kirk's get out the vote efforts. Just look at Virginia the other day. I don't think there was any grand conspiracy, but if there were, the uniparty GOP people would favor it.

@MentORPHEUS I haven't been persuaded by the conspiracy stuff. Israel wouldn't care about Charlie Kirk; young people on the right already don't like Israel. If anyone would want to take him out, it'd be the GOP side of the uniparty, as he helped get young people out to vote. We'll see what happens at the trial. If the conspiracy stuff is true, presumably his defense team will offer evidence of it.

@Bozza Some courts here don't allow cameras. Federal courts don't, so there are artists like there are in your country. But some crazy trials in state courts are shown on tv.

@Typo-MAGAshiv I saw the first one a while back on youtube. Unbelievable.

@Bozza Before third party payors got involved, health care wasn't super expensive. The hypotheticals you put out didn't happen. Some people lived in areas without nearby doctors (because doctors didn't make huge compensation, so no financial incentive to become one), but people were never dying in the streets.

@Bozza Healthcare here is a series of intertwined, highly regulated markets that are rigged to benefit key players and harm consumers and the public. Foolish people here think the problems would go away if the government just picked up the tab for everyone. It already does in that it is by far the biggest player in the market, and that hasn't worked out so well.

@Typo-MAGAshiv The other day, there was a story about an older woman in Canada who went to the doctor for back pain and they tried to sell her on euthanasia rather than treating it. People like the idea of free stuff. They don't understand that goods and services can only be rationed by price or by queueing. No other mechanism exists. So if something is "free," that means it is rationed by queueing and regular people will have long waits and lower quality products and services.