Maybe you need some more Twitter users like the one Bjerknes posted to solve the problem, he seems pretty confident in his solution.
Buy on AliExpress.com
'Murica! (348 Viewers)
- Thread starter Fake Melo
- Start date
- Tags afl_italia's cousins forza trump smocking gun
Buy on AliExpress.com
But that’s hardly surprising. Some people know they’re born not to be the alpha dog in the oppression Olympics, so they do their best to emulate and even out-emulate the alpha dog to gain loyalty and acceptance by proximity. Being second on the ladder being much more of an achievement than staying with all their fellow plebs that they’d rather piss on.
It’s kind of like a lot of Republican women up until their rabid frothing over trannies, filthy immos, and books stumbles over their own desire for a D&C without having to drive to New Jersey.
It’s kind of like a lot of Republican women up until their rabid frothing over trannies, filthy immos, and books stumbles over their own desire for a D&C without having to drive to New Jersey.
Last edited:
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/sto...cans-president-nominations-voting-biden-trump
Good article on the disgraceful state of American politics with regards to Trump-Biden II
Good article on the disgraceful state of American politics with regards to Trump-Biden II
If voters don't want Biden or Trump, the system is broken
America’s decision tree has gone horribly awry.
Both our formal and informal political decision-making processes are designed to force a lot of debate and contemplation, to secure buy-in from diverse coalitions of interests and stakeholders. One reason for constitutional checks-and-balances is to make sure that momentary popular passions don’t overpower reason with demagoguery.
The parties, meanwhile, are supposed to pick candidates who are the least objectionable to the broadest array of interests within the party coalition. Even the primaries — which I loathe — were intended to give geographically diverse voters a chance to see if a candidate has the temperament and character to be president. They’re also supposed to give the press and other institutions an opportunity to vet candidates before they get the nomination.
None of that is happening.
Let’s start with the Republican front-runner. A majority of Americans think Donald Trump — a twice-impeached former one-term president — should be criminally prosecuted for trying to steal the 2020 election and fomenting a riot at the U.S. Capitol.
Already under indictment in New York in a fraud case, with more serious indictments likely, Trump is also awaiting the result of a civil lawsuit against him for defamation. In that case, Trump repeated under oath that he couldn’t have raped E. Jean Carroll because “she is not my type.”
As for preventing popular passions from overpowering decision-making, Trump is now openly running on a vow of retribution. He has rhetorically embraced the worst actors during the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol, promising pardons and an official apology for everyone. Recently, he literally embraced — i.e., hugged — a convicted rioter who says that anyone who helped certify Joe Biden as president should be executed for treason.
As for vetting a candidate’s character and temperament, partisans now only care about that as a weapon against the other team.
A primary reason Republicans have been rallying to Trump is that they believe he’s being treated unfairly by the system. Trump, who has admitted to being “the most fabulous whiner,” leans into this dysfunctional rationale constantly. He recently repeated the claim he’s been treated worse than Abraham Lincoln, who, you may recall, was assassinated. Put aside the contestable claim that Trump is being treated unfairly, how is being picked on a qualification for being president?
Then there’s Joe Biden, who turned 80 last November. His approval rating in a Washington Post-ABC poll is at a devastating new low: 36%. Most Democratic voters do not want him to be president again. Nearly two-thirds of Americans think he does not have the “mental sharpness” or “physical health” to be effective. And, he’s losing in a match-up against Trump.
But, so far, his only competition for the nomination is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an anti-vaccine gadfly, and Marianne Williamson, a self-described “spiritual guide.”
Biden’s legal and ethical lapses may pale in comparison to Trump’s, but they’re not trivial. His son, Hunter, is clearly a deeply troubled man who, along with the president’s brother, has traded on the family name to rake in millions from Ukrainian and Chinese interests.
Joe Biden denies any wrongdoing and any knowledge of wrongdoing, but only people inside the Democratic bubble think none of this is a political problem for a candidate who struggles to maintain composure — or recall details — when his, or his family’s, integrity is questioned.
Biden may be OK for 80, but he’s still one fall or one recession away from an implosion in public confidence.
In short, we are on track to have a presidential contest between a whiny, disgraced, septuagenarian, characterologically unfit former president and an octogenarian incumbent who a majority of Americans believe is not mentally sharp enough for the job. Each has an incentive to run against the other because their best shot at winning is having the other as an opponent.
As someone who thinks it would be truly dangerous to put Trump back in power, I think it’s truly irresponsible to run Biden against him. There’s still time to avert a no-win scenario, but that would require party leaders to lead.
If these two old men end up being the nominees, the party hacks will insist it’s a “binary choice,” as if that excuses their role in putting us in such a calamitous predicament in the first place. It’s not supposed to be like this.
America’s decision tree has gone horribly awry.
Both our formal and informal political decision-making processes are designed to force a lot of debate and contemplation, to secure buy-in from diverse coalitions of interests and stakeholders. One reason for constitutional checks-and-balances is to make sure that momentary popular passions don’t overpower reason with demagoguery.
The parties, meanwhile, are supposed to pick candidates who are the least objectionable to the broadest array of interests within the party coalition. Even the primaries — which I loathe — were intended to give geographically diverse voters a chance to see if a candidate has the temperament and character to be president. They’re also supposed to give the press and other institutions an opportunity to vet candidates before they get the nomination.
None of that is happening.
Let’s start with the Republican front-runner. A majority of Americans think Donald Trump — a twice-impeached former one-term president — should be criminally prosecuted for trying to steal the 2020 election and fomenting a riot at the U.S. Capitol.
Already under indictment in New York in a fraud case, with more serious indictments likely, Trump is also awaiting the result of a civil lawsuit against him for defamation. In that case, Trump repeated under oath that he couldn’t have raped E. Jean Carroll because “she is not my type.”
As for preventing popular passions from overpowering decision-making, Trump is now openly running on a vow of retribution. He has rhetorically embraced the worst actors during the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol, promising pardons and an official apology for everyone. Recently, he literally embraced — i.e., hugged — a convicted rioter who says that anyone who helped certify Joe Biden as president should be executed for treason.
As for vetting a candidate’s character and temperament, partisans now only care about that as a weapon against the other team.
A primary reason Republicans have been rallying to Trump is that they believe he’s being treated unfairly by the system. Trump, who has admitted to being “the most fabulous whiner,” leans into this dysfunctional rationale constantly. He recently repeated the claim he’s been treated worse than Abraham Lincoln, who, you may recall, was assassinated. Put aside the contestable claim that Trump is being treated unfairly, how is being picked on a qualification for being president?
Then there’s Joe Biden, who turned 80 last November. His approval rating in a Washington Post-ABC poll is at a devastating new low: 36%. Most Democratic voters do not want him to be president again. Nearly two-thirds of Americans think he does not have the “mental sharpness” or “physical health” to be effective. And, he’s losing in a match-up against Trump.
But, so far, his only competition for the nomination is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an anti-vaccine gadfly, and Marianne Williamson, a self-described “spiritual guide.”
Biden’s legal and ethical lapses may pale in comparison to Trump’s, but they’re not trivial. His son, Hunter, is clearly a deeply troubled man who, along with the president’s brother, has traded on the family name to rake in millions from Ukrainian and Chinese interests.
Joe Biden denies any wrongdoing and any knowledge of wrongdoing, but only people inside the Democratic bubble think none of this is a political problem for a candidate who struggles to maintain composure — or recall details — when his, or his family’s, integrity is questioned.
Biden may be OK for 80, but he’s still one fall or one recession away from an implosion in public confidence.
In short, we are on track to have a presidential contest between a whiny, disgraced, septuagenarian, characterologically unfit former president and an octogenarian incumbent who a majority of Americans believe is not mentally sharp enough for the job. Each has an incentive to run against the other because their best shot at winning is having the other as an opponent.
As someone who thinks it would be truly dangerous to put Trump back in power, I think it’s truly irresponsible to run Biden against him. There’s still time to avert a no-win scenario, but that would require party leaders to lead.
If these two old men end up being the nominees, the party hacks will insist it’s a “binary choice,” as if that excuses their role in putting us in such a calamitous predicament in the first place. It’s not supposed to be like this.
People shooting each other up daily, dying of fentanyl, with traffic violence off the charts, but the dysfunctional part is the Marvel franchise that is presidential primaries. 
Blows my mind that there are senators and congressmen above the age of 75 and some closer to 90 still in power. People who need help setting up their iPhones are making laws for the country in this era.
I guess it's similar for other countries as well? It's certainly true in India. A quarter of our MPs were born when we were still a British colony
I guess it's similar for other countries as well? It's certainly true in India. A quarter of our MPs were born when we were still a British colony
I'm glad you brought this up.
Because for all the crazy shit he has done, it is so weird that this might be the thing that kills him. I don't know if it's true or not. I guess at least the jury thought it was. But it is essentially about a woman who claims something happened all the way back in 1996. And she never really did anything about it, even though she was already in her fifties at the time of the claimed incident. As a lawyer I find this one a bit hard to stomach.
Because for all the crazy shit he has done, it is so weird that this might be the thing that kills him. I don't know if it's true or not. I guess at least the jury thought it was. But it is essentially about a woman who claims something happened all the way back in 1996. And she never really did anything about it, even though she was already in her fifties at the time of the claimed incident. As a lawyer I find this one a bit hard to stomach.
his deposition and behavior during the trial killed him, he basically admits it and then pretends like he thought it was his ex wife. it’s funny because it’s pretty much all his fault.
it was a civil trial, so the evidentiary standard is lower than that of a criminal trial, but you have to have a unanimous jury.
it was a civil trial, so the evidentiary standard is lower than that of a criminal trial, but you have to have a unanimous jury.
It's insane just how stupid he is.
This man has spent decades among top business men and has spent years between bright political minds. I know Trump wasn't a succesful businessman and no one would accuse him of being a quick learner, but you'd expect something to rub off on him. But there's not one chink in his armor of stupidity.
This man has spent decades among top business men and has spent years between bright political minds. I know Trump wasn't a succesful businessman and no one would accuse him of being a quick learner, but you'd expect something to rub off on him. But there's not one chink in his armor of stupidity.
Santos in federal custody as feds unseal 13-count indictment
Feds don't fuck about, boys. They come, it's always guilty.
The Justice Department on Wednesday unsealed federal charges against Rep. George Santos and the New York Republican is in custody.
Santos, whose astonishing pattern of lies and fabrications stunned even hardened politicos, has been charged on a 13-count indictment, including seven counts of wire fraud, three counts of money laundering, one count of theft of public funds, and two counts of making materially false statements to the House of Representatives.
He was taken into custody in Melville on Long Island, where the FBI is housed, a law enforcement source told CNN. From there, he was taken to the courthouse in Central Islip.
Santos is expected to appear later Wednesday at federal court in New York’s Eastern District.
The congressman’s attorney declined to comment to CNN on Tuesday. Spokespeople for the Brooklyn US Attorney’s Office, the Justice Department and the FBI declined to comment.
Santos was en route back to New York Tuesday night, skipping House votes for the evening, according to a source familiar.
A spokeswoman for Santos, Naysa Woomer, would not respond to shouted questions from reporters Tuesday afternoon and abruptly departed the congressman’s DC office with her backpack when asked about the federal charges against him. Prior to her departure from the office, CNN witnessed three staffers for Santos abruptly depart with their bags. They wouldn’t talk when pressed for comment.
The freshman congressman, who was elected last year to represent a district that includes parts of Long Island and Queens, has been under investigation in multiple jurisdictions and by the House Ethics Committee.
Top Democrats, joined by some New York Republicans, have been calling on Santos to resign over allegations ranging from criminal behavior on the campaign trail to petty personal dishonesty stretching back more than a decade.
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said that he will look at the charges before determining if he thinks Santos should be removed from Congress.
“I’ll look at the charges,” the California Republican told CNN on Tuesday.
Santos was spotted by CNN in the Capitol earlier in the day on his way in and out of McCarthy’s office. The speaker said he did not know why Santos had been there, and that the congressman had not told him personally about the charges.
During his brief time in office, Santos has been accused of breaking campaign finance laws, violating federal conflict of interest laws, stealing cash meant for an Iraq War veteran’s dying dog, masterminding a credit card fraud scheme and lying about where he went to school and worked.
Santos has admitted to making some misleading claims about his education and financial status, but continues to deny the more serious allegations.
During his victorious campaign last year, Santos ran according to the Republican midterm playbook, hammering his Democratic opponent over crime and inflation. The message resonated in the New York suburbs, where GOP candidates flipped four seats on their way to winning a narrow House majority.
But as Santos’ past came under closer scrutiny, with large chunks of his official biography revealed to be conjured from nothing, he increasingly adapted the persona of a right-wing troll.
He played up his support for former President Donald Trump and once claimed that Democrats were “trying to ban toilet paper.”
Santos faces some pressure from his party
New York Republicans have sought to distance themselves from Santos, insisting they knew nothing about his shadowy past and some repeatedly urging him to leave office.
“I reiterate my call for George Santos to step down,” New York Rep. Mike Lawler said in a statement. Lawler flipped a Democratic-held seat north of New York City last year and is expected to face a serious challenge in 2024.
Republicans from more conservative districts were less explicit.
New York Rep. Nicole Malliotakis told CNN, “I’m not surprised. I understand this is where it was headed,” but stopped short of asking Santos to resign.
“I would love to see someone new run because I can tell you that we will hold that seat and so the sooner Santos leaves, the sooner we can get someone in there that is not a liar,” the Staten Island Republican said.
GOP Reps. Ryan Zinke of Montana and Blake Moore of Utah pointed to the House Ethics Committee’s probe of Santos.
“Let the ethics investigation play out, and if it produces anything, he should be removed,” Moore said.
Zinke told CNN that “if there is a charge and the charge has veracity, (the Ethics Committee) should look at it.”
“I’m surprised (Santos) made it as long as he did,” said Zinke, who resigned from his position leading the Department of the Interior during the Trump administration amid multiple probes. (An inspector general report later found he misused his position.)
Arkansas Rep. French Hill, who is close to House GOP leadership, said he wanted to see the charges but added, “I do believe that if a member of Congress is charged with a federal crime they should resign.”
Democrats, meanwhile, are attempting to shake off the embarrassment of not exposing Santos sooner ahead of what promises to be an expensive race to win back his and other neighboring seats in 2024.
“Now that Santos has been indicted, it is incumbent on Speaker Kevin McCarthy to eliminate the stain of Santos on this hallowed institution by removing him from Congress immediately,” New York Rep. Daniel Goldman, a former federal prosecutor and counsel in Trump’s first impeachment, said in a statement. “We cannot wait any longer.”
The cracks in Santos’ façade first made national headlines in late December 2022, when The New York Times published a long investigation that questioned large chunks of the personal story he sold to voters during the campaign. What followed, though, was often stranger than fiction. A seemingly endless string of new revelations ranging from allegations he stole a dog from an Amish dairy farmer to his own past claims – all false – of playing high-level college volleyball.
As the stories piled up, former friends and associated of Santos began to come forward and share stories claiming he had ripped them off or misled them about his financial and professional situation. A former roommate of the congressman told CNN earlier this year that Santos showed signs of “delusions of grandeur” during their time living together.
“The truth has finally come out,” said Gregory Morey-Parker, who also accused Santos of stealing his scarf. An allegation, like so many others, that Santos denies.
Can remain in Congress
The charges do not, from a legal standpoint, affect Santos’ status as a member of Congress. Nothing in the Constitution’s requirements for congressional office bars individuals under criminal indictment or conviction from serving, except for the 14th Amendment prohibitions for certain treasonous conduct committed after a member has taken the oath of office.
Under the formal rules for the US House of Representatives, according to a Congressional Research Service report, “an indicted Member may continue to participate in congressional proceedings and considerations.”
However, if a member is convicted of a crime that could result in a punishment of two or more years in prison, they are instructed under House rules not to participate in votes on the floor or in committee votes.
McCarthy, when asked whether he would continue to stand by Santos, told CNN Tuesday his policy is that a member of Congress should resign after being found guilty of charges and referenced former GOP Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, who resigned after being convicted of concealing information and making false statements to federal authorities in connection with a probe into illegal campaign contributions.
“Just like we had before with Jeff Fortenberry, he had the same ability, I removed him from committees, but he was found guilty and then I told him he needed to resign. That is my policies and principles on this,” McCarthy said
This story has been updated with additional developments.
CNN’s Tierney Sneed, Manu Raju, Nicky Robertson, Haley Talbot and Jack Forrest contributed to this report.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/09/politics/george-santos-charged-justice-department/index.html
Attachments
aside from some of his cabinet when he was president, he has mainly surrounded himself with incompetent yes men. he always has some stereotypical New York attorney who is absolutely garbage at his job and then is surprised when things don’t go his way. i think he’s going to be in trouble with his criminal trials.