Last edited:
US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians
- Thread starter SeniorFuckFace
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2020
I remember in the ancient days of 2020 when Joe Biden tweeted violence occurring in the country was occurring on Donald Trump's watch so it was Donald Trump's fault
Wondering how Joe feels about that position now, but I doubt he remembers that tweet or that he even has a Twitter
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
That faggot also wanted police removed from Oakland schools.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2013
Still Trump's fault. Because super ultra maga 2 hyper tubro is the cause of these shootings and it'll take time to fix the issues.
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2021
I'm pretty sure we have case law establishing that the police have no obligation to protect you.
MrJokerRager
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2019
Well they also relying on blue states to make things tougher in the wake of about 3 major pending SCOTUS decisions at the local and state level.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2019
By the way it's written, it's abundantly clear (more than ever) that a staffer writes these diatribes, and often forgets that they're writing in place of the president as they write like an activist.
AGreatDipAtAFairPrice
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2019
It has been ruled again and again that police officers are not legally obligated to do anything at all to protect people, much less risk their own lives when an active shooting is happening, so this is what we get. Parkland had a bunch of cops there standing around doing nothing for an hour just like Uvalde and the do-nothing cops were sued and judges ruled that police officers had no duty to do anything at Parkland. Uvalde would be ruled the same way if the cops got sued with Parkland and dozens of cases as precedent. Police officers have no positive duty to basically do anything. That's what the state courts and supreme court have said again and again for decades.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2019
There's Warren v. District of Columbia.
TL, DR: The cop's job is to help someone, sometime. You? They can just say "Yeah, sure, We'll get to it." And then fuck off to the donut shop or whatever. No guarantee they have to help anyone in particular, Just people in general*
*Exceptions for some specific stuff, But mostly you're on your own no matter what the say they're going to do.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
>It's Time to Stop Giving Islam a Pass on Terrorism and Violence
I fucking dare TIME or any other MSM shit-hole to post an article with THAT title. They won't, of course, because they're cucked faggots who know Mudslimes would chop their heads off if they dared to do so.
>point out links between poor mental health and shootings, the fact that the police literally shat themselves and did nothing, and the fact that the Dems are politicizing this for their own gain, as they have with past mass shootings
>LOL LOOK AT THESE DUMBASS CONSPIRACY THEORISTS
Elon, please buy Plebbit next. It needs a good cleansing.
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2021
libs: You don't need guns, the police will protect you.
also libs: ...jk, the police won't protect you
also libs: ...jk, the police won't protect you
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2013
Its a place to post conspiracies, not make fun of them.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2018
Ya, was thinking about Parkland this morning, remarked on it to my walking buddy. You'd have thought after Parkland, police would have been told and trained to go after the shooter ASAP. Obviously not. Indeed, police have no duty to protect any individual. That being said, makes you wonder why Constitutional carry isn't the law of the land. Make it an even playing field for law-abiding citizens vice the baddies. The bad guys/gals seem to do what they want with near-impunity in many places. Only the law-abiding seem constrained by the law, but would say as time goes by fewer and fewer people have any faith in government, law enforcement, or the judiciary.
Just asked one of the candidates for sheriff in my county what she would do to make it easier for law-abiding citizens to get concealed weapons carry permits. CA is a "may issue" state, where county sheriffs control issuance of permits. Some county sheriffs are very good about issuing, some issue almost none, ours is fairly restrictive. Will be interested to hear her response. Already voted for someone else in the primary since she's a shitty police chief.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
The fact that they think any of what they cited are conspiracies, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, says a lot about them, n'est-ce pas?
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
I never read Atlas Shrugged, but boy, did that crabby old bat Ayn Rand nail it here:
ShortBusDriver
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2019
It's an exceptionally stupid take in this case because according to reports the Border Patrol SWAT team couldn't make entry into the class room because it was locked.The newest thing to befuddle shitlibs? Doors.
View attachment 3322958View attachment 3322959View attachment 3322960
View attachment 3322973
View attachment 3322974
Like clockwork, the Right offers to Do Something, and the Left rejects it because it's not the solution they want.
They had to wait to get a key from a school employee.
- Joined
- May 25, 2013
Yeah if there's one thing that I don't think of swat doing, it's kicking in a door.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2020
Article: https://longisland.news12.com/senate-gop-blocks-domestic-terrorism-bill-gun-policy-debate
Archive: https://archive.ph/wjnff
-------------------------------------------------
Senate GOP blocks domestic terrorism bill, gun policy debate
Democrats’ first attempt at responding to the back-to-back mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde, Texas, failed in the Senate Thursday as Republicans blocked a domestic terrorism bill that would have opened debate on difficult questions surrounding hate crimes and gun safety.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. tried to nudge Republicans into taking up a domestic terrorism bill that had cleared the House quickly last week after mass shootings at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York, and a church in Southern California targeting people of color. He said it could become the basis for negotiation.
But the vote failed nearly along party lines, raising fresh doubts about the possibility of robust debate, let alone eventual compromise, on gun safety measures.
“None of us are under any illusions this will be easy,” Schumer said ahead of the vote.
Rejection of the bill brought into sharp relief the prevalence of mass shootings in the United States, with the Senate in the unusual position of struggling to keep up with the violence - voting on legislation responding to shootings in Buffalo and California that have been overshadowed by yet another massacre, this time at a Texas elementary school that killed 19 children and two teachers.
Schumer said he will give bipartisan negotiations in the Senate about two weeks - the next 10 days, while Congress is away for a break - to try to forge a compromise bill that could pass the 50-50 Senate, where 60 votes will be needed to overcome a filibuster.
A small, bipartisan group of senators who have for years sought to negotiate legislation on guns huddled Wednesday night in the Capitol. But so far, there appeared to be little appetite among Republicans for major changes. Schumer acknowledged Democrats’ “deep skepticism” about reaching a deal.
“I’m hopeful there's growing momentum,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who is leading the negotiations. “But I’ve failed plenty of times before.”
Murphy has been working to push gun legislation since the 2012 attack at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, that killed 20 children and six educators.
The Democrats’ best hopes for a legislative partner could be Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, who ushered to law a modest bill to encourage compliance with gun purchase background checks during the Trump era, after devastating 2017 church shootings in his state.
Cornyn said he and Murphy have been in touch and have been talking over these issues for a long time to try to and find compromise. “Maybe this is an impetus,” he said of the Uvalde attack.
Still, Cornyn cautioned that “restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens is not going to make our communities or our country any safer.
Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., told reporters that a bill he has been working on for the past decade to expand background checks for firearm sales still does not have enough support to advance in the Senate. “I couldn’t count 60 at this point,” he said, “but we’ll get there.”
That seems increasingly unlikely.
In one sign of GOP resistance to shifting the gun policy debate, several Republican senators came to the floor Thursday to discus other topics -- immigration, border security and, in the case of Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, the nation’s struggle with inflation.
The domestic terrorism bill that failed Thursday dates back to 2017, when Rep. Brad Schneider, D-Ill., first proposed it after mass shootings in Las Vegas and Southerland Springs, Texas.
The House passed a similar measure by a voice vote in 2020, only to have it languish in the Senate. Since then, Republicans have turned against the legislation, with only one GOP lawmaker supporting passage in the House last week.
“What had broad bipartisan support two years ago, because of the political climate we find ourselves in ... or to be more specific, the political climate Republicans find themselves in, we’re not able to stand up against domestic terrorism,” Schneider, who came into office in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting, told The Associated Press.
Republicans say the bill doesn’t place enough emphasis on combating domestic terrorism committed by groups on the far left. Under the bill, agencies would be required to produce a joint report every six months that assesses and quantifies domestic terrorism threats nationally, including threats posed by white supremacists and neo-Nazi groups.
Proponents say the bill will fill the gaps in intelligence-sharing among the Justice Department, Department of Homeland Security and the FBI so that officials can better track and respond to the growing threat of white extremist terrorism.
These efforts would focus on the spread of racist ideology online like replacement theory, which investigators say motivated an 18-year-old white gunman to drive three hours to carry out a racist, livestreamed shooting rampage two weeks ago in a crowded supermarket in Buffalo. Or the animus against Taiwanese parishioners at a church in Laguna Woods, California, that led to the shooting death the following day of one man and the wounding of five others.
While Schneider acknowledged that his legislation may not have stopped those attacks, he said it would ensure that those federal agencies work together to better identify, predict and stop threats.
Under current law, the three federal agencies already work to investigate, prevent and prosecute acts of domestic terrorism. But the bill would require each agency to open offices specifically dedicated to those tasks and create an interagency task force to combat the infiltration of white supremacy in the military.
GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky slammed that aspect of the bill, calling it an "insult to every police officer in this country,” and an “insult to everyone in our armed services.”
The proposal would stop short of creating new federal statutes needed to prosecute domestic terrorism in the same way the U.S. prosecutes attacks inspired by foreign groups. It would not create new criminal offenses or new lists of designated domestic terrorist groups. And it would also not give law enforcement additional investigative powers.
But supporters say it would be an important toward helping the government broadly assess, for the first time, the volume of domestic terrorist attacks and threats in the U.S.
“This alone is not going to do much to actually directly combat the threat of domestic terrorism but to me, this is like step one,” said Mary McCord, who served as a senior Justice Department national security official in the Obama administration and into the early Trump era.
-------------------------------------------------
Archive: https://archive.ph/wjnff
-------------------------------------------------
Senate GOP blocks domestic terrorism bill, gun policy debate
Democrats’ first attempt at responding to the back-to-back mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde, Texas, failed in the Senate Thursday as Republicans blocked a domestic terrorism bill that would have opened debate on difficult questions surrounding hate crimes and gun safety.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. tried to nudge Republicans into taking up a domestic terrorism bill that had cleared the House quickly last week after mass shootings at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York, and a church in Southern California targeting people of color. He said it could become the basis for negotiation.
But the vote failed nearly along party lines, raising fresh doubts about the possibility of robust debate, let alone eventual compromise, on gun safety measures.
“None of us are under any illusions this will be easy,” Schumer said ahead of the vote.
Rejection of the bill brought into sharp relief the prevalence of mass shootings in the United States, with the Senate in the unusual position of struggling to keep up with the violence - voting on legislation responding to shootings in Buffalo and California that have been overshadowed by yet another massacre, this time at a Texas elementary school that killed 19 children and two teachers.
Schumer said he will give bipartisan negotiations in the Senate about two weeks - the next 10 days, while Congress is away for a break - to try to forge a compromise bill that could pass the 50-50 Senate, where 60 votes will be needed to overcome a filibuster.
A small, bipartisan group of senators who have for years sought to negotiate legislation on guns huddled Wednesday night in the Capitol. But so far, there appeared to be little appetite among Republicans for major changes. Schumer acknowledged Democrats’ “deep skepticism” about reaching a deal.
“I’m hopeful there's growing momentum,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who is leading the negotiations. “But I’ve failed plenty of times before.”
Murphy has been working to push gun legislation since the 2012 attack at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, that killed 20 children and six educators.
The Democrats’ best hopes for a legislative partner could be Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, who ushered to law a modest bill to encourage compliance with gun purchase background checks during the Trump era, after devastating 2017 church shootings in his state.
Cornyn said he and Murphy have been in touch and have been talking over these issues for a long time to try to and find compromise. “Maybe this is an impetus,” he said of the Uvalde attack.
Still, Cornyn cautioned that “restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens is not going to make our communities or our country any safer.
Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., told reporters that a bill he has been working on for the past decade to expand background checks for firearm sales still does not have enough support to advance in the Senate. “I couldn’t count 60 at this point,” he said, “but we’ll get there.”
That seems increasingly unlikely.
In one sign of GOP resistance to shifting the gun policy debate, several Republican senators came to the floor Thursday to discus other topics -- immigration, border security and, in the case of Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, the nation’s struggle with inflation.
The domestic terrorism bill that failed Thursday dates back to 2017, when Rep. Brad Schneider, D-Ill., first proposed it after mass shootings in Las Vegas and Southerland Springs, Texas.
The House passed a similar measure by a voice vote in 2020, only to have it languish in the Senate. Since then, Republicans have turned against the legislation, with only one GOP lawmaker supporting passage in the House last week.
“What had broad bipartisan support two years ago, because of the political climate we find ourselves in ... or to be more specific, the political climate Republicans find themselves in, we’re not able to stand up against domestic terrorism,” Schneider, who came into office in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting, told The Associated Press.
Republicans say the bill doesn’t place enough emphasis on combating domestic terrorism committed by groups on the far left. Under the bill, agencies would be required to produce a joint report every six months that assesses and quantifies domestic terrorism threats nationally, including threats posed by white supremacists and neo-Nazi groups.
Proponents say the bill will fill the gaps in intelligence-sharing among the Justice Department, Department of Homeland Security and the FBI so that officials can better track and respond to the growing threat of white extremist terrorism.
These efforts would focus on the spread of racist ideology online like replacement theory, which investigators say motivated an 18-year-old white gunman to drive three hours to carry out a racist, livestreamed shooting rampage two weeks ago in a crowded supermarket in Buffalo. Or the animus against Taiwanese parishioners at a church in Laguna Woods, California, that led to the shooting death the following day of one man and the wounding of five others.
While Schneider acknowledged that his legislation may not have stopped those attacks, he said it would ensure that those federal agencies work together to better identify, predict and stop threats.
Under current law, the three federal agencies already work to investigate, prevent and prosecute acts of domestic terrorism. But the bill would require each agency to open offices specifically dedicated to those tasks and create an interagency task force to combat the infiltration of white supremacy in the military.
GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky slammed that aspect of the bill, calling it an "insult to every police officer in this country,” and an “insult to everyone in our armed services.”
The proposal would stop short of creating new federal statutes needed to prosecute domestic terrorism in the same way the U.S. prosecutes attacks inspired by foreign groups. It would not create new criminal offenses or new lists of designated domestic terrorist groups. And it would also not give law enforcement additional investigative powers.
But supporters say it would be an important toward helping the government broadly assess, for the first time, the volume of domestic terrorist attacks and threats in the U.S.
“This alone is not going to do much to actually directly combat the threat of domestic terrorism but to me, this is like step one,” said Mary McCord, who served as a senior Justice Department national security official in the Obama administration and into the early Trump era.
-------------------------------------------------
Garth
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2018
It's a long read, but a worthwhile one. If you need anymore convincing do a cursory search of shitlib reactions to the book (particularly in academia). It is generally reviled.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2019
Of course, though that sub is one of the more Right-leaning places on Reddit, despite how oxymoronic that sounds
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
Rest in shit, Patriot Act 2.0. Now you'll have to work harder to continue your NKVDification.
- Status