SilentSam Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 (edited) 1 hour ago, SilentSam said: Probably thinks it’s ok because he paid for it , The prick needs to be on the RuZ frontline. Republicans: “Release the Epstein list!” Also Republicans: Never question why Donald Trump seems to be so connected to Epstein and those who gave aide to him or covered for him? Not only was Donald Trump in Epstein’s “black book” and flight logs multiple times, but he also wished Ghislaine Maxwell “well,” and had strong ties to these people. - Alan Dershowitz - Trump’s Impeachment Attorney - Was accused of sexual misconduct by Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein’s victims. She claimed she was forced to have sex with Dershowitz. Dershowitz went on to represent Epstein, as he did with Trump, representing Trump in his impeachment, and arguing for him in the media. It’s also bizarre that Dershowitz is a registered Democrat, but suddenly began parroting many of Trump’s political talking points when Trump become president. - Alexander Acosta - Trump’s Labor Secretary - This is the man who negotiated the ridiculous sweetheart deal with Epstein in Florida. This deal took place mostly in secret and meant that Epstein would not face any charges related to sex trafficking underaged girls. It granted Epstein and his co-conspirators immunity from federal prosecution. Trump hired Acosta to be his Labor Secretary when he was elected President. - Steve Bannon - Former Trump Chief Strategist - He had business deals with Epstein and he was involved in trying to improve Epstein’s public image after Epstein was accused of sex trafficking underage girls. Republicans seem to forget this. Trump remains close to Bannon today. - Roger Stone - Long-time Trump Confidant and Advisor - Stone has publicly defended Epstein and downplayed the severity of the allegations against him. Again, Republicans never seem to mention this. - George Nader - Involved informally in the 2016 Trump Campaign - He has been implicated in legal cases involving Epstein and has been convicted of possessing child pornography. - William Barr - Trump’s Attorney General - Barr has no known direct connections to Epstein, but his father Donald Barr hired Epstein as a mathematics and physics teacher in the 70s, despite Epstein not being qualified for the position. People thought it was very odd at the time, and still do. Don't forget, he was also named as a co-defendant, with Epstein, in a rape case involving a 13 year old girl. A case that was corroborated by the witness whose job it was to find girls for Epstein to exploit. Every accusation is a confession. Edited June 17 by JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 Neither one of these should be allowed to run. The US needs some fresh blood. Biden freezes on stage at fundraiser before Obama comes to his rescue (msn.com) Biden freezes on stage at fundraiser before Obama comes to his rescue©AP Polling has shown that Biden's age has been one of the biggest concerns for voters this election season. He is already the oldest president to have ever served in office. On Saturday, Trump gave remarks in Detroit where he challenged Biden to a cognitive test. But then the 78-year-old ex-president made a series of gaffes as well. The pair are set to face-off in a highly anticipated first debate in less than two weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post RupertKBD Posted June 17 Popular Post Share Posted June 17 (edited) Not sure how many folks here watched Last Week Tonight with john Oliver last night, but he did a deep dive into Project 2025, which, for those unfamiliar is a conservative coalition of organizations that are putting together an action plan for the Trump administration, should he win in November. I know there are people here who are confident that the "checks and balances" within the US political system will keep Trump from accomplishing the worst items on his agenda, but the job of Project 2025 is to find workarounds for that.... I recommend everyone watch the LWT episode, but this article in the Guardian gives you a taste: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/article/2024/jun/17/john-oliver-trump-second-term Here's the Wiki page on Project 2025: Quote Project 2025 envisions widespread changes across the government, particularly economic and social policies and the role of the federal government and its agencies. The plan proposes slashing funding for the Department of Justice (DOJ), dismantling the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS), sharply reducing environmental and climate change regulations to favor fossil fuel production, eliminating the Department of Commerce, and ending the independence of federal agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC).[8][9] The blueprint seeks to institute tax cuts,[10] though its writers disagree on the wisdom of protectionism.[11] Project 2025 recommends abolishing the Department of Education, whose programs would be either transferred to other agencies, or terminated.[12][13] Funding for climate research would be cut while the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would be reformed along conservative principles.[14][15] The Project urges government to explicitly reject abortion as health care[16][17] and eliminate the Affordable Care Act's coverage of emergency contraception.[18] The Project seeks to infuse the government with elements of Christianity.[19][20] It proposes criminalizing pornography,[21] removing legal protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,[21][22] and terminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs,[4][22] as well as affirmative action.[23] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025 If you're still blase' about the potential damage a second Trump term could do to the US and the world, then I don't know what else to say.... Edited June 17 by RupertKBD 1 1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 (edited) 1 hour ago, Heretic said: Neither one of these should be allowed to run. The US needs some fresh blood. Biden freezes on stage at fundraiser before Obama comes to his rescue (msn.com) Biden freezes on stage at fundraiser before Obama comes to his rescue©AP Polling has shown that Biden's age has been one of the biggest concerns for voters this election season. He is already the oldest president to have ever served in office. On Saturday, Trump gave remarks in Detroit where he challenged Biden to a cognitive test. But then the 78-year-old ex-president made a series of gaffes as well. The pair are set to face-off in a highly anticipated first debate in less than two weeks. Sure, but just because you like neither, does that really justify being alright with Trump back in office? Besides, there have been a lot of misleading articles lately purposely leaving out context so that people think Biden "messed up." There were articles about Biden recently walking randomly into a field claiming he did it for no reason... except the image was cropped and he was actually at a parachute demonstration and walking over to meet with the parachutists. This is a time in the election where it's really important to try and look for the full picture of things and not just believe the first thing you read. If you believe everything you see and read, you just end up no more than a sheep being flocked into a heard. Edited June 17 by The Lock 1 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 Just now, The Lock said: Sure, but just because you like neither, does that really justify being alright with Trump back in office? Besides, there have been a lot of misleading articles lately purposely leaving out context so that people think Biden "messed up." Biden has proven that he's capable of not destroying the country. Trump and then rest of the vermin promoting Project 2025 have proven that they don't think the Nazis committed enough crimes against humanity. It's a pretty easy choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post nuckin_futz Posted June 17 Popular Post Share Posted June 17 1 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 2 hours ago, The Lock said: Sure, but just because you like neither, does that really justify being alright with Trump back in office? Besides, there have been a lot of misleading articles lately purposely leaving out context so that people think Biden "messed up." There were articles about Biden recently walking randomly into a field claiming he did it for no reason... except the image was cropped and he was actually at a parachute demonstration and walking over to meet with the parachutists. This is a time in the election where it's really important to try and look for the full picture of things and not just believe the first thing you read. If you believe everything you see and read, you just end up no more than a sheep being flocked into a heard. Like above? Where did I say I was all right with Trump being in office? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Heretic said: Like above? Where did I say I was all right with Trump being in office? Where did I say you were all right with Trump being in office? I asked if liking neither justifies being alright with Trump back in office. Sure, I used the word "you" in there, but only for the part of liking neither. Edited June 17 by The Lock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted June 17 Author Share Posted June 17 31 minutes ago, Heretic said: Like above? Where did I say I was all right with Trump being in office? 2 minutes ago, The Lock said: Where did I say you were all right with Trump being in office? Fellas, just a misunderstanding. No need to escalate a misunderstanding. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 Just now, Sharpshooter said: Fellas, just a misunderstanding. No need to escalate a misunderstanding. I edited my post to clarify the situation to make sure there'd be no misunderstanding before you posted this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted June 17 Author Share Posted June 17 3 minutes ago, The Lock said: I edited my post to clarify the situation to make sure there'd be no misunderstanding before you posted this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrefan1 Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 (edited) SCOTUS Justice Sotomayor, a liberal on the court, has possibly, maybe mistakenly, all but ensured that any AR-15 bans are now unconstitutional and will be decided as such in federal courts. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/sotomayors-mistake/ Edited June 18 by Sabrefan1 replaced "but" with "maybe" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted June 18 Author Share Posted June 18 11 minutes ago, Sabrefan1 said: SCOTUS Justice Sotomayor, a liberal on the court, has possibly, but mistakenly, all but ensured that any AR-15 bans are now unconstitutional and will be decided as such in federal courts. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/sotomayors-mistake/ You know very well that Justice Sotomayor is granted the ability to expound on the position. Her dissent language doesn’t make it ‘force dejour’. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 14 minutes ago, Sabrefan1 said: SCOTUS Justice Sotomayor, a liberal on the court, has possibly, but mistakenly, all but ensured that any AR-15 bans are now unconstitutional and will be decided as such in federal courts. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/sotomayors-mistake/ Not too sure why anyone outside of the military and (maybe?) the police needs a firearm like this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 11 minutes ago, Alflives said: Not too sure why anyone outside of the military and (maybe?) the police needs a firearm like this? Because Jesus and the framers of the Constitution got together and decided American men need something to make their dicks seem bigger... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 Just now, RupertKBD said: Because Jesus and the framers of the Constitution got together and decided American men need something to make their dicks seem bigger... farmer Alf grew up with firearms. On the farm they were a tool. We needed them. Condo Alf knows he doesn’t need them. So doesn’t have them anymore. Gave them all to the RCMP to get rid of when we sold the farm. I will never understand the mindset where common folk think they need firearms. And especially hand guns and semi auto rifles like the AR-15. Can someone please explain why common folk need these firearms? Oh yes. I forgot. It’s for home defence and popping balloons. Totally friggin’ insane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 6 hours ago, RupertKBD said: Not sure how many folks here watched Last Week Tonight with john Oliver last night, but he did a deep dive into Project 2025, which, for those unfamiliar is a conservative coalition of organizations that are putting together an action plan for the Trump administration, should he win in November. I know there are people here who are confident that the "checks and balances" within the US political system will keep Trump from accomplishing the worst items on his agenda, but the job of Project 2025 is to find workarounds for that.... I recommend everyone watch the LWT episode, but this article in the Guardian gives you a taste: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/article/2024/jun/17/john-oliver-trump-second-term Here's the Wiki page on Project 2025: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025 If you're still blase' about the potential damage a second Trump term could do to the US and the world, then I don't know what else to say.... Trump is evil. Hope to goodness the American voters choose Biden. IMHAO the world comes to a tragic end if Trump wins potus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 37 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said: You know very well that Justice Sotomayor is granted the ability to expound on the position. Her dissent language doesn’t make it ‘force dejour’. "Mmmm...that sounds good. I'll have that." - Lloyd Christmas 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrefan1 Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 (edited) 1 hour ago, Sharpshooter said: You know very well that Justice Sotomayor is granted the ability to expound on the position. Her dissent language doesn’t make it ‘force dejour’. We can know all that we want, it was a dissent on bump stocks. AR-15's weren't the issue. That word was brought up unsolicited in the opinion. I'm just reporting what more than one news outlet has reported. This made the news a few days ago. She has yet to refute the wording like I thought that she would. Until she does, it stands on the record as such. I'm not yet willing to believe her wording was intentional, but if it wasn't, it will be taken as such until she refutes it in a official memorandum. She has not done so. Edited June 18 by Sabrefan1 added "word" to be more clear of my meaning 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 2 minutes ago, Sabrefan1 said: We can know all that we want, it was a dissent on bump stocks. AR-15's weren't the issue. That was brought up unsolicited in the opinion. I'm just reporting what more than one news outlet has reported. This made the news a few days ago. She has yet to refute the wording like I thought that she would. Until she does, it stands on the record as such. I'm not yet willing to believe her wording was intentional, but if it wasn't, it will be taken as such until she refutes it in an official memorandum. She has not done so. Considering her position doesn’t she have a staff of very smart lawyers editing (or writing) her responses? How did this get published as it stands? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 The second amendment was ratified 56 years before the invention of the cartridge. Perhaps it's worth another look. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 (edited) IMHO, neither on should be president... Edited June 18 by Heretic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrefan1 Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 43 minutes ago, Alflives said: Not too sure why anyone outside of the military and (maybe?) the police needs a firearm like this? The AR-15 is a dressed up semi-automatic rifle with a gun grip. Basically Armalite, the original manufacturer, wanted to let people play out their soldier fantasies. It's ammo is fast but it's a smallish caliber (.223). There are higher caliber hunting rifles that would do way more damage to a person. The military uses/used to use the M16, that the AR-15 is made to look like. The M16 can be made to fire as an automatic weapon. The thing that sucks about the AR-15 is that it uses cartridges. That in my opinion is what makes it dangerous. Tape 3 extended cartridges together and you can do a lot of damage, very quickly. Limiting cartridges has been found to be unconstitutional though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrefan1 Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 14 minutes ago, Alflives said: Considering her position doesn’t she have a staff of very smart lawyers editing (or writing) her responses? How did this get published as it stands? Yes she does, and I don't know. I thought that it was going to be corrected quickly by her office. That's why I waited a few days to post it. She still may correct it, but the longer it goes, the less likely it is that she and her assistants made a mistake. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.