The End of the World: A Political Thread. A New Hope coming soon!
- Thread starter Plainview
- Start date
- Status
Rock-a-bye baby, in the treetop
When the wind blows, the cradle will rock
When the bough breaks, the cradle will fall
And down will come baby, cradle and all
Stacey Dash is running for office. I guess she's living up to her being Clueless.....
ivanka trump claims questions about daddy raping women is off limits. Sorry, a******, you want tax payers to pay your salary, you deal with it. Don't want it, get the f*** out.
ivanka trump claims questions about daddy raping women is off limits. Sorry, a******, you want tax payers to pay your salary, you deal with it. Don't want it, get the f*** out.
The United States now has Internment Camps 2.0.
http://thehill.com/regulation/court...rules-immigrants-can-be-detained-indefinitely
http://thehill.com/regulation/court...rules-immigrants-can-be-detained-indefinitely
Supreme Court rules immigrants can be detained indefinitely
Immigrants can be held by U.S. immigration officials indefinitely without receiving bond hearings, even if they have permanent legal status or are seeking asylum, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
In a 5-3 ruling Tuesday, with Justice Elena Kagan recusing, that immigrants do not have the right to periodic bond hearings. The ruling is a defeat for immigration advocates, who argued that immigrants should not be held for more than six months at a time without such a hearing.
The Supreme Court ruling follows a Trump administration appeal of a ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last year that imposed a rule requiring immigrants held in custody be given a bond hearing every six months, as long as they aren't considered a flight risk or a danger to national security.
“To impose a rigid six-month rule like the Court of Appeals did is really a mistake,” Solicitor General Ian Gershengorn said in November.
In its ruling, the court affirmed the right of the government to detain immigrants while it determines whether they should be allowed in the country.
"Immigration officials are authorized to detain certain aliens in the course of immigration proceedings while they determine whether those aliens may be lawfully present in the country," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion.
The lead plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit, Alejandro Rodriguez, is an immigrant with permanent legal status who was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and joyriding. He was detained by immigration officials for three years without a bond hearing.
The ACLU took up his case, eventually winning his release and the cancellation of his deportation order. The government's appeal was begun under the Obama administration, and continued after President Trump took office last year.
Immigrants can be held by U.S. immigration officials indefinitely without receiving bond hearings, even if they have permanent legal status or are seeking asylum, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
In a 5-3 ruling Tuesday, with Justice Elena Kagan recusing, that immigrants do not have the right to periodic bond hearings. The ruling is a defeat for immigration advocates, who argued that immigrants should not be held for more than six months at a time without such a hearing.
The Supreme Court ruling follows a Trump administration appeal of a ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last year that imposed a rule requiring immigrants held in custody be given a bond hearing every six months, as long as they aren't considered a flight risk or a danger to national security.
“To impose a rigid six-month rule like the Court of Appeals did is really a mistake,” Solicitor General Ian Gershengorn said in November.
In its ruling, the court affirmed the right of the government to detain immigrants while it determines whether they should be allowed in the country.
"Immigration officials are authorized to detain certain aliens in the course of immigration proceedings while they determine whether those aliens may be lawfully present in the country," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion.
The lead plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit, Alejandro Rodriguez, is an immigrant with permanent legal status who was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and joyriding. He was detained by immigration officials for three years without a bond hearing.
The ACLU took up his case, eventually winning his release and the cancellation of his deportation order. The government's appeal was begun under the Obama administration, and continued after President Trump took office last year.
Got into a discussion with a cousin today. trump supporter. I commented about arming teachers is stupid. Her comeback was, ‘Obama and trump are the same. Neither one did anything.’ I said she was uninformed, and she should do more research, because Obama did make gun regulations and also attempted more, but was roadblocked. I provided links to back up my claims, because I’ve been down this road before... The rebuttal was, ‘I get it. You’re always right and everyone else is wrong.’ How is it possible to have a rational, rooted in realty discussion in this case?
It's the re-education system; people who are inundated with the right-wing bulls***tery are simply trained to accept whatever is good for conservatives and reject what isn't. All you need to do is look at the Nunes memo vs. the Democratic rebuttal memo - literally no sourcing or citation is provided for the claims made in the memo other than random attribution of some specific quotes, while the Democratic rebuttal has 33 actual footnotes, including the very first footnote, which cites the Assistant Attorney General's letter to Nunes reminding him, among other things, that his memo "purports to be based on classified source materials that neither you nor most of them have seen."
But facts don't matter for people who deal in feelings and who have been taught to feel anger first, and obedience second, and conditioned for years to know who gets the first and who gets the second.
Trump voters and Brexit voters are cut from the same cloth. Thiers is a faith based idealogy. Facts and evidence does nothing to dissuade their cause.
No surprise..... Roger Stone is a liar. Just because you say something louder doesn't mean you're telling the truth.
https://www.mediaite.com/online/rog...th-wikileaks-despite-both-claiming-otherwise/
https://www.mediaite.com/online/rog...th-wikileaks-despite-both-claiming-otherwise/
Roger Stone Corresponded Directly With WikiLeaks Despite Both Claiming Otherwise
Despite both Donald Trump confidant Roger Stone and Wikileaks claiming they did not communicate directly with one another, new Twitter messages revealed by The Atlantic the two corresponded with each other during the 2016 presidential election.
WikiLeaks claimed to not have talked with Stone in a March 2017 tweet…
…and the informal Trump advisor — while testifying under oath — told the House Intelligence Committee in September 2017 that he only talked to the controversial group via an “intermediary,” but the new direct messages show the two corresponded just weeks before the election.
The October 16, 2016 messages between the two went as follows, via The Atlantic:
The communication between the two is particularly noteworthy, as Stone’s longstanding relationship with the president brings-up questions over whether or not Trump had knowledge of his confidant’s relationship with WikiLeaks and Julian Assange — amid their release of damaging info against his opponent Hillary Clinton.
Stone did note the messages were real, but suggested they were not of importance — telling The Atlantic the DMs are “ridiculously out of context” and “a paste up.” This statement confirming the correspondence comes after Stone told lawmakers under oath that he “never said or written that I had any direct communication with Julian Assange and have always clarified in numerous interviews and speeches that my communication with WikiLeaks was through the aforementioned journalist.”
Despite both Donald Trump confidant Roger Stone and Wikileaks claiming they did not communicate directly with one another, new Twitter messages revealed by The Atlantic the two corresponded with each other during the 2016 presidential election.
WikiLeaks claimed to not have talked with Stone in a March 2017 tweet…
…and the informal Trump advisor — while testifying under oath — told the House Intelligence Committee in September 2017 that he only talked to the controversial group via an “intermediary,” but the new direct messages show the two corresponded just weeks before the election.
The October 16, 2016 messages between the two went as follows, via The Atlantic:
STONE: “Since I was all over national TV, cable and print defending wikileaks and assange against the claim that you are Russian agents and debunking the false charges of sexual assault as trumped up bs you may want to rexamine the strategy of attacking me- cordially R.”
WIKILEAKS: “We appreciate that. However, the false claims of association are being used by the democrats to undermine the impact of our publications. Don’t go there if you don’t want us to correct you.”
STONE: “Ha! The more you ‘correct’ me the more people think you’re lying. Your operation leaks like sieve. You need to figure out who your friends are.”
WIKILEAKS: “Happy?”
WIKILEAKS: “We are now more free to communicate.”
WIKILEAKS: “We appreciate that. However, the false claims of association are being used by the democrats to undermine the impact of our publications. Don’t go there if you don’t want us to correct you.”
STONE: “Ha! The more you ‘correct’ me the more people think you’re lying. Your operation leaks like sieve. You need to figure out who your friends are.”
WIKILEAKS: “Happy?”
WIKILEAKS: “We are now more free to communicate.”
The communication between the two is particularly noteworthy, as Stone’s longstanding relationship with the president brings-up questions over whether or not Trump had knowledge of his confidant’s relationship with WikiLeaks and Julian Assange — amid their release of damaging info against his opponent Hillary Clinton.
Stone did note the messages were real, but suggested they were not of importance — telling The Atlantic the DMs are “ridiculously out of context” and “a paste up.” This statement confirming the correspondence comes after Stone told lawmakers under oath that he “never said or written that I had any direct communication with Julian Assange and have always clarified in numerous interviews and speeches that my communication with WikiLeaks was through the aforementioned journalist.”
I have a feeling she let out some big dirt to Muller, or he caught her in a big lie, far bigger than a “white lie,” and she knew she was toast and opened up.
I'd like to see a simulation with paintball pistols to see how it works out.
As for deterrence, I think many times what we are seeing includes suicide by cop. If anything, getting caught alive might be more of a deterrent.
I’m watching hannity right now. He is literally lying throughout the whole show. I’m serious, literally. He’s still claiming the Russia investigation started with the dossier. It didn’t. It’s a fact it didn’t. He brings up uranium deal again. Her buttery mails. Blamed Obama for Russian interference. Says fisa judges were lied to. They weren’t. It’s an undeniable fact. This is why people are stupid. They will watch this and believe it all.
I've probably mentioned but luckily with both my parents being conservatives they don't watch Fox News, unless they just fake me out when I'm there by having CNN on.
How and why? Just seeing that guy's face makes me angry. I removed Faux News from my channel lists because they're all so horrible.
So someone kills kids with an AR-15 and these people's first reaction is to bless their AR-15's. No not the kids or the families of the victims. Do they really think some omniscient benevolent being is really going to be proud of them. Totally f***ing delusional.
Will the current administration lob sanctions on the soviet union like they did with North Korea? We know the answer to that one.....
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/01/europe/putin-russia-missile-intl/index.html
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/01/europe/putin-russia-missile-intl/index.html
Putin touts new 'invincible' missile with 'almost unlimited range'
Moscow (CNN)Russia is developing an "invincible" new missile which will render NATO defenses "completely useless," Russian President Vladimir Putin announced Thursday.
Speaking for almost two hours during his annual address to Russia's Federal Assembly, Putin boasted about Russia's "extraordinary advances" in the military sphere, including missiles with "almost unlimited range" capable of piercing US missile defenses through maneuverability and hypersonic speed.
Moscow (CNN)Russia is developing an "invincible" new missile which will render NATO defenses "completely useless," Russian President Vladimir Putin announced Thursday.
Speaking for almost two hours during his annual address to Russia's Federal Assembly, Putin boasted about Russia's "extraordinary advances" in the military sphere, including missiles with "almost unlimited range" capable of piercing US missile defenses through maneuverability and hypersonic speed.
- Status