Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
4 hours ago, Pancho said:

Is this NPD, @Anastasis? Surely nothing health related, right?

 

lol. You really this on tilt about the tapper book? Like do you feel really this bad for arguing against obvious reality?  Let me ask you a question.  How much of your daily media consumption is Twitter and blue sky? 
 

Trump dissembling and quoting wholesale gas prices. Are you shocked? I ain’t. 

53 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

image.thumb.jpeg.ec9558d29be0466c22bf3efb7343684a.jpeg

Like no self awareness at all. 

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
On 5/18/2025 at 12:34 PM, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

exactly. every single one of us is an immigrant, except for a dwindling few that we're trying to passively finish off

Measles for all the indigenous people

 

On 5/18/2025 at 8:18 PM, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

Elon downloaded everything into Grock/ xAI and now he needs to monetize it.

Posted
13 hours ago, TexArcher said:

Sure, 175 billion to shoot down all the missiles that have never been fired at us seems reasonable.

It'll be like a Soviet military budget. 20 or so billion will go to contractor friends that will make a few prototypes and then have a few to sit in storage. The remaining 150 billion will be straight up missing.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

It'll be like a Soviet military budget. 20 or so billion will go to contractor friends that will make a few prototypes and then have a few to sit in storage. The remaining 150 billion will be straight up missing.

This is exactly that.  The Golden Dome is grift like everything else.  The techbros saw us spending billions on overpriced and behind schedule hardware we badly need and dared to disrupt by asking: “why not billions for overpriced and behind schedule vaporware that we don’t need at all?” 
 

Much higher return to founders. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 3
Posted
5 minutes ago, Ghost of NMAS said:

I’m guessing at least 75% don’t know what it is.

Yeah I guess I should take comfort this is more ignorance than malice. But then 75% won't understand what is happening if it gets suspended. That's not good.

Posted
1 hour ago, Ghost of NMAS said:

I’m guessing at least 75% don’t know what it is.

It looks like about half of Trump voters think it's the President's power to deport people. 

Posted (edited)

The fact that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus is gonna be a problem isn’t it?

Completely separate set of circumstances and more importantly motives but these dipshits are going to spin it up and the unwashed masses will swallow it. 

Edited by Surly Bevo
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
10 minutes ago, Surly Bevo said:

The fact that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus is gonna be a problem isn’t it?

Completely separate set of circumstances and more importantly motives but these dipshits are going to spin it up and the unwashed masses will swallow it. 

Yup.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

If We Can’t Prosecute Trump’s Foes, We’ll ‘Shame’ Them, Justice Dept. Official Says

https://archive.is/SLN1j

Quote

President Trump has kept up a steady bombardment of suggestions, requests and demands to arrest, investigate or prosecute targets of his choosing — the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, various Democrats, officials who refuted his election lies, Beyoncé, the Boss.

But Mr. Trump’s directives have so far hit a stubborn snag. Few, if any, of those singled out have done anything to invite conventional prosecutorial scrutiny, much less committed prosecutable crimes to warrant an indictment under federal law.

But a Trump loyalist, given new, vague and possibly vast power, has found a workaround.

In recent days, Ed Martin, the incoming leader of the Justice Department’s “weaponization” group, made a candid if unsurprising admission: He plans to use his authority to expose and discredit those he believes to be guilty, even if he cannot find sufficient evidence to prosecute them — weaponizing an institution he has been hired to de-weaponize, in the view of critics.

“If they can be charged, we’ll charge them,” Mr. Martin told reporters before stepping down as interim U.S. attorney in Washington. “But if they can’t be charged, we will name them. And we will name them, and in a culture that respects shame, they should be people that are ashamed.”

He added, “That’s the way things work.”

President Trump has targeted several officials, including the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey.Credit...Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

That is not the way things have worked. The cardinal rule of prosecutors is to speak only through evidence and court filings. The department is supposed to abide by the dictum of charging crimes, not people. Naming and shaming is antithetical to its mission of pursuing justice impartially. And Mr. Martin’s statement appears to violate the department’s ethical and procedural rule book, which mandates “fair, evenhanded” investigations to safeguard “the privacy and reputation interests of uncharged” investigative targets.

“Outside of cases where you have someone whose conduct is open and notorious, the idea of targeting individuals is antithetical to the notion of the government investigating crimes, not people,” said Daniel C. Richman, a law professor at Columbia and a former federal prosecutor.

“And the person who will be picking out those people has no record of the prudential exercise of judgment in federal prosecutions, but in fact has a record of abusive invocations of government power,” he added.

Since taking office, Mr. Trump has blurred, and at times obliterated, the line between personal score-settling and running a country — threatening law firms that harbor his opponents and using executive orders to punish or intimidate individuals and institutions, often using the threat of Justice Department action as leverage to extract concessions.

Mr. Martin, a cheerful but obdurate activist from Missouri, has often out-Trumped the Trump team. In his brief stint as U.S. attorney, he thrust himself into national politics by leveling threats against Democrats and academic institutions. His subordinates quietly urged him to pump the brakes — and had to stop him from indicting the Democratic leader, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, for making a vague threat at Supreme Court justices five years ago.

Some of Mr. Martin’s inquiries proceeded. One of them was an investigation into another New York antagonist of Mr. Trump’s, Andrew Cuomo, over congressional testimony about his response as governor to the coronavirus pandemic.

Nonetheless, it has all been a bit too much for many in his own party. Earlier this month, Republican senators blocked Mr. Martin’s nomination to permanently run the U.S. attorney’s office. In recompense, he was given control over the department’s pardon office and the weaponization group with authority to pursue Mr. Trump’s onetime investigators, including Jack Smith, the special counsel who indicted him twice.

Mr. Martin was given control over the department’s pardon office and the weaponization group with authority to pursue Mr. Trump’s onetime investigators, including Jack Smith, the special counsel who indicted him twice.Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times

Mr. Martin has virtually no investigative experience. Instead he has signaled he intends to subject the president’s accusers to humiliations and inconveniences comparable to what Mr. Trump endured, to right perceived wrongs.

“They tried to bankrupt him, they tried to put him in prison for life for non-crimes, they tried to get him off the ballot,” said Mike Davis, a Republican and former Senate Judiciary Committee aide with close ties to the Trump White House. “They must be held accountable for this criminal conspiracy.”

Mr. Trump and his team said they are rebuilding, not destroying, the department.

“Unfortunately in recent years, a corrupt group of hacks and radicals within the ranks of the American government obliterated the trust and good will built up over generations,” Mr. Trump told an audience of supporters at the department in March.

Yet there is a hollowness in the president’s effort to spin a vengeance trip as a path back to normalcy. It is undercut by calls to prosecute opponents that began with “Lock Her Up” chants about Hillary Clinton in 2016 and now encompass a breathtaking range of targets.

On April 9, Mr. Trump ordered the investigation of Miles Taylor, a former official who had criticized him anonymously. On the same day, he directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to open an inquiry into Chris Krebs, a former cybersecurity official who refuted Mr. Trump’s false claim that the 2020 election was stolen from him.

Mr. Trump then ordered an investigation of ActBlue, a Democratic fund-raising platform. That was followed this month by higher-profile, if less formal, accusations on social media against liberal entertainers — including Beyoncé, Bruce Springsteen and Oprah Winfrey — for accepting fees to perform at Kamala Harris’s campaign events.

His appointees have followed suit. Richard Grenell, installed as the president of the Kennedy Center, recently called for a criminal investigation into the organization’s finances.

The Justice Department has declined to comment on the referrals.

But the threat of action is real, and the department has not been shy about opening investigations or arresting politicians and judges, including the Democratic mayor of Newark over a trespassing charge and a Wisconsin judge accused of shielding an immigrant from federal agents.

The administration has also dropped cases against Trump allies, most notably Mayor Eric Adams of New York, and pardoned Capitol rioters whose convictions were buttressed by evidence. At the same time, it has at the same time decimated units responsible for prosecuting white-collar and public corruption cases. That, combined with an energetic focus on vendettas, might create a vacuum of enforcement of real and provable crimes, according to former officials.

It is a sharp turnabout from his first term, when Mr. Trump accused the Justice Department of violating the protective norms by disclosing details of investigations into his conduct to harm him. It was his main justification for firing Mr. Comey in 2017, after the F.B.I. director publicly acknowledged that he was investigating the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russia.

Last week, Mr. Comey returned to center stage after posting an image of seashells arrayed on a beach to read “86 47.” Mr. Trump prodded Ms. Bondi to investigate the quickly deleted post as an assassination threat.

Mr. Martin said during an interview without offering evidence that Samantha Power, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, had given money to political parties to sway elections.Credit...Natalie Keyssar for The New York Times

“That is going to be up to Pam,” the president told Fox News, adding, “If he had a clean history I could understand if there was a leniency, but I’m going to let them make that decision.”

It remains to be seen if Mr. Martin will be given full control over the weaponization initiative. Some administration aides think he talks too much and would better serve Mr. Trump by backing off, according to officials with knowledge of their dynamic.

But Mr. Martin, already the subject of investigation into his conduct as U.S. attorney, appears set on his course.

During a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, he mentioned that a whistle-blower informed him that Samantha Power, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, had given money to political parties to sway elections in another country. He offered no evidence.

“The question is, are we going to get all of it, name it and then hold some people accountable?” Mr. Martin said. “People say, ‘Are you going to walk people out in cuffs?’ Right now, I’d be happy to just have people know their names.”

At another point, Mr. Martin said he viewed himself as being engaged in a “war over information.” He cited a letter he had written to Wikipedia accusing it of bias and improperly shielding itself from scrutiny through its tax-exempt status.

He never suggested that Wikipedia had broken the law. He indicated that his letter was to air his view of their actions in the public arena.

“A prosecutor saying that about Wikipedia is vastly different than Tucker Carlson saying it,” Mr. Martin said. “And that’s the point of the job.”

The role of a prosecutor, he claimed, “is not just to find the right guy to prosecute” but to publicize their purported wrongdoing in public.

In a landmark 1940 speech, a top Justice Department official offered another vision.

Robert H. Jackson, then the attorney general, told department employees that the “greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power” was when an official “finds some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense.”

 

  • Haha 2
  • Rage+1 2
Posted

And we will name them, and in a culture that respects shame, they should be people that are ashamed.”

That is the Trumpiest Trump ever Trumped.  And Trump isn't even the one to say it.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Ghost of NMAS said:

I’m guessing at least 75% don’t know what it is.

I’ve been watching CourtTV.  I’m gonna talk to the judge about a writ of habeas corpus. image.gif.0b4bb6b8ecebd5fbad2109f8050ba97d.gif

Edited by Rex Kramer
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted

This is Trump’s way of saying to black people;  fuck all you black motherfuckers…I don’t give a damn about you:

https://apnews.com/article/justice-department-police-reform-george-floyd-9d7cf00be8477e3dcb2fe1a658d73667

The Justice Department moved Wednesday to cancel settlements with Minneapolis and Louisville that called for an overhaul of their police departments following the killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor that became the catalyst for nationwide racial injustice protests in the summer of 2020.

The Trump administration also announced it was retracting the findings of Justice Department investigations into six other police departments that the Biden administration had accused of civil rights violations.

  • Rage+1 7
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

This actually made me physically ill.  There just is no bottom.

In good news, you can just add it to the pile of shit and nobody will remember it in the US in about 48 hours (and only about 15% of Americans will even hear about it at all).

Edited by SimonBolivar
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 minute ago, SimonBolivar said:

In good news, you can just add it to the pile of shit and nobody will remember it in the US in about 48 hours (and only about 15% of Americans will even hear about it at all).

The rest of the world will remember all of it. You can book that one.

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
24 minutes ago, Satchel said:

This is Trump’s way of saying to black people;  fuck all you black motherfuckers…I don’t give a damn about you:

https://apnews.com/article/justice-department-police-reform-george-floyd-9d7cf00be8477e3dcb2fe1a658d73667

 

The Justice Department moved Wednesday to cancel settlements with Minneapolis and Louisville that called for an overhaul of their police departments following the killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor that became the catalyst for nationwide racial injustice protests in the summer of 2020.

The Trump administration also announced it was retracting the findings of Justice Department investigations into six other police departments that the Biden administration had accused of civil rights violations.

"Damn, it's the Democrats man.  They just don't get us."

  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Valmy77 said:

Only 47% of "Conservatives" and only 44% of Republicans support the fucking right to Habeas Corpus?

How can taking the radical position that one of the foundational rights of our legal system that predates the United States by centuries should not be supported be a Conservative position?

I don't understand what the term means anymore. Is there anything so radical that it cannot be considered "Conservative"?

And I hate this country. How can only 60% of the people support the right to Habeas Corpus. Land of the slaves and home of the sheep. Granted 24% just don't know what it is. That's fair.

Screenshot 2025-05-21 105157.jpg

Not just our legal system, it's one of the fundamental principles of democracy in general. Habeus corpus far predates America, hell it predates the goddamn Magna Carta. It might be the most important pillar of democracy.

2 hours ago, Surly Bevo said:

The fact that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus is gonna be a problem isn’t it?

Completely separate set of circumstances and more importantly motives but these dipshits are going to spin it up and the unwashed masses will swallow it. 

He also got congressional approval (retroactively).

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

How long until world leaders just say, "Nah, I'll pass" when invited to the WH?  

when their debasement isn't worth whatever they're getting in return. notice which heads of state have visited this regime so far.

Edited by Longhorn_Fan68
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

How long until world leaders just say, "Nah, I'll pass" when invited to the WH?  

I might have missed mention of this story. A woman felt obligated to go to the White House to accept one of the newly created Medals of Sacrifice on behalf of her late father. Her expression, when she accepted the medal, went viral, much to her chagrin. She posted a video of explanation, at the end of which she stated, “Free Palestine!”

https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-diaz-tiktok-video-trump-meeting-response-2075171

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

Trump is a moron and hateful person and the South African President comes off as more articulate and thoughtful.

That said, today I learned the South African government did pass a law permitting the government to take land without compensation in a process that is subject to judicial review. Oof.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
4 hours ago, Valmy77 said:

Only 47% of "Conservatives" and only 44% of Republicans support the fucking right to Habeas Corpus?

How can taking the radical position that one of the foundational rights of our legal system that predates the United States by centuries should not be supported be a Conservative position?

I don't understand what the term means anymore. Is there anything so radical that it cannot be considered "Conservative"?

And I hate this country. How can only 60% of the people support the right to Habeas Corpus. Land of the slaves and home of the sheep. Granted 24% just don't know what it is. That's fair.

Screenshot 2025-05-21 105157.jpg

 

IMG_3434.gif

IMG_3435.gif

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 6


×
×
  • Create New...