US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians

 

[Absolutego]

NGL these make for bitchin' album covers.

If blackwave were more a super-online electronica version of black metal instead of some Swamp Germans trying to make their own rap, these are basically exactly the kinds of album covers I would expect.

 

[XYZpdq]

NGL these make for bitchin' album covers.

maybe like Virgin Killer, I guess

 

[Random Internet Person]

Hol' up, was Law & Order referencing Hunter Biden in this scene from yesterday's episode? The man's some congressman wannabe who got killed after being accused of being a pedo

View attachment 3159033

Looks like a please oh pretty please stop noticing were trying to fuck your kids episode.

With an episode title like “Free Speech“? Survey says yes.

The minute you realize and recognize the headlines being ripped, that's when the Law and Order franchise starts going to shit.

 

[Kuritan Deplorable]

Hold up WTF. I guess this brings a whole new meaning to pozzload the negholes of the locals while on deployment. I cannot wait until the Jap nationalists get wind of the Marines and Airmen raping women end up with those women being HIV+. This is just ooooof.

https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2022-04-07/US-military-is-ordered-to-allow-HIV-positive-soldiers-to-become-officers-5617478.html

Spoiler: Literal Homo brought Globo

(Tribune News Service) — A federal judge issued a pair of landmark rulings barring the U.S. military from discharging soldiers who contract HIV and ordering the Pentagon to allow those who have the virus but no symptoms to become officers.

The decisions Wednesday by U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Virginia pave the way for career advancements for HIV-positive soldiers who have long been blocked by policies barring them from deploying overseas, even when their symptoms are suppressed indefinitely by highly effective drugs.

“The court ruled that the Pentagon’s policies regarding service members with HIV are not only outdated, but unlawful,” said Lambda Legal’s Scott Schoettes, who represented plaintiffs in both cases. The findings are among “the strongest judicial rulings in over two decades for people living with HIV,” he added.

The rulings could impact the Defense Department’s broader policy of barring people with HIV from enlisting. A parallel suit challenging that rule was put on hold in 2020 pending the rulings by Brinkema over deployment of HIV-positive soldiers. The judge in that case denied the Pentagon’s motion to dismiss the suit and said the broader policy appeared to have “no rational basis.”

The Defense Department didn’t immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

Brinkema’s rulings Wednesday granted motions for summary judgment in a pair of 2018 lawsuits, handing victory to the plaintiffs without trial. Her ruling will be kept under seal for a few weeks while the parties agree on a redacted version, she said.

The suit over the officer ban was filed by Nick Harrison, a National Guard sergeant in Washington who claimed the HIV policy violated of the equal protection clause of the Constitution by preventing him from becoming a military lawyer in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps. The Oklahoma native, who deployed to Afghanistan and Kuwait before testing positive, argued there was a disconnect between advances in HIV science and the military’s rule.

“It’s profoundly emotional to know that all service members with HIV will now be able to serve and defend our country without discrimination,” Harrison, 43, said in a statement. “I’m incredibly pleased with the court’s decision, and it’s very reassuring to hear the court recognize that these policies are irrational and based on outdated stereotypes and stigma.”

The other case was filed by two Air Force airmen who were discharged because they tested positive for HIV. The men, who are participating in the case under the pseudonyms Richard Roe and Victor Voe to protect their identities, were told they had to go because their HIV status prevented them from deploying, and because deployment was a key part of their job.

Policy shift

The challenged decisions were seen as a shift in the Air Force’s treatment of HIV-positive personnel, because service members who previously contracted the disease were generally allowed to remain and perform different duties, if necessary, or get waivers. But in both of their cases, the inability to deploy was deemed to be too detrimental to their job.

Medical science is at the center of the disputes. Harrison and plaintiffs in the related case have argued that drugs developed in 1996 to prevent the virus from replicating transformed the landscape of HIV treatment. The drugs reduce the number of copies of the virus that can be detected in a milliliter of a person’s blood to lower than 20, making it technically undetectable.

About 2,000 people with HIV are serving in the military, according to court records filed in the case. Defense Department records say that from 2011 to 2016, the Navy diagnosed 388 sailors with HIV, while the Air Force diagnosed 181 airmen.

Brought to Stripes.com by Bloomberg,, of fucking course.

Amazing, now when some poor soyboy gets drafted to fight Russia, he can have the joy of being diagnosed with that when his company commander gets red misted by an IFV and it gets in his mouth, before hearing that the suppression drug supply is cut off because its a warzone and they can barely remember to supply enough lubricant for non-fucking reasons, much less specialist drugs.

I don't expect to see this policy survive any actual war declaration, and I wonder if it'll become the gay version of getting pregnant to dodge deployment.

 

[chiobu]

The minute you realize and recognize the headlines being ripped, that's when the Law and Order franchise starts going to shit.

It was the new reboot of Law & Order and now that I think about it the previous 2 episodes were ripping off Gabby Petito and Britney Spears

 

[Random Internet Person]

It was the new reboot of Law & Order and now that I think about it the previous 2 episodes were ripping off Gabby Petito and Britney Spears

View attachment 3160261

See what I mean? Once you notice it, you can’t stop noticing how on the nose it is.

 

[he who has thus come/gone]

It was the new reboot of Law & Order and now that I think about it the previous 2 episodes were ripping off Gabby Petito and Britney Spears

View attachment 3160261

They do this all the time, which shouldn't really be a surprise since criminal cases tend to involve interesting facts. There was an entire episode that, in retrospect, was clearly based on John Money's sexual experiments on children—it involved a psychiatrist who sexually abused twins under his care, making them have sex with each other, one of whom was born a boy but was raised as a girl.

 

[chiobu]

They do this all the time, which shouldn't really be a surprise since criminal cases tend to involve interesting facts. There was an entire episode that, in retrospect, was clearly based on John Money's sexual experiments on children—it involved a psychiatrist who sexually abused twins under his care, making them have sex with each other, one of whom was born a boy but was raised as a girl.

Yup, it was the "Identity" episode: https://lawandorder.fandom.com/wiki/Identity_(SVU)

I'm just surprised that they would do that while Biden's still in office

 

[soy_king]

The Jackson shit from Graham and company was always just a bunch of useless grandstanding, full of sound and fury. It doesn't change the balance of the Court and her name—"Justice Jackson"—will be lost in the mix with the other two Justice Jacksons that have served on the bench. If she's anything like Sotomayor, she'll produce nothing of value and just be another name on the list.

At least someone like Thomas will have a sustained presence in legal academia because he has such interesting and conflicting views on important legal issues. In nearly every casebook, the editors will include his short and concise dissenting opinions when they can. I think there's a single Sotomayor opinion I've read and it was something inane involving civil procedure. (edit: lol it was Krupski v. Costa Crociere, a case about a woman who got hurt on a cruise and sued the American subsidiary of an Italian cruise company, which was a mistake, and when she amended her complaint to name the Italian company, they wanted summary judgment because they claimed it was too late even though they should have known whom she meant to sue. Yeah, Rule 15 jurisprudence—real interesting stuff. Right up there with Heller and Kelo.)

Did you ever read any case law regarding the 2d Amendment while in law school? I'm pretty sure there was no 2d Amendment related coursework at all available as part of my curricula, and I suspect my school wasn't the only one that avoided it like the plague.

 

[he who has thus come/gone]

Did you ever read any case law regarding the 2d Amendment while in law school? I'm pretty sure there was no 2d Amendment related coursework at all available as part of my curricula, and I suspect my school wasn't the only one that avoided it like the plague.

Nope. Biggest gripe with Con Law was that we weren't taught anything relevant to being a well-developed American attorney. No cases on the First Amendment. Nothing on the Second Amendment (except Heller for incorporation, and Printz for anti-commandeering constraint). The class could be summarized as: commerce clause jurisprudence (including anti-commandeering and dormant commerce clause), taxing/spending, Fourteenth Amendment SDP (gotta teach all about abortion) and Equal Protection (women, blacks, aliens, and gays, mostly). On the one hand, it's clear what they're doing with that pedagogy. On the other hand, I know con law scholars are obsessed with these things (SDP, CC, EPC, etc.) and love to teach them. The excuse was always, "First/Second Amendment are important, but there are entire classes you can take on just those subjects if you want to later."

It's no wonder so many lawyers are responsible for sinking the country when you see how and what they're taught in elite institutions.

 

[soy_king]

Nope. Biggest gripe with Con Law was that we weren't taught anything relevant to being a well-developed American attorney. No cases on the First Amendment. Nothing on the Second Amendment (except Heller for incorporation, and Printz for anti-commandeering constraint). The class could be summarized as: commerce clause jurisprudence (including anti-commandeering and dormant commerce clause), taxing/spending, Fourteenth Amendment SDP (gotta teach all about abortion) and Equal Protection (women, blacks, aliens, and gays, mostly). On the one hand, it's clear what they're doing with that pedagogy. On the other hand, I know con law scholars are obsessed with these things (SDP, CC, EPC, etc.) and love to teach them. The excuse was always, "First/Second Amendment are important, but there are entire classes you can take on just those subjects if you want to later."

It's no wonder so many lawyers are responsible for sinking the country when you see how and what they're taught in elite institutions.

Except in my elite institution there was no 2d Amendment class at all, and in my case the guy who taught 1st Amendment and actually challenged peoples views was on sabbatical, so instead we had this preening faggot teachung it who simply pushed the same bugman rhetoric.

Con law made me hate FDR for destroying this country, especially with the commerce clause and SDP. it was still super interesting, but the amount of mental gymnastics to justify these flagrant perversions of constitutional jurisprudence was nothing short of amazing

 

[he who has thus come/gone]

Con law made me hate FDR for destroying this country, especially with the commerce clause and SDP. it was still super interesting, but the amount of mental gymnastics to justify these flagrant perversions of constitutional jurisprudence was nothing short of amazing

Wickard was the downfall of our constitutional system. The fact that the government can say you can't grow your own food if that may, in the aggregate, affect the national market is insane. And, of course, all of these programs didn't actually work beyond showing the country that the government was trying to do something to help. So what were we actually left with besides the reduction of individual liberty?

 

[The Ugly One]

Hold up WTF. I guess this brings a whole new meaning to pozzload the negholes of the locals while on deployment. I cannot wait until the Jap nationalists get wind of the Marines and Airmen raping women end up with those women being HIV+. This is just ooooof.

https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2022-04-07/US-military-is-ordered-to-allow-HIV-positive-soldiers-to-become-officers-5617478.html

Spoiler: Literal Homo brought Globo

(Tribune News Service) — A federal judge issued a pair of landmark rulings barring the U.S. military from discharging soldiers who contract HIV and ordering the Pentagon to allow those who have the virus but no symptoms to become officers.

The decisions Wednesday by U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Virginia pave the way for career advancements for HIV-positive soldiers who have long been blocked by policies barring them from deploying overseas, even when their symptoms are suppressed indefinitely by highly effective drugs.

“The court ruled that the Pentagon’s policies regarding service members with HIV are not only outdated, but unlawful,” said Lambda Legal’s Scott Schoettes, who represented plaintiffs in both cases. The findings are among “the strongest judicial rulings in over two decades for people living with HIV,” he added.

The rulings could impact the Defense Department’s broader policy of barring people with HIV from enlisting. A parallel suit challenging that rule was put on hold in 2020 pending the rulings by Brinkema over deployment of HIV-positive soldiers. The judge in that case denied the Pentagon’s motion to dismiss the suit and said the broader policy appeared to have “no rational basis.”

The Defense Department didn’t immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

Brinkema’s rulings Wednesday granted motions for summary judgment in a pair of 2018 lawsuits, handing victory to the plaintiffs without trial. Her ruling will be kept under seal for a few weeks while the parties agree on a redacted version, she said.

The suit over the officer ban was filed by Nick Harrison, a National Guard sergeant in Washington who claimed the HIV policy violated of the equal protection clause of the Constitution by preventing him from becoming a military lawyer in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps. The Oklahoma native, who deployed to Afghanistan and Kuwait before testing positive, argued there was a disconnect between advances in HIV science and the military’s rule.

“It’s profoundly emotional to know that all service members with HIV will now be able to serve and defend our country without discrimination,” Harrison, 43, said in a statement. “I’m incredibly pleased with the court’s decision, and it’s very reassuring to hear the court recognize that these policies are irrational and based on outdated stereotypes and stigma.”

The other case was filed by two Air Force airmen who were discharged because they tested positive for HIV. The men, who are participating in the case under the pseudonyms Richard Roe and Victor Voe to protect their identities, were told they had to go because their HIV status prevented them from deploying, and because deployment was a key part of their job.

Policy shift

The challenged decisions were seen as a shift in the Air Force’s treatment of HIV-positive personnel, because service members who previously contracted the disease were generally allowed to remain and perform different duties, if necessary, or get waivers. But in both of their cases, the inability to deploy was deemed to be too detrimental to their job.

Medical science is at the center of the disputes. Harrison and plaintiffs in the related case have argued that drugs developed in 1996 to prevent the virus from replicating transformed the landscape of HIV treatment. The drugs reduce the number of copies of the virus that can be detected in a milliliter of a person’s blood to lower than 20, making it technically undetectable.

About 2,000 people with HIV are serving in the military, according to court records filed in the case. Defense Department records say that from 2011 to 2016, the Navy diagnosed 388 sailors with HIV, while the Air Force diagnosed 181 airmen.

Brought to Stripes.com by Bloomberg,, of fucking course.

Judges asserted power to regulate military recruitment policy a while back, and "muh strong national defense" conservatives did absolutely nothing whatsoever. In fact, the left's been politically corrupting the military for about 30 years now, and conservatives didn't even put up token resistance. When they swept power in 2000 and again in 2016, they did absolutely nothing to undo or even slow down the damage.

Wickard was the downfall of our constitutional system. The fact that the government can say you can't grow your own food if that may, in the aggregate, affect the national market is insane. And, of course, all of these programs didn't actually work beyond showing the country that the government was trying to do something to help. So what were we actually left with besides the reduction of individual liberty?

Another fun one: "Title VII Disparate Impact Liability Makes Almost Everything Presumptively Illegal"

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3482015

 

[AGreatDipAtAFairPrice]

Yo @Gehenna, what's your take on Biden repealing Title 42?

Do you think it will work out for the dems?

They are getting sky high numbers of illegals in to give them more foot soldiers, rent seek better, get birthright citizenship future voters, punish recalcitrant white and black people in suburban and rural areas with bused and "dark plane" illegals, etc. Its working like a charm. It is not a border crisis, it is not border incompetence, it is the border plan and it is being executed exceptionally well. Record numbers of illegals in America is good for the DNC and the RNC's donor class like Chamber of Commerce and the George W. Bush Insititute and the Koch Brothers who set up something called Alliance for A New Immigration Consensus. Bad for everybody else.

 

[mold]

Hold up WTF. I guess this brings a whole new meaning to pozzload the negholes of the locals while on deployment. I cannot wait until the Jap nationalists get wind of the Marines and Airmen raping women end up with those women being HIV+. This is just ooooof.

https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2022-04-07/US-military-is-ordered-to-allow-HIV-positive-soldiers-to-become-officers-5617478.html

Spoiler: Literal Homo brought Globo

(Tribune News Service) — A federal judge issued a pair of landmark rulings barring the U.S. military from discharging soldiers who contract HIV and ordering the Pentagon to allow those who have the virus but no symptoms to become officers.

The decisions Wednesday by U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Virginia pave the way for career advancements for HIV-positive soldiers who have long been blocked by policies barring them from deploying overseas, even when their symptoms are suppressed indefinitely by highly effective drugs.

“The court ruled that the Pentagon’s policies regarding service members with HIV are not only outdated, but unlawful,” said Lambda Legal’s Scott Schoettes, who represented plaintiffs in both cases. The findings are among “the strongest judicial rulings in over two decades for people living with HIV,” he added.

The rulings could impact the Defense Department’s broader policy of barring people with HIV from enlisting. A parallel suit challenging that rule was put on hold in 2020 pending the rulings by Brinkema over deployment of HIV-positive soldiers. The judge in that case denied the Pentagon’s motion to dismiss the suit and said the broader policy appeared to have “no rational basis.”

The Defense Department didn’t immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

Brinkema’s rulings Wednesday granted motions for summary judgment in a pair of 2018 lawsuits, handing victory to the plaintiffs without trial. Her ruling will be kept under seal for a few weeks while the parties agree on a redacted version, she said.

The suit over the officer ban was filed by Nick Harrison, a National Guard sergeant in Washington who claimed the HIV policy violated of the equal protection clause of the Constitution by preventing him from becoming a military lawyer in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps. The Oklahoma native, who deployed to Afghanistan and Kuwait before testing positive, argued there was a disconnect between advances in HIV science and the military’s rule.

“It’s profoundly emotional to know that all service members with HIV will now be able to serve and defend our country without discrimination,” Harrison, 43, said in a statement. “I’m incredibly pleased with the court’s decision, and it’s very reassuring to hear the court recognize that these policies are irrational and based on outdated stereotypes and stigma.”

The other case was filed by two Air Force airmen who were discharged because they tested positive for HIV. The men, who are participating in the case under the pseudonyms Richard Roe and Victor Voe to protect their identities, were told they had to go because their HIV status prevented them from deploying, and because deployment was a key part of their job.

Policy shift

The challenged decisions were seen as a shift in the Air Force’s treatment of HIV-positive personnel, because service members who previously contracted the disease were generally allowed to remain and perform different duties, if necessary, or get waivers. But in both of their cases, the inability to deploy was deemed to be too detrimental to their job.

Medical science is at the center of the disputes. Harrison and plaintiffs in the related case have argued that drugs developed in 1996 to prevent the virus from replicating transformed the landscape of HIV treatment. The drugs reduce the number of copies of the virus that can be detected in a milliliter of a person’s blood to lower than 20, making it technically undetectable.

About 2,000 people with HIV are serving in the military, according to court records filed in the case. Defense Department records say that from 2011 to 2016, the Navy diagnosed 388 sailors with HIV, while the Air Force diagnosed 181 airmen.

Brought to Stripes.com by Bloomberg,, of fucking course.

incoming huge discrimination suits

you can't be in the military if you have all kinds of relatively benign medical conditions if they require you to take regular medication

but suddenly they're ok with PREPsters?

 

[mold]

Con law made me hate FDR for destroying this country, especially with the commerce clause and SDP. it was still super interesting, but the amount of mental gymnastics to justify these flagrant perversions of constitutional jurisprudence was nothing short of amazing

hello fren <3

 

[Absolutego]

incoming huge discrimination suits

you can't be in the military if you have all kinds of relatively benign medical conditions if they require you to take regular medication

but suddenly they're ok with PREPsters?

Some angry diabetic is going to take them to task over barring him from service but letting pozzed gays and trannies serve.
And tbh if I had to sit in a foxhole with one or the other, I'd take some diabetic dealing with hyperventilation/mania instead of a tranny wanting to an hero without their estrogen.

 

[Eggplant Wizard]

So tldr: even black people can't stand each other?

Black men have been leaving in droves to date someone that actually loves them, so this is pretty much a “Let’s do it too!” article. Reality will ensue shortly.

 

[Jet Fuel Johnny]

incoming huge discrimination suits

you can't be in the military if you have all kinds of relatively benign medical conditions if they require you to take regular medication

but suddenly they're ok with PREPsters?

So, if you have diabetes or even take bipolar meds or even take PTSD meds, you can't stay and serve. If you are injured for longer than 90 days you have to go in front of a medical review board and possibly be put on the Temporary Disability Retirement Listing or even the permanent one. If you get a disease or exposed to something that wrecks your immune system, you are separated from service.

But having lifelong medical needs AND an infectious disease means you can now become an officer?

Sure, why not?

 

[Celebrate Nite]

....huh. Guess he really DID say the gamer word, it was just too subtle to notice

"I'm eager to hear... nigger hear next"