User Controls
THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
-
2021-12-09 at 5:53 PM UTCHey, you made that bed.
Now...sleep in it and quit whining, you big baby!
Why are you refusing to answer the simple question "How many times was Rump impeached?" -
2021-12-09 at 9:48 PM UTC
-
2021-12-09 at 11:06 PM UTCLETS GO BRANDI CHASTAIN
-
2021-12-10 at 6:36 AM UTC
-
2021-12-10 at 5:04 PM UTCLOL
-
2021-12-10 at 5:20 PM UTCCNN
A single sentence that perfectly captures the utter madness of the Trump era
Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large
In an interview with Donald Trump earlier this week, conservative talk radio host Hugh Hewitt said something truly breath-taking.
"You know, Mr. President, you and I disagree about the election, but we agree on so much," Hewitt told Trump, segueing into a conversation about China's hypersonic missiles.
Talk about an other-than-that-how-was-the-play-Mrs. Lincoln moment!
That Hewitt uttered that line without irony is a telling window into how conservatives have found ways to rationalize Trump and his fundamentally anti-democratic attempts to undermine the faith of the American public in the 2020 election results.
Here's the reality: You can't just sort of yada yada the election rejection embraced by Trump. Because in refusing to accept the result of the 2020 election and repeatedly (and falsely) alleging voter fraud, Trump is actively working against everything that makes America, well, America.
Hewitt's attempt to dismiss his disagreement with Trump over the election then as just another policy disagreement is laughable. This isn't Hewitt saying we should have stayed in Afghanistan and Trump saying we should have pulled American troops out. This is the former President of the United States refusing to accept the results of a national election.
And, it's actually more than that. It's that Trump has turned election denialism into a litmus test for aspiring Republican candidates. If you aren't willing to say you believe -- contra all available evidence -- that the 2020 election was stolen, then you not only won't have Trump's support but may well find him actively working to defeat you when you run for reelection. (See Brian Kemp and David Perdue in Georgia. Also Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel.)
Trump is working to make a belief that the 2020 election was stolen a central piece of the Republican Party platform. And, again, this isn't like making abortion or trade a party platform. This is making a rejection of American democracy a major part of what it means to be a Republican.
Because of all of that, Hewitt can't simply write what Trump is doing as a place where they disagree. That sort of justification is how we got into this mess, with one of the two major political parties in the country devolving more into a cult of personality than any sort of organization gathered together by a shared set of principles and policies.
Refusing to believe in the results of a free and fair election have to be disqualifying for any party leader. It's non-negotiable. If we can't agree that the election was fair -- even if our preferred candidate lost -- then we have sacrificed the thing that makes America great. That Hewitt -- and his fellow conservatives who continue to bend over backward to placate Trump -- can't (or won't) see that suggests just how lost the conservative movement is at the moment. -
2021-12-10 at 6:08 PM UTC
Originally posted by stl1 CNN
A single sentence that perfectly captures the utter madness of the Trump era
Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large
In an interview with Donald Trump earlier this week, conservative talk radio host Hugh Hewitt said something truly breath-taking.
"You know, Mr. President, you and I disagree about the election, but we agree on so much," Hewitt told Trump, segueing into a conversation about China's hypersonic missiles.
Talk about an other-than-that-how-was-the-play-Mrs. Lincoln moment!
That Hewitt uttered that line without irony is a telling window into how conservatives have found ways to rationalize Trump and his fundamentally anti-democratic attempts to undermine the faith of the American public in the 2020 election results.
Here's the reality: You can't just sort of yada yada the election rejection embraced by Trump. Because in refusing to accept the result of the 2020 election and repeatedly (and falsely) alleging voter fraud, Trump is actively working against everything that makes America, well, America.
Hewitt's attempt to dismiss his disagreement with Trump over the election then as just another policy disagreement is laughable. This isn't Hewitt saying we should have stayed in Afghanistan and Trump saying we should have pulled American troops out. This is the former President of the United States refusing to accept the results of a national election.
And, it's actually more than that. It's that Trump has turned election denialism into a litmus test for aspiring Republican candidates. If you aren't willing to say you believe – contra all available evidence – that the 2020 election was stolen, then you not only won't have Trump's support but may well find him actively working to defeat you when you run for reelection. (See Brian Kemp and David Perdue in Georgia. Also Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel.)
Trump is working to make a belief that the 2020 election was stolen a central piece of the Republican Party platform. And, again, this isn't like making abortion or trade a party platform. This is making a rejection of American democracy a major part of what it means to be a Republican.
Because of all of that, Hewitt can't simply write what Trump is doing as a place where they disagree. That sort of justification is how we got into this mess, with one of the two major political parties in the country devolving more into a cult of personality than any sort of organization gathered together by a shared set of principles and policies.
Refusing to believe in the results of a free and fair election have to be disqualifying for any party leader. It's non-negotiable. If we can't agree that the election was fair – even if our preferred candidate lost – then we have sacrificed the thing that makes America great. That Hewitt – and his fellow conservatives who continue to bend over backward to placate Trump – can't (or won't) see that suggests just how lost the conservative movement is at the moment.
dr/dr -
2021-12-10 at 9:14 PM UTC
Julian Assange Loses Appeal: British High Court Accepts U.S. Request to Extradite Him for Trial
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/julian-assange-loses-appeal-british
Press freedom groups have warned Assange's prosecution is a grave threat. The Biden DOJ ignored them, and today won a major victory toward permanently silencing the pioneering transparency activist.
…the Biden administration is eager to see Assange punished and silenced for life not out of any national security concerns but instead due to a thirst for vengeance over the role he played in publishing documents during the 2016 election that reflected poorly on Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. Those documents published by WikiLeaks revealed widespread corruption at the DNC, specifically revealing how they cheated in order to help Clinton stave off a surprisingly robust primary challenge from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). WikiLeaks’ reporting led to the resignation of the top five DNC officials, including its then-Chair, Rep. Debbie Wassserman Schultz (D-FL). Democratic luminaries such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Al Gore's 2000 campaign chair Donna Brazile both said, in the wake of WikiLeak's reporting, that the DNC cheated to help Clinton.
Some actual news for a change.
How can anyone take America seriously as anything other than a force for evil in this world upon seeing what it is doing to Julian Assange? -
2021-12-10 at 9:31 PM UTC
-
2021-12-10 at 9:34 PM UTCNo.
That is secret code for "I'm sticking my head in the sand now." -
2021-12-10 at 9:43 PM UTC
-
2021-12-10 at 9:49 PM UTC
-
2021-12-11 at 12:35 AM UTC
LMAO errorc.jpg -
2021-12-11 at 2:19 AM UTC
Originally posted by Donald Trump
LMAO errorc.jpg
What point is this meme trying to make? That choice is bad/doesn't matter? Obviously most people who get into politics are horrible people, why is it preferable to have more narrow choices? Is this supposed to be a libertarian themed meme? Libertarians make the worst memes, I'm always critiquing them in groups I belong to and passing people off. That must be the problem. -
2021-12-11 at 2:28 AM UTC
Originally posted by Sudo What point is this meme trying to make? That choice is bad/doesn't matter? Obviously most people who get into politics are horrible people, why is it preferable to have more narrow choices? Is this supposed to be a libertarian themed meme? Libertarians make the worst memes, I'm always critiquing them in groups I belong to and passing people off. That must be the problem.
To me the point is that the French are better than Americans, specifically that Gallic/Celtic people > Anglo-jedis (I don't care about the non-dominant groups in either country).
The joke is "look at all the choice we gave you frenchie" and frenchie is all like "I despise them all". -
2021-12-11 at 2:52 AM UTC
-
2021-12-11 at 2:59 AM UTC
-
2021-12-11 at 3:18 AM UTC
Originally posted by the man who put it in my hood pretty much yup more people voted communist than liberatarian in my country
I realized I don't hate the government. I hate everyone, I just hate kikes and the government more because they have more power. I want more purchase power, fuck ngigers
Voting libertarian is voting to lose. It's like you're in a crowded room, and a gun is being passed around. The gun of state power. Your enemies choose to use it on you, and shoot your best friend. When it comes to you you say "no thanks, that's not ethical". So the gun gets passed around again, and your other best friend is shot this time.
That's libertarianism. Willfully losing.
For instance imagine if a jeep driven by a white man drove into a group of black people. The white man hated blacks like poison. His social media was full of hatred of blacks. He swerved back and forth just to try to hit more black people.
Would black advocates, like the jedis, pass up state power?
Yet the representatives of Wisconsin suburb of Waukesha, which was full of white people who had fled the vicious black violence of inner city Milwaukee, said they didn't agree with Federal governance, so won't be pursuing hate crime charges.
With Brooks already dealing with life in jail — and an abundance of bodily proof, video and eyewitnesses — prosecutors don’t must unnecessarily complicate issues with terror or hate crime prices, McCarthy stated.
https://www.pehalnews.in/waukesha-parade-suspect-faces-multiple-life-sentences-regardless-of-motive-if-convicted/1347611/
Tactical libertarianism. Libertarianism when it will cause your side to lose.
The censorship comes hot and heavy when you try to google the only party with a sane take on the Waukesha terrorist attacks - the NJP (National Justice Party). Try googling them and see how far you get. -
2021-12-11 at 3:21 PM UTCThe Guardian
Capitol attack panel obtains PowerPoint that set out plan for Trump to stage coup
Hugo Lowell in Washington
Former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows turned over to the House select committee investigating the 6 January Capitol attack a PowerPoint recommending Donald Trump to declare a national security emergency in order to return himself to the presidency.
The fact that Meadows was in possession of a PowerPoint the day before the Capitol attack that detailed ways to stage a coup suggests he was at least aware of efforts by Trump and his allies to stop Joe Biden’s certification from taking place on 6 January.
The PowerPoint, titled “Election Fraud, Foreign Interference & Options for 6 Jan”, made several recommendations for Trump to pursue in order to retain the presidency for a second term on the basis of lies and debunked conspiracies about widespread election fraud.
Meadows turned over a version of the PowerPoint presentation that he received in an email and spanned 38 pages, according to a source familiar with the matter.
The Guardian reviewed a second, 36-page version of the PowerPoint marked for dissemination with 5 January metadata, which had some differences with what the select committee received. But the title of the PowerPoint and its recommendations remained the same, the source said.
Senators and members of Congress should first be briefed about foreign interference, the PowerPoint said, at which point Trump could declare a national emergency, declare all electronic voting invalid, and ask Congress to agree on a constitutionally acceptable remedy.
The PowerPoint also outlined three options for then vice-president Mike Pence to abuse his largely ceremonial role at the joint session of Congress on 6 January, when Biden was to be certified president, and unilaterally return Trump to the White House.
Pence could pursue one of three options, the PowerPoint said: seat Trump slates of electors over the objections of Democrats in key states, reject the Biden slates of electors, or delay the certification to allow for a “vetting” and counting of only “legal paper ballots”.
The final option for Pence is similar to an option that was simultaneously being advanced on 4 and 5 January by Trump lieutenants – led by lawyers Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman, as well as Trump strategist Steve Bannon – working from the Willard hotel in Washington DC.
The Guardian revealed last week that sometime between the late evening of 5 January and the early hours of 6 January, after Pence declined to go ahead with such plans, Trump then pressed his lieutenants about how to stop Biden’s certification from taking place entirely.
The recommendations in the PowerPoint for both Trump and Pence were based on wild and unsubstantiated claims of election fraud, including that “the Chinese systematically gained control over our election system” in eight key battleground states.
The then acting attorney general, Jeff Rosen, and his predecessor, Bill Barr, who had both been appointed by Trump, by 5 January had already determined that there was no evidence of voter fraud sufficient to change the outcome of the 2020 election.
House investigators said that they became aware of the PowerPoint after it surfaced in more than 6,000 documents Meadows turned over to the select committee. The PowerPoint was to be presented “on the Hill”, a reference to Congress, the panel said.
The powerpoint was presented on 4 January to a number of Republican senators and members of Congress, the source said. Trump’s lawyers working at the Willard hotel were not shown the presentation, according to a source familiar with the matter.
But the select committee said they did find in the materials turned over by Meadows, his text messages with a member of Congress, who told Meadows about a “highly controversial” plan to send slates of electors for Trump to the joint session of Congress.
Meadows replied: “I love it.”
Trump’s former White House chief of staff had turned over the materials to the select committee until the cooperation deal broke down on Tuesday, when Meadows’ attorney, Terwilliger, abruptly told House investigators that Meadows would no longer help the investigation.
The select committee announced on Wednesday that in response, it would refer Meadows for criminal prosecution for defying a subpoena. The chairman of the select committee, Bennie Thompson, said the vote to hold Meadows in contempt of Congress would come next week.
“The select committee will meet next week to advance a report recommending that the House cite Mr Meadows for contempt of Congress and refer him to the Department of Justice for prosecution,” Thompson said in a statement. -
2021-12-11 at 4:31 PM UTCCourt Rejects Trump’s Efforts to Keep Records from 1/6 Panel
In a 68-page ruling, the three-judge panel tossed aside Trump’s various arguments for blocking through executive privilege records that the committee regards as vital to its investigation into the run-up to the deadly riot aimed at overturning the results of the 2020 presidential election.
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Thursday against an effort by former President Donald Trump to shield documents from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol.
In a 68-page ruling, the three-judge panel tossed aside Trump’s various arguments for blocking through executive privilege records that the committee regards as vital to its investigation into the run-up to the deadly riot aimed at overturning the results of the 2020 presidential election.
Judge Patricia Millett, writing for the court, said Congress had “uniquely vital interests” in studying the events of Jan. 6 and said President Joe Biden had made a “carefully reasoned” determination that the documents were in the public interest and that executive privilege should therefore not be invoked. Trump also failed to show any harm that would occur from the release of the sought-after records, Millett wrote.
“On the record before us, former President Trump has provided no basis for this court to override President Biden’s judgment and the agreement and accommodations worked out between the Political Branches over these documents,” the opinion states.
It adds, “Both Branches agree that there is a unique legislative need for these documents and that they are directly relevant to the Committee’s inquiry into an attack on the Legislative Branch and its constitutional role in the peaceful transfer of power.
The appeals court ruled that the injunction that has prevented the National Archives from turning over the documents will expire in two weeks, or when the Supreme Court rules on an expected appeal from Trump, whichever is later. Lawyers for Trump can also ask the entire appeals court to review the case. Seven of the 11 appellate judges on the court were appointed by Democratic presidents, four by Republican presidents.
Trump spokeswoman Liz Harrington said after the ruling: “Regardless of today’s decision by the the appeals court, this case was always destined for the Supreme Court. President Trump’s duty to defend the Constitution and the Office of the Presidency continues, and he will keep fighting for every American and every future Administration.”
The court wrote: “The privilege being asserted is not a personal privilege belonging to former President Trump; he stewards it for the benefit of the Republic. The interests the privilege protects are those of the Presidency itself, not former President Trump individually. And the President has determined that immediate disclosure will promote, not injure, the national interest, and that delay here is itself injurious.”
The court also praised Biden’s “calibrated judgement” in working with Congress and the Archives to weigh privilege concerns, saying it “bears no resemblance to the ‘broad and limitless waiver’ of executive privilege former President Trump decries.”
Biden had the committee defer its requests for some of the early documents that might have posed privilege claims, and officials expect more documents in subsequent tranches will be subject to the same outcome.
The House committee did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi released a statement saying: “Today, the Courts have once again rejected the former President’s campaign to obstruct Congress’s investigation into the January 6th insurrection. No one can be allowed to stand in the way of the truth — particularly not the previous President, who incited the insurrection.”
White House spokesman Mike Gwin said, “As President Biden determined, the constitutional protections of executive privilege should not be used to shield information that reflects a clear and apparent effort to subvert the Constitution itself.”
Trump sued the House Jan. 6 committee and the National Archives to stop the White House from allowing the release of documents related to the insurrection. Biden had waived Trump’s executive privilege claims as the current officeholder.
At issue, the court said, is not that Trump “has no say in the matter” but his failure to show that withholding the documents should supersede Biden’s “considered and weighty judgment” that Congress is entitled to them.
The National Archives has said that the records Trump wants to block include presidential diaries, visitor logs, speech drafts, handwritten notes “concerning the events of January 6” from the files of former chief of staff Mark Meadows, and “a draft Executive Order on the topic of election integrity.”
Arguing for the committee, U.S. House lawyer Douglas Letter argued that the determination of a current president should outweigh predecessors in almost all circumstances and noted that both Biden and Congress were in agreement that the Jan. 6 records should be turned over.
All three of the appeals court judges who heard the arguments were nominated by Democrats. Millett and Judge Robert Wilkins were nominated by former President Barack Obama. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is a Biden appointee seen as a contender for a Supreme Court seat should one open during the current administration.
Republican presidents nominated six of the nine Supreme Court justices, including three chosen by Trump.
