You have Joe Biden advocating for Republican ideas and ideals and we are all clamoring to vote for him. We detest Regan but we proudly defend Clinton. Talk about manufacturing consent.
Happy 4th.
Happy 4th.
Supreme Court rules Trump is immune from prosecution for "official" acts
- Thread starter praetor
- Start date
You say any STUPID shit, how bout YOU fuckin practice what you PREACH and FUCKIN READ.
DONT FOLLOW THIS GUY.. He talks LOUD and says NOTHING.. DIdnt I tell you to SHUT THE FUCK UP,
why dont you do that, if you'd listen, you mightve saved yourself what little credibility you HAD...
this info is from the COUNCIL OF FOREIGN RELATIONS WEBSITE...
From the total $175 billion in U.S. spending, $107 billion worth of aid goes to the government of Ukraine. Weapons and equipment are provided through the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, Presidential Drawdown Authority,* and Foreign Military Financing Program.
This is just a SIMPLE FUCKING SEARCH ON GOOGLE.. you fuckin brain dead CLOWN!!!
US has provided money, not just equipment, to Ukraine
Former Congressman Adam Kinzinger, a Republican from Illinois, made the inaccurate suggestion recently while taking aim at Republican Rep.
apnews.com
most hardcore democratic shills are ILL INFORMED have NO IDEA HOW THE WORLD really works,
AND IS JUST PUSHING THE GAY AGENDA and dont want to admit it.
Gay agenda been going on for fuckin decades NOW its time they sit the fuck down and LET THE NATION
MOVE FORWARD AGAIN!!!!
BIDEN MUST BE SENT TO A NURSING HOME ITS CRUEL AT THIS POINT WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO THAT MAN...!!!!
AND IS JUST PUSHING THE GAY AGENDA and dont want to admit it.
Gay agenda been going on for fuckin decades NOW its time they sit the fuck down and LET THE NATION
MOVE FORWARD AGAIN!!!!
BIDEN MUST BE SENT TO A NURSING HOME ITS CRUEL AT THIS POINT WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO THAT MAN...!!!!
in NEW epstein documents.. uh what happend to the OLD ones.. all of a SUDDEN NEW documents
appear out of NOWHERE... yea ok....if it doesnt mention bill gates who stayed flying with epstein or
fake prince andrew who had damn near vip status on epstein island.. then its bullshit...and
is just propaganda to stop the inevitable, a trump presidency....
yall dumb fucktards literally supporting a man that is suffering just to stand up, let alone speak...
yall want THAT leading USA... just fuckin BRAINDEAD FUCKTARDS if your answer is yes!!
Why would I want to bring children into a world that doesnt give a fuck about
THE CHILDREN HERE NOW, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MANY ARE IN AGENCIES
NOBODY WANTS, AND THE TYPE OF PHYSICAL AND MENTAL ABUSE THESE CHILDREN go through....
I have no children and I promise you, not bragging, Im a NATURAL FATHER and can see MY CHILDREN in all CHILDREN..
you dont know nothing about that, you a die hard demoncrat supporter, you are selfish, only care about YOUR children,
and YOUR AGENDAs no matter how demonic and FAGGY it is..
good thing the WORLD IS STOMPING OUT THIS EVIL IN THE FORM OF INSATIABLE GLUTTONY, DEMONIC INHUMANITY by promoting things like war for profit... and satanic SEXUAL DYSFUNCTION, FUCK THE DEMOCRATS
FOR ITS DIE HARD SUPPORT OF DEMONIC THINGS!!
Study Jake Tapper’s and Daina Bash’s muted response with an Eye of Horus. Which law of Ptahhotep did they practice?
Dude... you starting to focus on the Gay agenda more than the Democrats do.....just saying.
are you fuckin retarded ????? My main beef is those UNLAWFUL EXPERIMENTAL DRUG MANDATES..buuuuuuuuut You do realize they made the gay agenda their number one
LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY RIGHT?? The whole nation took a back seat, and you want four more years of this shit,
faggots are really nervous about not being able to run wild....you soundin nervous...
You diddy??
you one of them hit dogs hollerin??
He’s a hit dog
Oh NOOO not this GUY.
You go HARD for the democrats even KNOWING what their
NUMBER ONE LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY WAS..
the more you post, the more you creep out the weirdo closet...!!
Hell yeah fam.
We gon be in them ovens this time next year if we don't vote
#mightyjoeintwentyFo!
We gon be in them ovens this time next year if we don't vote
#mightyjoeintwentyFo!
nope
I just asked chatGPT "what has been the Biden administration's main agenda"
The Biden administration's main agenda has focused on several key areas:
1. COVID-19 Response and Public Health
- Vaccination Campaign: Accelerating the distribution and administration of COVID-19 vaccines.
- Public Health Measures: Implementing measures to control the spread of the virus, including mask mandates and social distancing guidelines.
- Funding and Support: Providing financial support to healthcare systems, businesses, and individuals affected by the pandemic.
2. Economic Recovery and Infrastructure
- American Rescue Plan: A $1.9 trillion stimulus package to provide economic relief to individuals, businesses, and local governments.
- Infrastructure Bill: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which aims to invest in transportation, broadband, water systems, and energy infrastructure.
3. Climate Change and Environmental Policy
- Rejoining the Paris Agreement: Reaffirming the U.S. commitment to global climate action.
- Clean Energy Initiatives: Promoting renewable energy sources, electric vehicles, and other measures to reduce carbon emissions.
- Environmental Regulations: Restoring and strengthening regulations aimed at protecting air, water, and public lands.
4. Social Justice and Equality
- Racial Equity: Addressing systemic racism and promoting policies to ensure equity in housing, education, and economic opportunities.
- Voting Rights: Supporting legislation to protect and expand voting rights, countering efforts to restrict access to the ballot.
- Criminal Justice Reform: Advocating for changes in policing practices, sentencing laws, and prison reform.
5. Healthcare Reform
- Affordable Care Act (ACA): Strengthening and expanding the ACA to increase access to healthcare.
- Prescription Drug Prices: Efforts to reduce the cost of prescription medications.
- Medicare and Medicaid: Expanding coverage and services under these programs.
6. Foreign Policy and National Security
- Alliances and Diplomacy: Reinforcing alliances, particularly with NATO, and engaging in multilateral diplomacy.
- China and Russia: Addressing challenges posed by China and Russia, including trade practices, cybersecurity threats, and geopolitical tensions.
- Human Rights: Promoting human rights and democracy worldwide.
7. Immigration Reform
- Pathway to Citizenship: Proposing a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
- Border Management: Implementing more humane border management practices while addressing the root causes of migration from Central America.
- Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): Protecting and expanding the DACA program for Dreamers.
you want 8 more years of Trump?? You know this is where this is going right??
lol, no I'm not
nope
nope
bruh CHAT GPT is bullshit AI.. do you REAALLLLLY think they will
unleash a REAL TRUE UNRESTRICTED chat GPT bruh??
Cmon I got the FACTS son, most of the internet we search on is fixed in a loop.. that is geared
towards your specific demographic.... the only true internet is the dark web, which is really just a high speed version
OF OUR ORIGINAL UNRESTRICTED internet.. the one where we truly had a global search engine.... think netscape days...
But here why dont you just ask... I got receipts bruh.....
Biden declares LGBTQ rights his No. 1 legislative priority
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden declared Saturday that the Equality Act would be his top legislative priority, an effort to enshrine LGBTQ protections into the nation's labor and civil rights laws.
apnews.com
this muthafucka sleeepy joe aint just say he will make the fag agenda his number one priority....
HE DECLARED THAT SHIT BRUH!!!
The two things I am most concerned with.
5. Healthcare Reform
- Affordable Care Act (ACA): Strengthening and expanding the ACA to increase access to healthcare.
- Prescription Drug Prices: Efforts to reduce the cost of prescription medications.
- Medicare and Medicaid: Expanding coverage and services under these programs.
1. COVID-19 Response and Public Health
- Vaccination Campaign: Accelerating the distribution and administration of COVID-19 vaccines.
- Public Health Measures: Implementing measures to control the spread of the virus, including mask mandates and social distancing guidelines.
- Funding and Support: Providing financial support to healthcare systems, businesses, and individuals affected by the pandemic.
I asked ChatGPT about HBCU's...
As of my last update in January 2022, President Joe Biden has taken several steps to support Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Here are some key actions and initiatives:
As of my last update in January 2022, President Joe Biden has taken several steps to support Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Here are some key actions and initiatives:
- Increased Funding: Biden has proposed significant increases in funding for HBCUs. This includes $45 billion for Title III and other HBCU programs over ten years, aiming to provide more stable and predictable funding for these institutions.
- Infrastructure and Facilities: He has prioritized improving infrastructure and facilities at HBCUs through funding initiatives. This includes investments in campus upgrades, renovations, and technological improvements to enhance learning environments.
- Support for Student Success: Biden has advocated for increased financial aid and support services for students attending HBCUs. This includes expanding Pell Grants and other federal aid programs to make higher education more accessible and affordable.
- Research Funding: The administration has proposed increased funding for research at HBCUs, aiming to enhance their capabilities in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields and other disciplines.
- Executive Actions and Policy Initiatives: Biden has signed executive orders aimed at promoting racial equity and advancing opportunities for underserved communities, including HBCUs. These actions are intended to address systemic barriers and promote inclusivity in education and beyond.
- Leadership and Representation: The administration has appointed individuals with HBCU backgrounds to key positions within the government, demonstrating a commitment to diversity and representation.
How the US supreme court shredded the Constitution and what can be done to repair it
Laurence H TribeCourt’s troubling rulings on presidential immunity and regulatory power make it clear that change is an ethical essential
Mon 8 Jul 2024 06.12 EDT
Share
150
On 1 July 2024, the US supreme court, after an unconscionable half-year delay that it laughably described as “expedited” treatment, handed down Trump v United States, the immunity ruling placing American presidents above the law by deeming the president a “branch of government ... unlike anyone else.” The court’s delay guaranteed that Donald Trump would face the electorate in 2024 without first confronting a jury of his peers instructed to decide, and thus inform voters, whether he was guilty of trying to overthrow the 2020 election.
Famously, the English immigrant Thomas Paine advocated that we revolt against the crown to form an independent country and frame a constitution to prevent the rise of a dictator “who, laying hold of popular disquietudes, may collect together the desperate and the discontented … [and] sweep away the liberties of the continent like a deluge”. To that end, Paine asked: “Where … is the king of America?” And he replied: “In America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.”
In the court’s majority opinion, Chief Justice John G Roberts, Jr betrayed that promise and the constitution that embodied it. He pretended that granting lifelong immunity from accountability to the nation’s criminal laws didn’t place the president “above the law”. In majestic circularity, he announced that the “president is not above the law” because it is the law itself that implicitly contains that immunity, to preserve “the basic structure of the constitution from which that law derives”.
But the idea that we need an unbounded chief executive to make the separation of powers work is grounded neither in theory nor in experience and contradicts the axioms of checks and balances. Worse still, the court’s decision delivers not a genuinely unbounded executive but one bound by whatever limits the court itself invents as it fills in the gray areas in its anything but black-and-white ruling. So it’s an imperial judiciary this court delivers in the guise of an imperial executive, not surprising for a court that just last week dismantled the administrative state by substituting itself for the panoply of expert executive agencies in Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo.
The three dissenting justices objected, without rebuttal by the majority, that no prior president has needed this novel immunity from generally applicable criminal laws to operate as “an energetic, independent executive”, an objective the court placed above all else. The majority professed worry about “an executive branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive president free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next”.
But it said nothing to justify that worry – or to explain how the newly concocted less-than-absolute shield of presidential immunity could hope to solve the problem it conjured. After all, if we elect presidents unprincipled enough to direct their attorneys general to persecute their predecessors on trumped-up charges of abusing their official powers, there’s nothing to stop them from fabricating purely private – and, under the court’s new rule, non-immune – crimes by those predecessors.
Beyond those glaring flaws in the majority’s reasoning, Roberts snidely accused the three dissenting justices of “fear-mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals” that neither the majority opinion nor either of the two concurring opinions troubled to refute.
What to make of the majority’s confusing instructions to the court trying Trump for the federal crimes through which he is alleged to have sought to overturn the 2020 election and the lawful transfer of power for the first time in our history? Only Justice Amy Coney Barrett, partly concurring and partly dissenting, wrote in no uncertain terms what the majority should have made clear but didn’t: “The president’s alleged attempt to organize alternative slates of electors … is private and therefore not entitled to protection … While Congress has a limited role in that process, see art II, §1, cls 3-4, the president has none. In short, a president has no legal authority – and thus no official capacity – to influence how the states appoint their electors.”
The majority should’ve endorsed Barrett’s brisk conclusion: “I see no plausible argument for barring prosecution of that alleged conduct.”
The majority also offered no cogent reason to disagree with Barrett that, “beyond the limits afforded by executive privilege”, the US constitution doesn’t “limit the introduction of protected conduct as evidence in a criminal prosecution of a president”. As she and the three dissenters persuasively argued, the constitution “does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which presidents can be held liable” even if it does immunize them from prosecution on the basis of those circumstances. Bribery, a federal crime, makes the point perfectly. It’s nonsensical to hold, as the majority does, that a president who performs an official act like issuing a pardon in return for a bribe may be prosecuted for the bribe but may prevent the jury from learning about the backroom presidential conversations surrounding the pardon. The majority’s rejoinder that the pardon itself may be introduced in evidence as an official record is no answer at all.
Indeed, the whole journey on which the majority embarks is misdirected. As dissenting Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued, it’s “cold comfort” to learn that “the president is subject to prosecution in his unofficial capacity … like anyone else”, because the “official-versus-unofficial act distinction” is both “arbitrary and irrational, for it … is when the president commits crimes using his unparalleled official powers that the risks of abuse and autocracy will be most dire”. She is right that vesting the president with uniquely sweeping powers and duties “actually underscores, rather than undermines, the grim stakes of setting the criminal law to the side when the president flexes these very powers”.
I’ll let others sort through the tangled puzzles the court has left in its wake absent meaningful guidelines for distinguishing between the various categories of presidential conduct it enumerates. My main takeaways from this shameful decision are three: first, there is a compelling need for supreme court reform, including a plan to impose an enforceable ethics code and term limits and possibly create several added seats to offset the way Trump as president stacked the court to favor his Maga agenda; second, we should start planning for a constitutional amendment of the sort I have advocated in the New York Times to create a federal prosecutorial arm structurally independent of the presidency; and third, we need a constitutional amendment adding to article I, section 9’s ban on titles of nobility and foreign emoluments a provision expressly stating that nothing in the constitution may be construed to confer any immunity from criminal prosecution by reason of a defendant’s having held any office under the United States – and a provision forbidding use of the pardon power to encourage the person pardoned to commit a crime that the president is unable to commit personally.
Amending the constitution to address problems the supreme court creates needn’t take long. When the court prevented Congress from lowering the voting age to 18 in state along with federal elections in Oregon v Mitchell, it took under seven months for us to adopt the 26th amendment to repair that blunder. And the court can overturn its own egregiously wrong decisions quickly, as it did in 1943 when it overturned a 1940 ruling letting states force children to salute the flag against their religious convictions in West Virginia state board of education v Barnette. As Justice Felix Frankfurter once wrote: “Wisdom too often never comes, so one ought not to reject it merely because it comes late.” Trump v United States isn’t just unwise. It’s a betrayal of the constitution. Overturning it should be an issue in this November’s election.
- Laurence H Tribe is the Carl M Loeb University professor and professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School
Oh NOOO not this GUY.
You go HARD for the democrats even KNOWING what their
NUMBER ONE LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY WAS..
the more you post, the more you creep out the weirdo closet...!!
How this guy calls anybody a weirdo is pure comedy . Most the board has you on ignore just for you retarded double space posting alone. The rest just think you’re a sub human moron.