American Politics / Current Events Thread

[Tulpa | 3,718]

9 minutes ago, Dr. Morbis said:

Don't get me wrong, USA is an awesome country, it's just the in-your-face "we're the best ever" stuff doesn't really jive with some of the more head-scratching issues.

Some people put all their worth in acting tough and saying they can kick everyone's ass (even if they actually can't.) So naturally they want their country to do the same.

Don't get me wrong, we can kick everyone's ass if we really wanted to (we still do have a bitchin' arsenal of F-22s, carriers and nukes), but most of us sane Yanks know that's not the end all be all, and that we have a shitton of work to do.

Besides, Canada has idiot patriots, too. Remember the Freedom Convoy?

[Kguillemette | 1,622]

The Supreme Court is quickly turning into a third law making body. They are interpreting the constitution and its amendments as their personal politics see fit and completely alter the way we are to live with nobody to check and balance their decision making. It's pretty terrifying, really.

[avatar! | 1,944]

I went to gun training for US teachers – and one of them 'shot' her colleague

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/06/25/gun-school-how-teachers-us-armed-country-reels-uvalde/

MISLEADING TITLE!

Quite an interesting read. It's about teachers learning how to use guns in case of a shooter at school. So the teacher that in the title says "shot" her colleague, she really mistakenly shot a target that was "friendly". That said, she's practicing for goodness sake! Again, a nice read, but stupid stupid title...

Clocking a girl holding a coke can and a young boy on his phone, Laura holds fire before aiming straight at the bad guy with the gun. No hesitation. Bang-bang. Two shots through the heart. I feel the percussive thuds in my own chest.

“You could wait for law enforcement, but the fastest person is always going to be someone who is already there,” she says, explaining what compelled her to sign up. Statistically, nearly 60 per cent of shootings end before the police arrive. And in thinly patrolled rural areas like Ohio’s West Union, the rate can be even higher. “No one will protect these kids like we will,” Laura says. “I’d take a bullet for them.”

If all teachers who want to protect their kids go through something like this and constantly get practice and certification in self-defense, I'm for it. As we saw in Uvalde it's not as if you can necessarily count on police. That said, I'm not advocating for requiring armed teachers.

 

[OptOut | 9,034]

55 minutes ago, Dr. Morbis said:

Don't get me wrong, USA is an awesome country, it's just the in-your-face "we're the best ever" stuff doesn't really jive with some of the more head-scratching issues.  Not even counting what just happened yesterday, the US is the only developed nation without universal health care, and then combine that with the most ridiculous law of all time in the civilized world: "the right to bear arms."  I mean, is it any wonder why their life expectancy is lower than pretty much all other developed nations?  Way too scary for me to ever want to live there...

They die too much mainly because they're fat tho, they basically only eat sugar and cheese. Then there's the drugs probably second and then third the lack of healthcare.

Guns actually only kill a surprisingly small number compared to those other things, it's actually pretty interesting how fucked their society is before you even get to guns tbh! 

[Kguillemette | 1,622]

25 minutes ago, OptOut said:

They die too much mainly because they're fat tho, they basically only eat sugar and cheese. Then there's the drugs probably second and then third the lack of healthcare.

Guns actually only kill a surprisingly small number compared to those other things, it's actually pretty interesting how fucked their society is before you even get to guns tbh! 

Give me pizza and cheeseburgers or give me death!

[OptOut | 9,034]

1 minute ago, Kguillemette said:

Give me pizza and cheeseburgers or give me death!

[avatar! | 1,944]

51 minutes ago, OptOut said:

They die too much mainly because they're fat tho, they basically only eat sugar and cheese. Then there's the drugs probably second and then third the lack of healthcare.

Guns actually only kill a surprisingly small number compared to those other things, it's actually pretty interesting how fucked their society is before you even get to guns tbh! 

From the CDC

Edit: I was surprised by how many people Alzheimer's kills. Apparently, it's also undercounted, so it may kill thousands more than listed.

Edited June 25, 2022 by avatar!

[Tulpa | 3,718]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/backlash-fearing-trump-is-privately-trashing-the-supreme-courts-destruction-of-abortion-rights-report/ar-AAYReYz?li=BBnbfcL

Backlash-fearing Trump is privately trashing the Supreme Court's destruction of abortion rights: report

According to a report from Rolling Stone's Asawin Suebsaeng and Nikki McCann Ramirez, Donald Trump is putting on a brave face by praising the Supreme Court's controversial decision to overturn the 50-year-old Roe v Wade decision, but in private is worried about the backlash and what it might mean for his political future.

The former president praised the decision that roiled the country on Friday and his political operation fired off a fundraising email that read in part, "Roe v. Wade has been OVERTURNED thanks to Pres Trump! Do you support the Supreme Court’s decision? TELL US HERE,” in an attempt to cash in.

However, the report quotes an associate of the former president who said he has been "sh*tting" on the decision since an early draft was leaked weeks ago.

According to the report, "Publicly, the former president took credit for abrogating the rights of millions of American women, putting out a statement saying Roe’s repeal was 'only made possible because I delivered everything as promised, including nominating and getting three highly respected and strong Constitutionalists confirmed to the United States Supreme Court.' But privately, the former president is anxious about what the end of Roe, and the flood of extreme Republican state-level anti-abortion laws it will unleash, will mean for the GOP’s electoral prospects — and for his own.

On that note, the Trump insider admitted, "He keeps sh*tting all over his greatest accomplishment. When you speak to him, it’s the response of someone fearing the backlash and fearing the politics of what happens when conservatives actually get what they want [on abortion]," before adding, "I do not think he’s enjoying the moment as much as many of his supporters are, to be honest with you.”

The report adds, "In May, Trump privately complained to allies that he worried the Republicans' extreme position on abortion would hurt his position with suburban women. A source told Rolling Stone that Trump was 'worried women in the suburbs could punish him for this one day.'"

[Kguillemette | 1,622]

2 hours ago, Tulpa said:

 

 

The report adds, "In May, Trump privately complained to allies that he worried the Republicans' extreme position on abortion would hurt his position with suburban women. A source told Rolling Stone that Trump was 'worried women in the suburbs could punish him for this one day.'"

I mean if he wants "true constitutionalists", then he probably doesn't think women should have the right to vote anyway. Why is he so worried about what suburban women think?

[MagusSmurf | 579]

20 hours ago, Kguillemette said:

The Supreme Court is quickly turning into a third law making body. They are interpreting the constitution and its amendments as their personal politics see fit and completely alter the way we are to live with nobody to check and balance their decision making. It's pretty terrifying, really.

In this case, " interpreting the constitution and its amendments as their personal politics" is exactly what Roe v. Wade did to begin with. There is no reasonable way to interpret the Constitution as mandating a federally-guaranteed nationwide right to abortion. Even if I was pro-choice, it would still have been an abysmal decision. Overturning it just makes things go back to the way it should have been to begin with. Now you have to actually get your state legislature to make laws guaranteeing a right to abortion if that's what you want rather than relying on a clearly nonsense opinion by seven-of-nine men from 49 years ago bypassing the political process and steamrolling the entire country into doing what they wanted based on them personally thinking that's how things should be.

Roe v. Wade was wrong. It just got the result the pro-choice crowd wanted so they choose not to care about the details. The wailing about the Supreme Court "imposing their personal politics" or whatever by overturning it is beyond ridiculous.

[Kguillemette | 1,622]

29 minutes ago, MagusSmurf said:

In this case, " interpreting the constitution and its amendments as their personal politics" is exactly what Roe v. Wade did to begin with. There is no reasonable way to interpret the Constitution as mandating a federally-guaranteed nationwide right to abortion. Even if I was pro-choice, it would still have been an abysmal decision. Overturning it just makes things go back to the way it should have been to begin with. Now you have to actually get your state legislature to make laws guaranteeing a right to abortion if that's what you want rather than relying on a clearly nonsense opinion by seven-of-nine men from 49 years ago bypassing the political process and steamrolling the entire country into doing what they wanted based on them personally thinking that's how things should be.

Roe v. Wade was wrong. It just got the result the pro-choice crowd wanted so they choose not to care about the details. The wailing about the Supreme Court "imposing their personal politics" or whatever by overturning it is beyond ridiculous.

I don't necessarily disagree, just so we are on the same page. While Roe V. Wade is bar none the most impactful decision to come from the Supreme Court that will absolutely impact millions of lives, my fear remains that the SCOTUS is, shall remain, and will only increase in use as a partisan side door to pass new laws to circumvent the intended use of compromise that our founding fathers gave us. 

Pro Life activists and conservatives may be taking a victory lap this week, but the door is left open for sweeping changes that may be established Generations from now. Should there be a liberal dominated SCOTUS 20 years from now, conservatives will be singing a different tune if a "well regulated militia" is interpreted very unfavorably for them.

[CodysGameRoom | 2,014]

7 hours ago, MagusSmurf said:

Now you have to actually get your state legislature to make laws guaranteeing a right to abortion if that's what you want

So what are we supposed to do when the elected officials do not take all of their constituents wants and needs into consideration? The elected officials in my state make no attempt to consider my or thousands of other Nebraskans opinions. 

7 hours ago, MagusSmurf said:

The wailing about the Supreme Court "imposing their personal politics" or whatever by overturning it is beyond ridiculous.

The vote was 6-3, the 6 all conservative and the 3 all liberal. Also...

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told his law clerks in the '90s that he wanted to serve for 43 years to make liberals' lives 'miserable'

They absolutely are making decisions with their personal politics in mind. To call it ridiculous is to be willfully ignorant of that fact. 

 

 

Edited June 26, 2022 by CodysGameRoom

[fcgamer | 5,015]

On 6/26/2022 at 2:32 AM, OptOut said:

They die too much mainly because they're fat tho, they basically only eat sugar and cheese. Then there's the drugs probably second and then third the lack of healthcare.

Guns actually only kill a surprisingly small number compared to those other things, it's actually pretty interesting how fucked their society is before you even get to guns tbh! 

I think I'd prefer gun violence to knife crime though.

[Californication | 1,491]

On 6/26/2022 at 7:37 AM, MagusSmurf said:

In this case, " interpreting the constitution and its amendments as their personal politics" is exactly what Roe v. Wade did to begin with. There is no reasonable way to interpret the Constitution as mandating a federally-guaranteed nationwide right to abortion. Even if I was pro-choice, it would still have been an abysmal decision. Overturning it just makes things go back to the way it should have been to begin with. Now you have to actually get your state legislature to make laws guaranteeing a right to abortion if that's what you want rather than relying on a clearly nonsense opinion by seven-of-nine men from 49 years ago bypassing the political process and steamrolling the entire country into doing what they wanted based on them personally thinking that's how things should be.

Roe v. Wade was wrong. It just got the result the pro-choice crowd wanted so they choose not to care about the details. The wailing about the Supreme Court "imposing their personal politics" or whatever by overturning it is beyond ridiculous.

Sounds like a bunch of empty rhetoric to me.  I see a bunch of opinions with zero examples.

[Tulpa | 3,718]

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/28/trump-lunged-at-secret-service-agent-in-rage-when-told-he-couldnt-go-to-capitol-on-jan-6-aide-testifies.html

Trump lunged at Secret Service agent in rage when told he couldn’t go to Capitol on Jan. 6, aide testifies

Former President Donald Trump lunged at a Secret Service agent in a rage in the presidential limousine when told he could not be taken to the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, a former White House aide testified Tuesday.

“I’m the ‘effing’ president, take me up to the Capitol now!” Trump insisted, according to the aide, Cassidy Hutchinson, describing what she was told had happened in the limo that day.

Trump also grabbed the steering wheel of the limo in a fury after learning he would not be taken there, Hutchinson said.

Hutchinson, who had served as a top aide to Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, revealed the dramatic incident for the first time at an abruptly scheduled hearing of the select House committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

https://twitter.com/January6thCmte/status/1541845690107699205?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1541845690107699205|twgr^|twcon^s1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnbc.com%2F2022%2F06%2F28%2Ftrump-lunged-at-secret-service-agent-in-rage-when-told-he-couldnt-go-to-capitol-on-jan-6-aide-testifies.html

Edited June 28, 2022 by Tulpa

[Tulpa | 3,718]

Man, the whole thing today has been bonkers.

https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-threw-his-lunch-against-wall-cassidy-hutchinson-testifies-2022-6

Donald Trump threw his lunch against the wall after AG Bill Barr said there was no widespread election fraud, ex-White House aide testifies

President Donald Trump threw his lunch against the wall in the White House because he was angry that Attorney General Bill Barr said there wasn't evidence of widespread election fraud sufficient to change the outcome of the 2020 election, former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified on Tuesday.

Hutchinson told the House committee investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol that she remembered hearing noise down the hallway at the White House in December 2020 about the time that Barr's comments were made public in an interview with the Associated Press.

She walked down the hall and found the White House valet in the dining room, changing the tablecloth. He pointed to the front of the room near the fireplace mantel and television.

"I first noticed there was ketchup dripping down the wall and there was a shattered porcelain plate on the floor," she said. "The valet had articulated that the president was extremely angry at the Attorney General's AP interview and had thrown his lunch against the wall."

Hutchinson said she grabbed a towel and started wiping the ketchup off the wall to help the valet.

"He said something to the effect of, 'He's really ticked off about this. I would stay clear of him for right now,'" Hutchinson said.

[Californication | 1,491]

3 hours ago, Tulpa said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/28/trump-lunged-at-secret-service-agent-in-rage-when-told-he-couldnt-go-to-capitol-on-jan-6-aide-testifies.html

Trump lunged at Secret Service agent in rage when told he couldn’t go to Capitol on Jan. 6, aide testifies

Former President Donald Trump lunged at a Secret Service agent in a rage in the presidential limousine when told he could not be taken to the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, a former White House aide testified Tuesday.

“I’m the ‘effing’ president, take me up to the Capitol now!” Trump insisted, according to the aide, Cassidy Hutchinson, describing what she was told had happened in the limo that day.

Trump also grabbed the steering wheel of the limo in a fury after learning he would not be taken there, Hutchinson said.

Hutchinson, who had served as a top aide to Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, revealed the dramatic incident for the first time at an abruptly scheduled hearing of the select House committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

https://twitter.com/January6thCmte/status/1541845690107699205?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1541845690107699205|twgr^|twcon^s1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnbc.com%2F2022%2F06%2F28%2Ftrump-lunged-at-secret-service-agent-in-rage-when-told-he-couldnt-go-to-capitol-on-jan-6-aide-testifies.html

The cynical part of me wonders if this is a true story.

[MrWunderful | 2,932]

I mean, we all know he’s a low IQ, petulant, narcissist, why is it surprising? 
 

Maybe it says more about the people that still support him,  I don’t know. 

[Gloves | 12,269]

26 minutes ago, Californication said:

The cynical part of me wonders if this is a true story.

Isn't it hearsay?

"“I’m the ‘effing’ president, take me up to the Capitol now!” Trump insisted, according to the aide, Cassidy Hutchinson, describing what she was told had happened in the limo that day."

[MrWunderful | 2,932]

55 minutes ago, Gloves said:

Isn't it hearsay?

"“I’m the ‘effing’ president, take me up to the Capitol now!” Trump insisted, according to the aide, Cassidy Hutchinson, describing what she was told had happened in the limo that day."

I think she testified under oath. If so, its a lot to risk the threat of federal perjury for hearsay. Maybe im mistaken though, haven't really checked If an official House committee can force people to swear under oath (or if they could slap someone with perjury? Recommend to the DOJ to prosecute perjury?)

 

Pretty on character though.

 

On the other hand, it could be the deep state!

Edit: I went back and read the article again. She named names, which leads me to believe that those people would corroborate her story if compelled to testify under Oath.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 29, 2022 by MrWunderful

[Gloves | 12,269]

11 minutes ago, MrWunderful said:

I think she testified under oath. If so, its a lot to risk the threat of federal perjury for hearsay. Maybe im mistaken though, haven't really checked If an official House committee can force people to swear under oath (or if they could slap someone with perjury? Recommend to the DOJ to prosecute perjury?)

 

Pretty on character though.

 

On the other hand, it could be the deep state!

Edit: I went back and read the article again. She named names, which leads me to believe that those people would corroborate her story if compelled to testify under Oath.

Fair nuf! I'll admit to having next to no knowledge on how that stuff works. I just thought you couldn't say "I heard from X that this happened", but I guess it's more complicated than that.

[Tulpa | 3,718]

1 hour ago, Gloves said:

Isn't it hearsay?

"“I’m the ‘effing’ president, take me up to the Capitol now!” Trump insisted, according to the aide, Cassidy Hutchinson, describing what she was told had happened in the limo that day."

It's not a trial, it's a hearing on whether charges should be presented to the Department of Justice. If it does get referred, then likely someone who was there would have to testify for it to be admissible.

But for the hearing, they can present whatever they want and the DOJ can choose to act or not.

[Tulpa | 3,718]

26 minutes ago, MrWunderful said:

I think she testified under oath. If so, its a lot to risk the threat of federal perjury for hearsay. Maybe im mistaken though, haven't really checked If an official House committee can force people to swear under oath (or if they could slap someone with perjury? Recommend to the DOJ to prosecute perjury?)

She is sworn in, and if she lied to Congress, that's its own crime.

[Gloves | 12,269]

1 minute ago, Tulpa said:

It's not a trial, it's a hearing on whether charges should be presented to the Department of Justice. If it does get referred, then likely someone who was there would have to testify for it to be admissible.

But for the hearing, they can present whatever they want and the DOJ can choose to act or not.

Thanks for the info!

[PII | 2,040]

2 hours ago, Californication said:

The cynical part of me wonders if this is a true story.

I liked the part where he "grabbed the steering wheel of the limo."

Edited June 29, 2022 by PII