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

Status
Not open for further replies.
BidenGIF.gif
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Informative
Reactions: ThisIsGonnaBeGood, The Shredder, ActualCracker and 120 others
Click to expand...
Betonhaus said:
If we keep showing libtards how they have been lied to, there's a chance that it'll eventually click. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.
Click to expand...

They know. We're past the point of civil, rational discussion now. It was never a matter of telling them the truth; they fucking know they're being lied to. But people who are religious fanatics don't care if they've been lied to. All they care about is whether or not they get to peg your children and how often, until your children are bleeding and dead. Because they think it's funny and it's the only way they can even feel anything anymore.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Feels
  • Like
Reactions: Yamma Damma, Chuckwagon, Molly Millions and 9 others
US Border patrol encounters illegal migrant. He says the NGO will tell him where to go. Through the phone when he gets inside the US. From Turkey.




Unaccompanied Minor. She says she was in the "Bodega" in Mexico three days. Child trafficking into the US

 
Last edited:
  • Dumb
  • Like
  • Autistic
Reactions: Toji Suzuhara, Fatniggo1488, madethistocomment and 6 others
Betonhaus said:
And I'm supposed to memorize every Crooked Clinton quote?
Click to expand...

"What difference, at this point, does it make?" is a pretty famous Clinton quote. She was brushing off the deaths of American servicemen in Benghazi, like it just didn't fucking matter that people died because of her, at best, laziness. She was smirking and mocking her questioners the entire time, not even clever enough to realize that she should at least pretend like the death of the ambassador and the soldiers bothered her a tiny bit.
 
  • Like
  • Feels
  • Winner
Reactions: like_shutup_&_drive_scoob, Local Fed, madethistocomment and 27 others
dustbuster said:
The court system has made it ILLEGAL to enact the crime reformes Giullianni and his breed used to make NYC and other murder capitols safe after the hell that was the 1970's.

The current standard, thanks to "disparate impact" and "racial profiling" rulings compounding, is that if a crime is committed primarily by non-whites, it is literally illegal to enforce the law.

Nobody is re-litigating this, and until the supreme court overturns this dysfunction, there is zero point in running a "tough on crime" campaign that will just be blocked by court order.

It's fucking Lysenkoist levels of stupid to say you can't target policies against violent crime toward the demographic responsible for upwards of 70% of violent crime.
We don't demand exterminators look in the roof eaves for ant nests, or underground for avian vermin like pigeons.

Now, we add do that "disparate impact", which basically says that even if you do the above stupidity, and STILL end up arresting more niggers than white people, you're still liable for racism and must stop.

Gee, I wonder why anyone actually out to solve major crime issues in cities refuse to run?!
Click to expand...

Your use of “Lysenkoist“ described this perfectly. Yeah a legal reform from hell would be needed to turn this mess over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: babadook, The Nothingness, Vyse Inglebard and 5 others
dustbuster said:
Who said he had to use the insurrection act?
Rolling in troops to restore order does not require the insurrection act.
Heck, water cannons and rubber ammo rather than live would have gotten it done.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect. The President has to use the insurrection act because he would have to use the National Guard. It is in fact illegal to use the US military on US civilians. Also, rubber bullets and water cannons can still kill, they just require the targets to be less than normal levels of fitness or to land a decent headshot.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Yamma Damma and The Nothingness

5 states where the abortion fight is likely to play out next​

A handful of purple and red states are poised to be the next battlegrounds in the abortion rights fight after advocates won a major victory in Ohio this month.

Ohioans passed a proposed constitutional amendment earlier this month that enshrines abortion rights protections — seen as a major feat in a state that has trended increasingly red in recent years.

Abortion rights advocates are now looking to amend state constitutions in states such as Nevada, Arizona and Florida in an effort to establish or strengthen existing abortion protections — an effort that could energize Democrats’ base of voters in a critical presidential election year.
Here are five states where the abortion fight is likely to play out next:

Nevada​

Abortion access is protected through the first 24 weeks of pregnancy in the Silver State, with exceptions afterward “if the physician has reasonable cause to believe that an abortion currently is necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman,” according to Nevada law.

Nevadans approved a referendum in 1990 that backed the state’s existing abortion protections, with the referendum noting that the state’s laws could only be changed “by a direct vote of the people.”

But abortion rights advocates are looking to put the issue in front of voters again, this time by enshrining them in the state constitution. The proposed constitutional amendment reads, “Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including, without limitation, prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, vasectomy, tubal ligation, abortion, abortion care, management of a miscarriage and infertility care.”

The amendment protects abortion access up until fetal viability, except when a provider believes it’s necessary to protect “the life or physical or mental health” of the patient. It also bans the state from punishing a patient from receiving an abortion or a health care provider or someone who assists that patient in obtaining an abortion.

June 26 is the deadline for advocates to get the 103,000 signatures from voters needed for it to make the 2024 ballot. The measure will need to be reapproved by voters again in 2026 before it’s implemented.

Arizona​

A coalition in the Grand Canyon State rolled out a campaign in August to get their own abortion rights measure on the ballot in 2024.

The proposed constitutional amendment would establish that “every individual has a fundamental right to abortion” and protects abortion access up until fetal viability. The amendment notes that the state can’t bar or interfere with an abortion after fetal viability “that, in the good faith judgement of a treating health care professional, is necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.”

Similar to the proposed constitutional amendment in Nevada, the Arizona ballot measure would also bar the state from punishing someone in helping a patient receive an abortion.

In order for the measure to come before voters next November, the group will need to collect 383,923 signatures before July 3, 2024.
Abortion is currently legal in the state until 15 weeks of pregnancy as the Arizona Supreme Court weighs an 1864 abortion law, which bans nearly all abortions except for cases in which the life of the patient is at risk.

Doctors could go to jail for between two and five years if they illegally perform an abortion under the 1864 law.

The proposed constitutional amendments in Nevada and Arizona are particularly noteworthy given those states are key battlegrounds in the presidential race. Abortion ballot measures could help enthuse Democrats’ voting base as the 2024 election increasingly looks like a rematch between President Biden and former President Trump, with recent polling showing Trump performing well against Biden in multiple swing states.

Florida​

The Sunshine State became a focal point in the abortion rights fight this year after 2024 GOP presidential contender and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a six-week abortion ban. However, that ban is on hold as the Florida Supreme Court separately weighs a 15-week abortion ban, which is currently where abortion access stands in the state.

Just weeks after DeSantis signed the six-week abortion ban, abortion rights advocates launched an initiative to place a measure before voters next year seeking to protect abortion access in the state.

The constitutional amendment, if passed, says that “no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.”

According to Floridians Protecting Freedom, which is organizing the ballot measure push, they need to submit 891,523 signatures by Feb. 1, 2024. The group noted in mid-October that 402,082 signatures had been verified so far.

Should they clear that hurdle, it still needs to clear a 60 percent voter threshold once it reaches the ballot.

But state Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) has appealed to the state Supreme Court to not have the ballot measure come before voters. In one of her briefs, Moody alleged that abortion rights advocates “proposed an amendment to the Florida Constitution using a misleading ballot summary to trick voters into freezing in place a legal framework that conceals the amendment’s potentially sweeping legal effects” and argued it was an “effort to hoodwink the Florida electorate.”

Missouri​

Two different groups are looking to put the issue of abortion on the ballot next year to combat Missouri’s current law, which bans abortion except in cases of medical emergency.

In March, Missourians for Constitutional Freedom filed 11 different constitutional amendments, all of which are different in some of the language they use but which all use the phrase “the Government shall not deny or infringe upon a person’s fundamental right to reproductive freedom.” Some of the petitions outline when the General Assembly could regulate abortion access; some explicitly say “after 24 weeks of gestation;” while another says up until “fetal viability.”

Another group, the Missouri Women and Family Research Fund, has also submitted multiple petitions that would offer different amendments to the state constitution. One version states there should be exceptions for “rape or sexual assault, incest, fatal fetal abnormality, or risk to the health or safety of the female seeking an abortion” before fetal viability, though another version does not stipulate specific limits in a patient’s pregnancy in those exceptions.

A separate version also notes that “the state shall not deny or interfere with the fundamental right to choose to have an abortion through” 12 weeks of pregnancy.

Groups have until early May to garner the more than 171,000 signatures needed to get the measure in front of voters.

A summary from Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (R) depicted Missourians for Constitutional Freedom’s initiative as allowing for “dangerous, unregulated, and unrestricted abortions, from conception to live birth, without requiring a medical license or potentially being subject to medical malpractice,” according to The Associated Press.

But Ashcroft, who is running for governor next year, suffered several defeats in court, with his summaries being changed by a judge, and the state Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal over the wording, according to St. Louis Public Radio.

South Dakota​

South Dakota might not be the first state that comes to mind amid the ongoing fight over abortion access, but the group Dakotans for Health is looking to change that in 2024.

The group is collecting signatures for a proposed constitutional amendment that says, “before the end of the first trimester, the State may not regulate a pregnant woman’s abortion decision and its effectuation.”

During the second trimester, “the State may regulate the pregnant woman’s abortion decision and its effectuation only in ways that are reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman,” and that “after the end of the second trimester, the State may regulate or prohibit abortion, except when abortion is necessary, in the medical judgment of the woman’s physician, to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman.”

Abortion is nearly banned in the state, with only an exception for the life of the mother. The group has until May 7, 2024, to gather 35,017 signatures in order to get the measure before voters.
Click to expand...

Article Link
 
  • Informative
Reactions: babadook, Backpack Knight, The Nothingness and 1 other person
HTTP Error 404 said:
Hearing there was new evidence that Saint Floyd the Breathless absolutely did die of Fentanyl and the coroner hid it? Is that confirmed? Trying to find any data on it results in agitprop from big tech.
Click to expand...
not "new". The autopsy literally confirmed as much.
https://ghostarchive.org/archive/RNfe4
“The estimated lethal dose of fentanyl in humans is 2 mg. The recommended serum concentration for analgesia is 1–2 ng/ml and for anaesthesia it is 10–20 ng/ml. Blood concentrations of approximately 7 ng/ml or greater have been associated with fatalities where poly-substance use was involved.”
Click to expand...
Toxicology Findings

Blood samples collected at 9:00 p.m. on May 25th, before Floyd died, tested positive for the following, the autopsy report states. (Quantities are given for those who are medically inclined.)

  • Fentanyl 11 ng/mL
  • Norfentanyl 5.6 ng/mL
  • 4-ANPP 0.65 ng/mL
  • Methamphetamine 19 ng/mL
  • Various types of THC: 11-Hydroxy Delta-9 THC 1.2 ng/mL; Delta-9 Carboxy THC 42 ng/mL; Delta-9 THC 2.9 ng/mL
  • Cotinine positive
  • Caffeine positive
Click to expand...
The autopsy also shows no injury or bruising around the neck. There was also zero bleeding within the whites of his eyes (petechiae) ruling out asphyxiation.
The district attorney's charging documents (attached PDF) in the case stated, "The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation,"
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • Like
  • Informative
  • Winner
Reactions: babadook, Dracula's Spirit Animal, duckbutter&toejamsandwich and 18 others
Introvertigo said:
Yep that and this:


View attachment 5520717

Click to expand...
Recap: the boys in blue that chose to enforce masks, vaccines to enter businesses, ignored the blm burning cities, arrested anyone defending themselves from the blm/antifa crowd, enforced closing businesses and all the other red flag gun laws and endless other bullshit, are suffering consequences of the state they empower?

Oh no... anyways.
 
  • Like
  • Dumb
Reactions: Lady Round Buns, duckbutter&toejamsandwich, XYZpdq Jr. and 9 others
The Ugly One said:
"What difference, at this point, does it make?" is a pretty famous Clinton quote. She was brushing off the deaths of American servicemen in Benghazi, like it just didn't fucking matter that people died because of her, at best, laziness. She was smirking and mocking her questioners the entire time, not even clever enough to realize that she should at least pretend like the death of the ambassador and the soldiers bothered her a tiny bit.
Click to expand...
Also the death of a Glownigger/SA Goon/Eve Online Grand Admiral.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Brahma, Vecr, BULLY HUNTER_78 and 3 others
The George Santos Saga continues.

Congress Full of 'Felons,' Lawmakers 'Screw' Lobbyists, George Santos Says​

Embattled Representative George Santos, a New York Republican, called other members of Congress "felons" who are in bed with lobbyists in a Friday interview about the recent House Ethics Committee report against him.

Santos has long been dogged by reports that he falsified aspects of his personal history while running for office since being elected to Congress in 2022, and by further accusations that he mishandled campaign funds. On November 16, the House Ethics Committee released its report on the freshman congressman, concluding after a 10-month investigation that there is "substantial" evidence that Santos broke federal laws by improperly utilizing campaign funds, including using them on Sephora, Botox, and OnlyFans purchases, among others alleged infractions. Santos maintains his innocence and has pleaded not guilty to charges related to a criminal investigation into his alleged fraud.

In the wake of the report's release, Santos announced that he would not be seeking reelection to represent New York's 3rd Congressional District in 2024, presenting a new opportunity for Democrats to potentially retake the House. He may depart office sooner than that, however, as a new motion to expel him from Congress is being considered and, given the ethics report against him, may prove successful where past efforts have not.

On Friday evening, Santos was interviewed by conservative podcast host Monica Matthews on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, where he made his most extensive comments yet about the report, dismissing its findings and lashing out against the alleged misdeeds of his congressional colleagues.

"It's flawed. It was designed to smear me," Santos said about the report. "It was designed to force me out of my seat. That is what the intention of this report was. This report wasn't a finding of facts."

He later added: "Within the ranks of the United States Congress, there's felons galore, there's people with all sorts of sheisty backgrounds, and all of a sudden, George Santos is the Mary Magdalene of the United States Congress. I don't want to work with a bunch of hypocrites. It's gross. I have colleagues who are more worried about getting drunk every night with the next lobbyists that they're going to screw and pretend like none of us know what's going on and sell off the American people."

The newest motion to expel Santos from the House was filed by Representative Michael Guest, a Mississippi Republican and the chair of the House Ethics Committee, but has not been put on the House floor schedule, and would require a member to notice the motion as privileged in order for it to do so.

During the Friday interview, Santos said Guest should "be a man and stop being a p****," urging him to take the steps necessary to get the motion moving forward.

Newsweek reached out to Guest's office via email for comment.
Click to expand...

Article Link
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Yamma Damma, Vecr, BULLY HUNTER_78 and 3 others
Eggplant Wizard said:
This is incorrect. The President has to use the insurrection act because he would have to use the National Guard. It is in fact illegal to use the US military on US civilians. Also, rubber bullets and water cannons can still kill, they just require the targets to be less than normal levels of fitness or to land a decent headshot.
Click to expand...

Remember, protesting a fraudulent vote is an insurrection. Trying to break down the White House fence and storm the grounds is free speech. Storming the Senate offices to try and stop a judicial confirmation is free speech. Organizing a massive interstate network of terror cells to execute coordinated attacks on federal facilities and commercial real estate is free speech. Thank goodness the Republicans stood against Trump's authoritarian fascism and warned him to not do anything to stop free speech or face removal from office.

Vyse Inglebard said:
The autopsy also shows no injury or bruising around the neck. There was also zero bleeding within the whites of his eyes (petechiae) ruling out asphyxiation.
Click to expand...

IIRC the original autopsy report didn't rule asphyxiation. It just declared "homicide" and didn't actually say how St George Floyd, Greatest Man Who Ever Lived, died. It was just like "uhhhhh yeah lots of drugs in his system and uhhhhhh he definitely died and uhhhhh idk exactly how but uhhhhh it was Derek Chauvin's fault." The autopsy made it clear that the whole thing was a setup, and Chauvin had been appointed as the sacrificial lamb for the nation's sins.
 
  • Feels
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: babadook, Irrational Exuberance, duckbutter&toejamsandwich and 17 others
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back