Battle of the Olds
Plus: Ozempic's potential, AOC shilling for Biden, "toxic masculinity" discourse, and more...

Biden still in crisis: Democratic Party turmoil seemingly knows no end.
New polling from YouGov hilariously shows that the only demographic group of Democrats that's seemingly still in favor of a Joe Biden presidential candidacy is—you guessed it—the over-65 crew.
Plurality of Dems now say Biden should step aside; seniors only demographic in support of massively unpopular incumbent pic.twitter.com/rpAtXiqeD9
— Chase Madar ???? (@ChaseMadar) July 9, 2024
Meanwhile, The Cook Political Report has made six changes to its rankings, showing former President Donald Trump leading to an even greater degree in several crucial swing states following Biden's abysmal debate performance.
The New York Times has proclaimed Biden's strategy to be "running out the clock." In other words: If he can weather this news cycle, and the next few weeks of fixation on his cognitive decline and possible dementia, he will leave the rest of his party in an even worse spot to replace him. Time will run out, which will cement his position on the ticket.
It's all profoundly embarrassing for Team Blue, which continues to do quite well in polling for contested Senate races but quite terribly when it comes to direct Trump-Biden polling matchups.
Trump's strategy: The big swing states this time around, from easiest to hardest to win, will be Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania/Wisconsin (those last two are a bit of a toss-up in terms of difficulty). Since winning Pennsylvania would be such a huge blow to Biden, Trump's campaign has been trying to figure out the best way to bolster their Rust Belt appeal, including by rocketing Sen. J.D. Vance (R–Ohio) to the top of the list for vice-presidential contenders. (Trump is likely to announce his pick for running mate sometime over the next week.)
As for the reinvented Republican platform—covered in yesterday's Roundup—it very clearly bears the marks of Trump's influence on the party. Softer on abortion and gay marriage but tougher on immigration and free trade, it feels like a massive departure from GOP platforms of the past. With, of course, the exception of 2020, in which the party simply chose not to release a platform.
Europe hates their politicians, too: I've covered the "double-hater" phenomenon in Roundup before: The idea that a presidential race will be decided not by fans of either candidate or clear partisans of either side, but by an ever-higher number of people who strongly dislike both candidates and feel comfortable plugging their nose and just getting their voting over with in order to vote against the worse one.
In both France and the U.K., The Wall Street Journal reports, "results are becoming more volatile from ballot to ballot" as party loyalty has declined across the board. "Support for established parties of the center right and center left is declining as voters turn to upstarts. New movements can rise fast but also fade quickly, as French President Emmanuel Macron's pro-business centrists have discovered."
"Political fragmentation is making countries such as France, Germany, Spain and the Netherlands less governable just as geopolitical pressures on Europe are growing," notes the Journal. Meanwhile, polling by Ipsos indicates voters on the continent are more dissatisfied than satisfied with democracy, and groups like Marine Le Pen's National Rally and Germany's AfD (Alternative für Deutschland) are growing in success and influence.
Scenes from New York: Is New York becoming a battleground state? asks Politico. Four years ago, Biden won the state by 23 points (!) but this year, "public polls over the last four months found Biden's lead had winnowed to just 8 points across New York—an unusually narrow gap in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2 to 1" and two polls from a House swing district basically found a tie between the two presidential candidates.
QUICK HITS
- "Since his feeble debate performance, multiple polls have shown that both Mr. Biden's approval rating and his chance of beating Mr. Trump have markedly dropped from their already shaky levels," writes the editorial board of The New York Times. "In response, he has adopted a favorite theme of the floundering politician, insisting that the polls are wrong in showing that his presidency is historically unpopular."
- Both Microsoft and Apple have scrapped plans to take board positions at OpenAI. "Regulators in Europe and the US had expressed concern about Microsoft's sway over OpenAI, applying pressure on one of the world's most valuable companies to show that it's keeping the relationship at arm's length," reports Bloomberg.
- Interesting dive into whether Ozempic and other weight-loss drugs could be effective in fighting addiction (as well as a bit of media criticism as to how these drugs have been covered in the press).
- Lol:
To make up for this heinous crime, I will refrain from having omelette for a week pic.twitter.com/FecxG8Rjmg
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 10, 2024
- "Why Is the Squad Backing Biden So forcefully?" asks Nia Prater at Intelligencer.
- New Just Asking Questions, on boys and men and "toxic masculinity" discourse:
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Democratic Party turmoil seemingly knows no end.
It will end at the convention, in November or at Harris’ swearing in.
The country's turmoil, on the other hand...
NO BLOOD FOR TURMOIL!
This one made me smile.
Turmoil... Removes sunglasses... Or termoil
claims of turmoil cancer next up ...
I hate it when turmoil falls from the sky and gunks up my windshield.
I see you've also been to Delaware.
FoE should run for President.
Slogan: The Fisting you deserve.
Slogan: The other guys have fucked you so hard that a little Fist will feel nice.
I won't be using either of those.
Well, it's not our fault if you lose the race.
It cost NYC 4M dollars paid to consultants to come up with their brilliant trash can plan.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy-and-environment/3075917/nycs-trash-can-initiative-cost-city-4m-consultants/
NY and CA are definitely examples of late-stage big govt bureaucracy failures. Billions spent on a train that goes between cities no one cares about or wants to visit. Millions spent on ideas like "put trash in cans"
All the while they are bleeding from a tax-base standpoint, worsening their deficits. If only we could build a wall to keep the people voting for the stuff in to bask in it
Just call it "late stage socialism." Same difference.
""examples of late-stage big govt bureaucracy failures. ""
Failures? I disagree. It put money in cronies' pockets.
Any promoted power for thousands of progressives.
The right people got paid the 4 mil, so it was worth it.
"“The new official NYC Bin is the cheapest bin of its quality available; similarly durable bins with wheels and a secure, latching lid are sold in retail stores for almost three times the price,” the mayor’s office said in a statement.""
So they are shitty bins as well. Good stuff. Money well spent.
"We also made sure the quickly-damaged bins are totally unrecyclable."
Easily converted into portable apartments.
PODS
“”the cheapest bin of its quality available””
What’s the odds a subsidy is involved?
Same as the odds the manufacturer donates to democrats and has connections to the consultants.
And the mob?
Rat family or Italian?
And I already mentioned democrats.
Plurality of Dems now say Biden should step aside; seniors only demographic in support of massively unpopular incumbent...
The only reliable voting bloc. Biden stays.
Will SleepyJoe accept Trump’s offer to play a round of golf?
Honestly, I'm surprised at how reticent Trump has been since the debate. He seems to be listening to some sound advice that the best thing to do is to sit back and let the Dems rip each other to pieces, instead of going off the reservation and providing the media with soundbites that they desperately want in order to take the attention off of their fellow Democrats' political dysfunction.
Turns out the Biden campaign sez joe is “too busy” to play golf.
I believe the old saying is, "Don't butt in on your enemy while they're being complete fucking retards"
His inability to do that 4 years ago in those debates cost him.
If nothing else, this shows Trump is smart enough to learn from past mistakes, which is rather refreshing for a politician.
Ballot stuffers have his back too.
The dead, general; don't forget the dead.
So that's what Cuomo and Fauci were up to.
And the illegals who are supposed to be able to vote.
"A policy statement from the Biden administration said it “strongly opposes” the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act,
It is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in Federal elections — it is a Federal crime punishable by prison and fines. The alleged justification for this bill is based on easily disproven falsehoods,” the statement said. “Additionally, making a false claim of citizenship or unlawfully voting in an election is punishable by removal from the United States and a permanent bar to admission.”
The statement added, “States already have effective safeguards in place to verify voters’ eligibility and maintain the accuracy of voter rolls. This bill would do nothing to safeguard our elections, but it would make it much harder for all eligible Americans to register to vote and increase the risk that eligible voters are purged from voter rolls.”
Funny, but when we make similar arguments about additional gun control laws just making it harder to law abiding Americans while doing nothing to stop criminals, that falls on deaf ears.
Dems and feds sued Arizona to disallow checks on citizenship by forcing them to accept the federal form whose sole check is a box on the form.
The Dems know their rationale for opposing the SAVE Act is bullshit. Let's apply it to taxes. It's already illegal not to pay your full tax burden to the IRS, or to lie about your income. So then there should be no requirement for you or your employer to submit your W-2 or 1099 form to the IRS. Since it's already illegal to cheat on your taxes, you can just tell the IRS what you owe in taxes, with no verification.
Somehow I don't think the Dems would apply their flawed logic for opposing the SAVE Act to taxes.
That bloc (regardless of party) is the one that votes. And the one that buys the candidates/campaigns/etc. And the one that doesn't appreciate questions about the age of incumbents. So of course they win. Hey presto - gerontocracy.
Sortition would be the best way to get rid of that excess influence. Even if it is limited to requiring critters to exert power via sortition-based assemblies rather than appointed staff/etc.
How about decimation?
That would work better than immunity
Jeff's America. And activists admit the issue. Awkward for Jeff.
End Wokeness
@EndWokeness
SB1414 is a proposal to make it a felony to purchase chiIdren for s*x in California.
.
Woke activist groups OPPOSE this bill by complaining that it will harm the LGBTQ community and people or color.
.
Dems already watered down the bill.
Video
https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1810378758991536525
This is the bill in California to make it a felony yo solicit a minor for sex.
Oh Jesse. this is you being dishonest again.
If you actually watch the video - which I'm pretty sure you didn't - you will see that they are opposing the bill NOT because they think LGBTQ people commit more sex crimes, but because they think the law will be disproportionately enforced against LGBTQ people.
But because you and your team have become a bunch of regressive assholes on the matter of LGBTQ rights, you are not beneath stooping so low as to suggest that they are opposing the bill because then they won't be able to get away with all of their sex crimes.
"NOT because they think LGBTQ people commit more sex crimes, but because they think the law will be disproportionately enforced against LGBTQ people."
Why would they be enforced so heavily on those people? If they arent grooming kids, shouldnt be an issue.
Because they are an easier minority to pick on.
But I love your whole attitude of "if you've got nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear". I'm sure you apply that same standard to people on your team, right? Not.
Because they are an easier minority to pick on.
HA AH HA HA HA HA
Jeff still believes this shit despite how celebrated they are by government a d corporations. It is fucking amazing how willing Jeff is to lie for his party and constituents. Always the victim despite all evidence.
Wasnt jeff just yesterday demanding support of jailing Bannon for breaking the law of, checks notes, following Trumps claim of executive privilege? The literal criminal targeting he says the other side would do?
Jesse evidently believes no gays are oppressed anywhere in America anymore. Because in his little media circle he sees nothing but OUTRAGE AT PRIDE PARADE.
Wasnt jeff just yesterday demanding support of jailing Bannon for breaking the law
no, I was pointing out your typical hypocrisy of wailing over the plight of Steve Bannon for breaking the law, when you condemn all those damn illegals for breaking the law and "they should have known better"
Because they are an easier minority to pick on.
"DON'T FELONIZE BUYING CHILD SEX SLAVES BECAUSE THE COPS MIGHT FOCUS ON MY SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP"
Well this one goes right up there with Jeff's "If you jerk off onto a child during her gang rape, or claim to feel bad about it afterwards, it's not really as wrong".
When I call Jeff "evil" it isn't hyperbole.
As usual, the jeff links.
https://reason.com/2024/06/27/double-haters/?comments=true#comment-10619535
https://reason.com/2024/06/25/americas-mayors-say-the-heartland-needs-immigrants/?comments=true#comment-10616918
It is probably Sulu who told Jeff to be against this.
He didn’t post kiddie porn links like Shrike, but Jeff’s defense of this pedophilia, whether gay porn involving kids in schoolbooks, gang rape of kids in parks, or laws that say you can’t buy child sex slaves, seems to indicate a problem with him.
Yeah, it's not really a coincidence that he throws a conniption fit every time sexualization of children is criticized. The fat fuck can't help telling on himself.
I really hope his neighbors keep their children away from him.
Can he even waddle up the stairs to reach them?
nobody is defending pedophilia
you are an evil gaslighting asshole as usual.
Asking minors for sex is free speech and totally not pedophilia! - radical pedophile
Asking minors for sex is not pedophilia, correct.
If an 18-year-old solicits sex from a 17-year-old, even if no sex takes place, should the 18-year-old be convicted of a felony and thrown in prison for 4 years? Yes or no? Do you think this is a just punishment?
“nobody is defending pedophilia”
YOU were defending pedophiles and trying to minimize what they were doing, you evil fat fuck.
People have already posted all the links, right here in this thread, where you do exactly that.
But it’s not just gay porn in schoolbooks, gang raping kids in parks, or the purchase of child sex slaves.
In hindsight I realize now that you were already giving yourself away back in 2021. You really don’t want to understand that fucking around sexually with kids is morally wrong:
chemjeff radical individualist 23 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Where did this idea come from that “individual responsibility is the core of libertarianism”?
It’s called “libertarianism”, not “responsibiiltarianism”.
Chuck P – Notice he had nothing to say about individual responsibility, which is the core of libertarianism.
Standing naked in your front window while kids are walking by on their way to school is libertine, doesn’t harm anyone, and is also completely unacceptable.
All correct. And, from a libertarian perspective, should not be criminalized by the state, because no aggression is taking place.
A libertarian society is not this moralistic utopia. If we had Libertopia, there would be a lot of bad shit happening, because *people* are capable of doing a lot of bad shit, and when people are free to exercise a maximum degree of liberty, a great many of them will use that liberty irresponsibly in ways that most of us would not approve of. The way that the bad shit is minimized is via voluntary action.
So in your hypothetical example, I would imagine that parents of those kids would politely ask the creepy exhibitionist to be more considerate and not to flash the kids on their way to school. If the exhibitionist refuses, then it’s up to the parents to try another strategy, such as choosing a different route to school, or applying peer pressure on the exhibitionist until he changes his mind. That is how change happens in a libertarian society without resorting to government coercion throwing the exhibitionist in jail.”
https://reason.com/2023/05/26/child-shot-by-mississippi-cop-after-calling-911-about-domestic-disturbance/?comments=true#comment-10081276
or applying peer pressure on the exhibitionist until he changes his mind.
Except when he complains that trying to do just that is “imposing an IDENTITY” by social enforcement against personal deviancy, like flashing your dick to kids.
The common denominator in all these complaints is that he thinks people should be allowed to impose their sexual fetishes on kids without consequence, or they’re being oppressed by authoritarianism. And the mere fact that he believes exposing your dick to minors is perfectly acceptable behavior is a massive tell.
I got a shovel and a gun, that's the kind of peer pressure I believe in when it comes to a grown man flashing his dick at underage children.
YOU were defending pedophiles
lie, you evil gaslighter
he believes exposing your dick to minors is perfectly acceptable
that is a lie, I don't think it is acceptable. I also don't think completely rearranging society to satisfy the moral panic of crusader dickheads like yourself who only use children as a mere excuse to enforce your rigid morality onto everyone else via the law.
In the above example, if a child on a public street sees a grown man naked in his own house through the window, do you really think that the police should arrest the man in his own house? On what charge? 'Public indecency' even though he wasn't in public?
that is a lie, I don’t think it is acceptable.
Why is it so hard for you then, to simply say that “flashing your junk to kids is morally depraved,” rather than indulge in sophistic wankery about what a True and Honest Libertarian Society would actually do?
Because if a society like that won’t actually pass laws that forbid such acts, then it’s not really a surprise why such a society would be seen as repugnant.
I also don’t think completely rearranging society to satisfy the moral panic of crusader dickheads like yourself who only use children as a mere excuse to enforce your rigid morality onto everyone else via the law.
If you think passing laws against depraved pedophiles who get off on flashing their dicks to children is a “moral panic,” it shows that your supposed stance against such behavior is a flat-out lie. But then, you think child molesters should be allowed to enter this country if someone back home wants to kill them, so that’s hardly a surprise.
‘Public indecency’ even though he wasn’t in public?
Flashing your dick to kids from your house is something that actually can be charged under public indecency, regardless of where you do it from, you stupid fat fuck. That is, if one of the parents doesn’t put a shotgun slug through the window when you do it. Remember, this is an actual normal community, not the bug-chasing, pedophilic utopia of the Folsom Street Fair.
Why is it so hard for you then, to simply say that “flashing your junk to kids is morally depraved,”
I JUST DID when I said it is unacceptable. Here is a news flash: not every act that is 'morally depraved' should be criminalized by law. The law should be to punish violations of the NAP, not to impose some strict morality onto everyone. I'm also opposed to the idea that the government should act as a surrogate parent, that instead of you telling your kid where to go and what to do, that instead it is the government's job to force everyone else to restrict their behavior because you don't want to properly parent your own kid.
I think that if a child on a public street sees a naked man *in his own home, on his own property*, through a window, that I do not think the man should be charged with a crime by the state, no matter how much of a moral reprobate he may be. He's allowed to do whatever he wants IN HIS OWN FUCKING HOUSE. He's not imposing or forcing anything onto anyone, it's the child who should be told, by his/her parents, not to go by that house. And this has nothing to do with defending creepy perverted behavior, it is about instead defending property rights and placing the duty of parenting where it belongs - on the parents, not on the state and not on everyone else.
But I get it, you don't want a law that merely punishes NAP violations, you want a law that enforces a morality that everyone ought to adhere to, and those who disagree should be driven away or sent to prison. So the creepy guy who walks around naked in his house should be sent to prison because your morality is more important than fundamental liberty.
No, fuckhead.
The argument is:
"Don't create a moral panic because that results in minority groups being treated more harshly than everyone else".
I mean, you COULD argue against their actual position, but it's just a lot more fun to call them all a bunch of pedophiles, right?
A moral panic? Criminalizing an evil act isn't causing a moral panic. Let's hear one good reason that anyone who doesn't want to harm kids would be opposed to it being a felony to sell a kid.
Murder being illegal caused a moral panic.
This bill is about SOLICITATION. Not about sexual intercourse. Not about sex slavery.
Sex with kids was illegal, is still illegal, and will remain illegal in California.
This bill is about how harsh the penalties should be for SOLICITATION only.
Got it?
If a 19-year-old man solicits a 17-year-old "girl" who looks 18, and whom he thought was 18, should that man be thrown in prison for 4 years as a felon, even if there was no sexual intercourse? That is what the original California bill did.
Why would criminalizing asking minors for sex hurt the LGBT people more?
Because it postpones their pedophiliac (and generally hyper-libertine) utopia.
“Shut up, racist” – Jeff
We all know why.
While the larger portion of gays like actual men. Big beefcakes and muscles and hairy chests and the like, there is still a large subset of creepers that identify as gay men that are clearly into young teenage boys. The same type of pedophiles that plagued Athens for a period.
The pederasts, the whole twink and daddy bit that nobody wants to talk about.
These guy’s, together with the trans, have a long history of taking in young runaway teens, feeding them, clothing them, giving them a room and plenty of drugs in exchange for sex. They have spent a long time trying to normalize what they are doing. This law would ruin that.
Jeff knows it too, and he’s certainly an ally which is why he’s flipping out.
According to the video, because applying ANY law that is excessively harsh will mean minority groups suffer more, because they tend to suffer the wrath of the authorities to a greater extent. They are easier to pick on. They are less sympathetic in the public eye and therefore they are easier to prosecute and convict in front of an unsympathetic jury. Not to mention that the police patrol neighborhoods unevenly and tend to concentrate in areas that are more 'problematic' which tends to have more minority groups, so simply the statistical likelihood that minority individuals committing crimes are even caught in the first place is higher.
Ask yourself this: Which one "feels" like a worse crime?
A 15-year-old boy having sex with a 21-year-old woman
A 15-year-old boy having sex with a 21-year-old man
The first one will very often get responses of "well sure that's a little wrong, but good for him for getting to score!"
The second one will, almost universally, get responses of "that's disgusting and gross and evil".
That's why.
According to the video, because applying ANY law that is excessively harsh will mean minority groups suffer more, because they tend to suffer the wrath of the authorities to a greater extent. They are easier to pick on.
Here's an idea--DON'T RAPE KIDS. You sound like Jose Canseco whining about being pulled over by the police for drunken behavior because Cal Ripken wouldn't be treated with such "excessively harsh behavior," gliding over the fact that Cal Ripken wouldn't actually act like a drunken asshole in public.
Because Everything Is So Terrible And Unfair!
Here’s an idea–DON’T RAPE KIDS.
Great idea! So what do you think happens when the police decide that they are going to only investigate child sex crimes in the LGBTQ neighborhoods? Suddenly you will see all these stories about "gay man busted for sex with a child" - NOT because more gays are doing it, but because that's the only place where the police are looking. All of the straight people having sex with kids are running around free because the police aren't even looking there. And then you and your team will very predictably start yelling "SEE I TOLD YOU SO, GAYS REALLY ARE PEDOPHILES" and it will lead to a stigmatization of the whole group. THAT'S the issue here.
If a 19-75 year-old man solicits a 14-year-old “girl” who looks 18, and whom he thought was 18, should that man be thrown in prison for 4 years as a felon, even if there was no sexual intercourse? That is what the original California bill did.
Broaden out the criteria to reflect Santa Monica Blvd every night.
Yes, prison is appropriate.
Don't create a moral panic, unless it's for a good cause, like COVID or climate (and in both cases, really for gaining power), right?
"Because they are an easier minority to pick on."
Tell that to the kids looking at jail time for doing leaving a skid mark on a pride flag, or the kid that got punished for a "there are only 2 genders" shirt.
Most protected and privileged minority class in history
Lying Jeffy always cheers persecution of his enemies.
"If they arent grooming kids, shouldnt be an issue" =/= "if you’ve got nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”
All societies require some laws, this argument, e g. Grooming kids = if you got nothing to fear..., is bullshit because it implies enforcing any law would be wrong. Sorry, but take that anarchist shit and stuff it upon your ass. Buying kids for sex is a clear violation of the NAP, thus laws against it is completely in line with libertarian principles.
Yes, some laws, preferably as few as possible and clearly based on core fundamentals. And then consistently applied and prosecuted.
Because they are an easier minority to pick on.
And all these pedophiles will be an easily targeted minority because... why?
"Hey man, sure I had a kid in my trunk, but I was clearly pulled over for driving-while-singing-show-tunes/driving-while-having-pink-hair-and-74-nose-piercings/driving-with-an-map-pride-flag-on-my-car/driving-with-a-bad-wig-lipstick-and-a-beard-while-wearing-a-dress"
And by "pedophile" you mean "anyone who is gay", right? Because that is what all your pals around here mean.
When I use the word pedophile, I mean "people who want to have sex with children". The same-sex or opposite-sex nature of the act is not part of the meaning. An adult man having sex with a girl child or an adult woman having sex with a girl child or an adult man having sex with a boy child or an adult woman having sex with a girl child or any adult of [insert gender identity here] having sex with [insert gender identity here] child is all the same to me and I'd just as soon see every single one of them executed.
I do not Humpty Dumpty anything, I use words in the clearcut, canonical meanings as commonly defined.
It's extremely telling that the left is trying to re-direct the issue from punishment for general child sex trafficking and abuse, to associations with their dumb queer sex cult. It's almost like bug-chasers like Scott Weiner actually want to be able to fuck little kids.
"I do not Humpty Dumpty anything, I use words in the clearcut, canonical meanings as commonly defined."
Yes, but Jeff knows he looks like a monster if he doesn't twist what you said.
I mean “people who want to have sex with children”
So you didn't really answer the question. Yes that is what the word means. I'm talking about the people around here who are trying very strongly to imply that all gay people are pedophiles.
I’m talking about the people around here who are trying very strongly to imply that all gay people are pedophiles.
They’re already telling on themselves by the fact that they’re trying to nerf the punishments for kiddie-diddling. That has nothing to do with non-pedophile gays who date adults and don't groom minors.
they’re trying to nerf the punishments for kiddie-diddling
NO - this law is only about SOLICITATION ONLY.
NO – this law is only about SOLICITATION ONLY.
Which you are still whining about how terribly unfair it supposedly is.
Don't diddle kids, and don't solicit them for sex. This isn't as difficult a concept as you're trying to make it out to be, simply because you know this is going ot hurt your lefty boos a lot more.
And by “pedophile” you mean “anyone who is gay”, right?
No.
I’m saying “I’m a person around here who is not trying very strongly to imply that all gay people are pedophiles.” I am a person here who is saying pedophiles are pedophiles, gay or straight, because I use words as they are generally defined.
You’re the one who seems to be making the sweeping assumptions and casting aspersions onto gay people and trying to twist words into completely different meanings.
Lying Jeffy is lying here, again.
If a MAGA straight white male has sex with children, I'd just as soon see him be executed as anything,
Same as if a gay trans non=binary spirit animal has sex with children.
The people who will be disproportionately impacted by this sort of law are people who have sex with children.
Makes me wonder if any drug stores these days have an aisle labeled "Children's Grooming". Or barber shop windows.
But sometimes things go the other way. Remember when nobody in team sports wanted to be "the goat"?
Regarding "the goat," I've made the same comment myself to friends. When, exactly, did being the goat go from the one who fucks up or the worst player on the team to the Greatest Of All Time?
Charlie Brown was always the goat.
Chemjeff was Charlie Brown as a child.
“Good grief.”
Jeff. What you are doing is using a lie to promote sexualization and solicitation of children.
This is in fucking California. Which party owns the police lol? They stood down first BLM riots. Don't enforce nudity in front of children. Support drag shows for kids.
It is amazing watching you use false leftist talking points with baseless fear mongering to allow the fucking of kids.
You really are a sick pedophilic fuck.
No, I am using their *actual* argument to discuss why they oppose the bill, not your offensive assumed one that gays are a bunch of pedophiles.
This is what your team perpetually does. You push your own narrative onto everyone else, and when they disagree, you then double down and accuse them of horrible crimes for daring to disagree with your narrative.
Explain the pressing need for drag queens to read books to children.
That’s what gets me the most about drag queen reading hours, that the most important thing to the drag queens and their supporters is that they be reading to children. Have they ever volunteered to read at hospitals or rest homes? My mother used to read at hospitals every week. I know what a chore it was. But she thought it more valuable than reading to children.
Drag queens reading to children is perverted.
Have they ever volunteered to read at hospitals or rest homes?
That’s an excellent point. What’s with the explicit motivation to read to kids while playing out your sexual fetish? If it was that benign, why not read to a bunch of Bidens in the local nursing home on the regular?
Jeff. How difficult is it to not solicit to fuck a child? Lol.
No. You are defending them as you always do. Using fear mongering of unequal enforcement without any evidence. Even using the word targeting.
This is in a long list of supporting or defending pedophiles.
He does support Biden.
Jeff. How difficult is it to not solicit to fuck a child? Lol.
Under the original California bill, if a 19-year-old man solicited a 17-year-old "girl", but thought she was 18, then the man would be thrown in prison for 4 years as a felon, regardless if there was any sex or not. Does that seem like a fair standard of justice to you?
Or you could ask "how old are you?" before you ask "do you want to fuck?" I guess 19 year olds and LGBT people have no agency.
LOL, remember when "25 for 16" was a joke to express the fact that you should fuck people in your own age group, and not something to be worked around?
Or, the 19 year old could like, not offer money to fuck a minor since solicitation seems to be the targeted offense here.
God damn, Jeff sucks so much.
Using fear mongering of unequal enforcement without any evidence
They provide evidence in the video that you didn't watch. Where is your evidence to contradict theirs? All you have are anecdotes and bigoted generalizations.
It seems to me that you've taken the contrapositive position in arguing that people who have sex with children will be prosecuted BECAUSE they are LGBT, and not because they have sex with children. To the point that you want to ignore the "having se with children part" (ok, there may be some technical aspects vis-a-vis solicitation that are VALID to argue, but that's like your 3rd or 4th level argument after "LGBT will be discriminated against" like you've assumed LGBT people will solicit children.
I say, if you have sex with children, I don't care if you're straight or gay or any part of the alphabet of identities. Prison is too good for you.
P.S. I generally assume that gay people are decent human beings and would never want to have sex with children. You seem to think otherwise.
No. My position is that the right-wing liars are lying about what the argument actually is. The ACTUAL argument is, the law will disproportionately affect LGBTQ people because they are a minority group that is easy to pick on. What Jesse and the rest of the right-wing idiots around here decided, that when they said the law will disproportionately affect LGBTQ people, it was because THEY ARE ADMITTING THEY ARE PEDOPHILES! SEE I TOLD YOU SO! It is not just a lie, but an offensive bigotry as well. That is what pisses me off.
And in typical fashion, they cannot argue against the substance, they instead demand total submission to their worldview. Either you accept that THEY'RE A BUNCH OF PEDOPHILES or you yourself are supporting pedophilia. It's disgusting.
P.S. I generally assume that gay people are decent human beings and would never want to have sex with children.
Well then tell that to everyone else in this conversation, who very definitely do think that gay people are at a minimum disproportionately prone to being pedophiles just because they are gay. That is NOT my position. I do not think that being gay makes one more likely to be a pedophile. I do not think that being gay automatically makes one a pedophile. Those are the positions taken by everyone else. Why don't you argue with them about it?
“Well then tell that to everyone else in this conversation,”
I believe I just did that.
“the law will disproportionately affect LGBTQ people because they are a minority group that is easy to pick on”
Why do you keep making this claim without evidence? The inferences to be made here:
1. you believe that LGBT people will be falsely accused of solicitation of a minor because they are LGBT and the criminal justice system is out to persecute them
or
2. after having solicited sex with a minor, the criminal justice system will choose to prosecute LGBT people at a far greater clip than straight people, i.e., men soliciting sex with underage girls will be released, but men soliciting sex with underage boys will be harshly punished
or
3. LGBT people will solicit sex with minors at a rate that grossly outstrips straight people so that even with an unbiased systems, LGBT are overrepresented in the crime statistics relative to their general population; this is similar to how black men are grossly disproportionally likely to commit murder according to FBI statistics, which no one is supposed to talk about because to point that out is racist
"Why don’t you argue with them about it?"
You're the only one I've seen raise this, when you claimed "everyone else said this".
I did see one comment that said " the studies showing higher rates of pedophilia in the gay community" which is not at all what your strawman blasts others with. The studies may or may not exist, and may or may not be correct. But that statement is FAR FAR FAR from "all gays are pedophiles", and you're the one making that accusation.
Jess isn't being dishonest, you fucking perverted creeper.
And did you honestly thick that this somehow makes it better?
"NOT because they think LGBTQ people commit more sex crimes, but because they think the law will be disproportionately enforced against LGBTQ people."
In your mind is this really a reason to oppose making it a felony to buy kids to fuck? How would it be "disproportionately enforced"? Are you and your pedo pals actually complaining that they will arrest more LGBT buying child sex slaves than Cishets?
Jeff will never admit to the studies showing higher rates of pedophilia in the gay community nor the open admittance by the community it is part of their culture.
It is why he supports and even demands books that discuss and promote teenagers finding older men for sex in schools. He truly is disgusting.
Let's see if sarc can defend him today.
"Jeff will never admit to the studies showing higher rates of pedophilia in the gay community nor the open admittance by the community it is part of their culture."
And while I appreciate data, we really dont owe any proof when they are making it rain money on kids twerking at a drag fest, making raunchy blowjob jokes in front of kids, and reading stories to kids in a skirt while hanging dong.
Imagine if during all the shit with Catholic priests, they were also marching the altar boys down the aisles at church with a ball gag in their mouth in a pink speedo and then having to provide some burden of proof that something is amiss there.
Chemjeff, would you support Catholic priest story hour for young school boys?
How would it be “disproportionately enforced”?
Gee, maybe that would be a good question to ask them. But no, you all had to go straight into "they're all pedophiles".
If they are buying children for sex then they are pedophiles. End of story.
If they aren't buying children for sex, then this law doesn't fucking affect them, at all, you dishonest, evil cunt.
Fuck, you make me sick.
Who exactly said LGBT are "all pedophiles"? That's the strawman you keep using here. I think everyone has been clear that it doesn't matter what your sexual orientation or gender identity is, if you solicit sex from minors/children, you deserve to be punished.
It's just like yesterday, when you kept saying everyone was calling illegal immigrants vermin and human garbage. You were the only one saying that when you put words in others' mouths so you could strawman their substantive objections to illegal immigration.
So dishonest!
“Who exactly said LGBT are “all pedophiles”?”
Nobody. Lying Jeffy is just lying again. It’s what he does.
I know, but he needs to be called out on his strawmanning and lying every time he does it.
I don’t call him Lying Jeffy for nothing!
In fact, this is a Twitter account I follow that is gay people against people like him:
https://x.com/againstgrmrs
Spare me your sophistry. I'm sorry, but when someone like Jesse spends YEARS posting story after story about illegal immigrants behaving badly, committing violent crimes, mooching on welfare, doing terrible things, flooding the zone with 100% negative articles about illegal immigration, saying absolutely nothing positive or even exculpatory about them, it is completely fair to conclude that Jesse thinks illegal immigrants are human garbage even if he does not use those exact terms, because that is an appropriately descriptive term for Jesse's characterization of them.
So yes, when Jesse, like many others here, continues in this bigoted fiction which generalizes that gays are pedophiles, it is completely fair to conclude that this is his position.
It is not putting words in anyone's mouth to come to a fair conclusion based on years of observation.
“Who exactly said LGBT are “all pedophiles”?
The activist group opposing the law said that. And then Jeff twisted it to mean…..
….. I don’t know what he means. He’s really fucked up.
"you will see that they are opposing the bill NOT because they think LGBTQ people commit more sex crimes, but because they think the law will be disproportionately enforced against LGBTQ people."
The difference is...?
The advocates believe that the gay mafia will molest children. Their opponents are putting words in their mouths.
I am not sure when you decided that honesty was not needed but, for you, it is never surprising.
If you actually watch the video – which I’m pretty sure you didn’t – you will see that they are opposing the bill NOT because they think LGBTQ people commit more sex crimes, but because they think the law will be disproportionately enforced against LGBTQ people.
*facepalm*
Jeffy truly is the most retarded and disgusting commenter here. He's managing to find new lows that even Buttplug hasn't hit yet.
Lying Jeffy has become a caricature of himself.
I don't care if they are gay or not. Using children for sex should be a felony and punished accordingly. If you do not want to be punished under such a law, the easiest thing to do is NOT HAVE SEX WITH CHILDREN.
Creepjeff just can't wrap his head around that.
Ah yes, the old preemptive “disproportionately impacted” collective grievance canard. You just can’t get enough of this one, can you Jeff?
Lol. You are so gullible. You deserve all the shit you get. Unbelievable.
Who was it that gleefully sang about "we're coming for your children" again?
Krampus?
Pennywise?
Dr. Who's Maestro?
?
I was told the new Dr who is made only for pedofiles. So I didn't watch it
I've never seen any of the Dr Who seasons/series. I get the new one I shouldn't watch, but is there a good one to watch as a first-timer? I've always liked the concept of the show but never got around to watching it.
Nah. It's all shit. A poor man's Star Trek.
Man, its getting harder and harder to pretend "we dont want to groom children" or the LGBTQ people have a groomer issue, when a "lets make fucking kids illegal" bill is staunchly opposed by the left and considered anti-LGBTQ.
How many years are we away from "its a good thing"? Im betting in the next decade they fully admit they want age of consent laws gone
Man, it sure doesn't help that you and your team purposefully and intentionally push an offensive narrative about "gays are pedophile groomers" without even bothering to look at why they are doing what they are doing.
I'll remember this next time some left-winger proposes a bill to make tougher penalties for, say, carrying a gun near a school You will predictably howl in outrage to oppose the bill, but, using your own deceptive bullshit reasoning, I will simply say "you are just upset because you won't be able to shoot more kids at school".
That is the level of retarded offensive bullshit that you are coming up with here.
why they are doing what they are doing.
Care to expand on this…..why do they need to dress in drag to read to kids or be naked in public in front of children?
This bill has nothing to do with drag queen shows.
Answer me this, why should it matter if the law targets more of the LGBTQ community if it catches LGBTQ community who are fucking kids and buying them as sex slaves? I'm trying to wrap my mind around why that is a big deal? If you buy kids as sex slaves, you deserve nothing better than a shallow grave and a .22 caliber hollow point to the medulla oblongata, the fact that isn't what the law requires is showing mercy. So fuck off. If they're fucking kids after buying them as sex slaves, prison is a mercy.
And in my world, I would make them dig their own graves before I dispatch them like I would a rabid dog. And I chose a .22 because they're cheap and I'm not wasting more expensive ammo on such dirt bags.
"why should it matter if the law targets more of the LGBTQ community if it catches LGBTQ community who are fucking kids and buying them as sex slaves?"
What amazes me is that Jeff thought that this was somehow a valid argument.
Hey now! I didn't do anything!
Except control all the vital functions of life.
One. More. Time.
This bill is not about sex with kids.
This bill is not about sex slavery.
This bill is about SOLICITATION only.
Soliciting a minor. Love how you fucking leave that out. So yes it is about sex with minors you lying fuck. And considering that a lot of minors in the sex industry are there against their will,yes it is about slavery you fucking lying pedo sack of shit.
This law was only about changing the punishments for SOLICITATION. Under the original bill, if an 18-year-old man solicited sex from a 17-year-old 'girl', who looked 18 and lied about being 18, even if no sex took place, the man could be charged with a felony and thrown in prison for 4 years. I think that punishment is excessively harsh especially considering that there was no sex and solicitation ALONE is a speech crime. So no you do not get to smuggle in that "well, it's really about sex and sex slavery" because it's not.
What does this have to do with LGBT being disproportionally impacted?
Anyone else surprised LyingJeffy posts late at night another set of lies to cover up his pedo persuasions?
I bookmarked it under Jeff the pedo. He does this often. It is when he often most exposes himself. He felt compelled to continue defending his defense of pedophilia.
Fuck you both, you disgusting pieces of filth. I am not defending pedophilia. I am defending FAIR STANDARDS OF JUSTICE. People who commit crimes should be punished, but they should be punished PROPORTIONATELY, not based on the emotional demands resulting from a moral panic. I understand this is completely lost on you, seeing as how you have already advocated for 'vigilante justice' if you don't get your way. That's not justice, that is mob rule, and it's certainly not libertarian.
NO! FUCK YOU JEFF, you fucking monster pedophile rapist apologist, and fuck your weaselly attempts to turn this into something else.
It used to be dogma that sexual orientation was genetic. This was the basis for making gay sex and gay marriage legal, and banning discrimination and conversion therapy.
Now it's dogma that gender can be changed 20 times a day, and that 5 year old kids, whose teachers brainwash them into confusion about their gender, can make the decision to mutilate their genders, and their parents are committing child abuse for not going along with their new pronouns.
Genital mutilation surgery and chemical castration are the real child abuse. Brainwashing is grooming. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a pedo.
"It used to be dogma that sexual orientation was genetic."
Everyone knew it was bullshit. There was no gene ever found despite a series of breathless news stories every time some researcher hinted he might have found a correlation.
Researchers had always accepted that there were a multiple different causes of homosexuality, none of which were genetic, but in the 1970s gay activists literally held the conference American Psychiatric Association hostage, until they agreed to take homosexuality out of the DSM. I'm not kidding. They wouldn't let anyone leave.
I don't think the government should care who or how people fuck, unless they are doing it to kids, but we shouldn't have been dishonest about the nature of the orientation either.
The genetic argument also fails on evolutionary basis. There is exactly zero reasons for a gay gene to survive. It provides little to no chance of being perpetuated long term. It has no documented proof to improve survival or improve chances of reproduction. Eventually, it would have been largely, if not completely removed from the gene pool. There also are no verified examples of homosexuality (as opposed to same sex sexual acts that are entirely behavioral as opposed to persistent) in nature. Yes, when lacking partners or as part of social acts or dominance, there are instances of same sex sexual acts in nature but these are case specific and are preferences, as when those conditions change, the said animals revert to heterosexual behavior.
I really don’t know if something is genetic or not, as I have no medical expertise. To play devil’s advocate, though, could there be an undiscovered gene or allele that causes attraction to the same sex, but not exclusively to the same sex (so men who are attracted to both men and women)? That would be more likely to get passed down as people with this hypothetical gene could produce offspring, while also engaging in homosexual behavior?
I don’t think there is a “gay gene,” and think environment/upbringing (what you experience as a young child) is much more likely to be the cause of same-sex attraction, but, I’m not a geneticist or scientist even.
Even if so, as someone who has both a medical background, and a MS in the biological sciences, every inherited expressed trait is a combination of genetics and environment. Sexual attraction to both sexes actually would reduce your chances of reproducing compared to single sex attraction, so less likely to persist unless it was linked to a allele that improved chances of survival, e.g. say improved your immune system or similar, thus improving your chance of surviving long enough to reproduce. Given the high rate of STDs associated with same sex relationships (especially male-male relationships) this seems unlikely (and not just in regards to immunity, as the higher rates of STDs shorten average life span thus making survival till reproduction less likely, even if only slightly).
I'm not following why sexual attraction to both sexes (for men, at least) would result in less chance of passing on your genes, compared with sexual attraction to only men (for men). Assuming the men are sexually active with both men and women, wouldn't that have a higher chance of passing on genes to offspring? At least compared to men who only have sex with men (no reproduction)?
No less chance than attraction only to the opposite sex and largely because if you're wasting time and energy on seeking sexual partners of both sex, you have less time and energy to devote to seeking opposite sex sexual partners than someone who is wholly attracted to the opposite sex.
That makes sense.
When all is said and done humans are animals and subject to the same laws of nature as other animals. And until the mid-20th century, almost as subject as our wild cousins in regards to having to budget our time and energy, with the almost the same constraints as our close great ape relatives.
"I’ll remember this next time some left-winger proposes a bill to make tougher penalties for, say, carrying a gun near a school"
Ya, fortunately the constitution explicitly support my right to keep and bear arms, but not found anywhere is the right to fuck kids.
Why does your side have a problem with wanting to fuck kids Jeff? Why are you carrying water for fucking kids...again?
Cmon man. Self defense is exactly the same as fucking a kid. Jeff is wise.
For heaven's sake, no one is defending a so-called 'right to fuck kids'. Not here, and not in the video either.
The California bill would just make the punishments HIGHER for SOLICITATION. Sex with kids remains illegal and was illegal before this bill. Reason already had an article on this bill which you obviously skipped.
https://reason.com/2024/07/08/california-democrats-water-down-sex-trafficking-bill-good/
THAT is the issue. Not whether it should be legal to have sex with kids.
So it is ok for them to ask to have sex or offer to pay because the kid can say no?
He literally thinks that.
No. The issue is, criminalizing solicitation is criminalizing a type of speech, and as libertarians we should always be wary when a core fundamental right is being criminalized. Even if this particular speech deserves to be criminalized, we should keep in mind that speech about sex with children is NOT the same as the sex itself and should not be treated as harshly. And we certainly don't want emotional moral panics to be governing how we approach criminalizing a type of speech, that just leads to bad results in general.
Your gun analogy fails, as usual, from your distortions. Let me know when gunnies insist on carrying only near schools, and nowhere else.
And this is late, but my analogy isn't complete either. Let me fix that up.
Let me know when gunnies insist on carrying only near schools, and nowhere else, and whine because the legislature wants to change killing a child from a misdemeanor to a felony.
You're a sick fuck, Jeff, real sick.
More than that even. It would require gun carriers to be interacting with kids in some way.
Poor pitiful "offended" jeff.
Go to hell pedo.
Lying Jeffy just compared carrying a gun near a school to fucking kids.
Yep, that really just happened.
We have a constitutional right to bear arms. Is there a constitutional right to solicit sex from children?
They already have stories and studies about how it is a good thing. Part of LGBT culture to have older members of the community introduce the next generation to the LGBT community at a young age.
That isn't the definition of grooming!!! - Jeff's drunken boo.
FFS. All of these responses just make it crystal clear that you all don't actually care about arguments or ideas anymore, only about identity.
Since the LGBTQ crowd has an identity that you reject, you ignore their arguments and invent bigoted offensive ones in their place.
I mean, we have seen right here in Reason an article that talks about why this California bill is a bad idea, and no it's not because the author is pro-sex-slavery.
https://reason.com/2024/07/08/california-democrats-water-down-sex-trafficking-bill-good/
Mainly, it's a bad idea because it is a one-size-fits-all response to a moral panic.
You all have just become mirror images of the identity-politics left that you claim to hate so much.
You sure are mad people want to make it illegal for you to ask kids for sex.
You and ENB can feel free to explain at any time when it is OK for adults to solicit minors for sex.
You have not done so. She never will because she is embarrassed by her pathetic advocacy.
"It's a one size fits all solution to a problem". Yeah, don't need much nuance in saying adults should not fuck minors.
If you do, that is a you issue.
I guess laws against murder and rape are also one size fits all solutions as well. Which I'm perfectly okay with.
Well, see. If there's a rape but you're not the one who penetrated the victim, but only jacked off onto her while others did the "real" rape part, you deserve a lesser punishment. And if the victim was a drunk child...well, her testimony is no good so your semen could have got into her vagina or onto her clothes in any number of ways that she was just too drunk to remember. Or something like that... Oh, and if the rapists were under 18, totally need to treat them as children themselves. And if the rapists were migrants, find any excuse possible to downgrade their actions, because xenopobia, racism, and cultural differences somehow should make it not so bad to gang rape a girl.
Yeah, he did make those arguments.
I'm not exaggerating when I call him a monster.
If anything, you're being to generous.
Yeah, what have monsters ever done to ML?
The only monsters around here are the people like you who don’t actually believe in fair standards of justice for all. You and your team believe in hyperventilating moral panics in the name of “protecting the children”. I’m sorry, but if an 18-year-old asks a 17-year-old for sex – and absolutely no sex occurred – and you think it is justice to send that 18-year-old to prison for 4 years and to give him a felony record which he then has to carry around with him for the rest of his life, you are just incorrect. Is it wrong? Yes. Should it be punished? Yes. Should it be punished with a FELONY and 4 YEARS in prison? No.
THIS is how we get ‘three felonies a day’. THIS is how we get the militarized police with ever-more justification to snoop and spy on us and infringe on all of our rights – because people like you will deliberately ruin a guy’s life for making a mistake, thinking that the tables will never be turned on you and that you will never become the subject of some outrageous moral panic where your mistake winds up with a felony record and many years in prison.
"if an 18-year-old asks a 17-year-old for sex – and absolutely no sex occurred "
How does this situation occur such that it gets prosecuted? This is a solicitation charge (sex for money) in which the suspect solicited sex with a minor. You're positing a situation in which the cops somehow were surveilling a known underage prostitute waiting for someone to solicit sex and then busting them before the deed can be done? Or did someone solicit an undercover cops who looked young enough? Sex-with-a-minor charge can't apply there assuming the undercover cop was over 18, unless the person asked if the "hooker" was over 18, was told "No, I'm 17." but then still went through with the solicitation (in which case, it was clearly their intent to solicit sex with a minor). Or is it say, online solicitation, where undercover agents can pretend to be younger children, get "solicited", and then bust the perverts and no sex ever happens? Again, here it seems that the intent to have sex with minors was pretty well established.
Of course, there's the "She said she was 18! I thought she was 18!" defense, which I--without any proof whatsoever--would tend to guess that pedophiles will say as often as illegal aliens say "Asylum!" If some innocent 18-year-old should accidentally solicit sex from an older-looking 17-year old, having been show ID saying the kid was over 18, let's hope a jury has the good sense to drop the solicitation of a minor charge and support the general solicitation charge.
Some time back, when California changed its "romeo-and-juliet" defense allowances to include same-sex considerations, some people here got all frothy about "they gays getting an open license for child sex". I argued that the law did no such thing, and that anyone making such a comment was just wrong.
Well, see. If there’s a rape but you’re not the one who penetrated the victim, but only jacked off onto her while others did the “real” rape part, you deserve a lesser punishment.
Okay, convince us why they should receive the same, harsher punishment.
The man who forcibly penetrated the victim should receive a harsh punishment because his motives were clear and he directly caused direct physical and emotional harm to the victim.
The man who didn't forcibly penetrate the victim, but just stood there and watched and pleasured himself, his motives are less clear. He also didn't cause any physical harm to the victim. Should he be punished? Yes. Now convince us why they should be punished with THE SAME HARSHER PENALTY.
Saying "they both participated in the rape" is not good enough - that is a reason to punish both of them in the first place, not a reason to punish both of them as if they both committed the exact same act.
The man who didn’t forcibly penetrate the victim, but just stood there and watched and pleasured himself, his motives are less clear. He also didn’t cause any physical harm to the victim. Should he be punished? Yes. Now convince us why they should be punished with THE SAME HARSHER PENALTY.
Because the guy jacking off is an accomplice to the rape.
That is an argument on why he should be punished, not why he should be punished THE SAME as the one who did the forcible penetration.
Yeah, I know, you're trying to re-direct because you understand that any decent society would frown equivalently on both acts.
Three guys break into a home, assault the family and rob them. One guy then pulls out a gun and shoots the family. All 3 are charged murder (felony murder) even though only one pulled the trigger.
I would apply the same logic to someone who "only held her down" or "only jacked off onto her" during the gang rape.
I *might* be inclined to proceed differently for a pervert who comes along after the rape is over and the rapists have left, finds the unconscious girl in the woods, and then whips it out to pleasure himself without otherwise ever touching her.
https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/homicide/felony-murder/
The felony murder rule is a rule that allows a defendant to be charged with first-degree murder for a killing that occurs during a dangerous felony, even if the defendant is not the killer. The felony murder rule applies only to those crimes that are considered “inherently dangerous,” as the rationale underlying the felony murder rule is that certain crimes are so dangerous that society wants to deter individuals from engaging in them altogether. Thus, when a person participates in an inherently dangerous crime, he or she may be held responsible for the fatal consequences of that crime, even if someone else caused the actual death.
The felony murder rule is an exception to the normal rules of homicide. Normally, a defendant can be convicted of murder only if a prosecutor shows that the defendant acted with the intent to kill or with a reckless indifference to human life. Under the felony murder rule, however, a defendant can be convicted of murder even if the defendant did not act with intent or a reckless indifference; the prosecution must show only that the defendant participated in a felony where fatalities occurred.
“…,you ignore their arguments….”
That they will be framed for soliciting kids because they’re gay?
Yes. Yes, we do.
people or color
"Because we know how much you people like to abort your own children *and* solicit minors for sex."
The New York Times has proclaimed Biden's strategy to be "running out the clock."
LITERALLY.
The White House is the new Florida.
Now with 50% more cocaine!
Media continues to complain how the media only attacks Biden and never criticizes Trump. This is amazing gaslighting to watch.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/09/biden-media-attacks-trump-felon
Sounds like the usual totalitarian edict to denounce any neighbor who does not hate loudly enough.
I've noticed this losing line a lot lately on X. The retards are harassing any friendly media of theirs that questions Pantshitter. It's hard to play that game when he's literally a drooling retard at this point, and does something embarrassing at every single public appearance. When you can't pre-script a phone interview lasting a few minutes without him minting himself the first black female VP, how can you possibly deny his mental fortitude being that of a cricket?
What do you expect? That is the website that had a "Give us money" ad for years basically saying you needed to donate so they could fight Trump.
They've never been subtle about it.
Since winning Pennsylvania would be such a huge blow to Biden...
Harrisburg (and Filthadepthsia) won't let that happen.
Yeah, but don't you feel bad for the DNC tools who now have to print several versions of millions of ballots, and get enough college students and winos to check the right boxes?
But if he did lose, he may never recover.
Whole career shot!
We have seen our usual paid dem shills like jeff in here start to beat the drum on Project 2025. It is a plan Heritage came up with 2 years ago with many conservatives of the GOPe and includes never trumpers. But that hasn’t stopped Biden, the DNC, and activists from trying Trump to it and lying about the plan. Despite Trump saying he doesn’t even know what that plan is. It has gotten so pernicious Heritage has had to release a tweet against the dem narrative.
https://x.com/Prjct2025/status/1810735701308195326
Not posting it all. Just if people are curious. Jeff has been pushing this narrative for a couple of weeks.
Project 2025
@Prjct2025
MYTHS VS. FACTS ABOUT PROJECT 2025
We are not affiliated with former President Trump. We are a coalition of more than 110 conservative groups advocating policy and personnel recommendations.
1. End no fault divorce: FALSE
Divorce is not mentioned in our policy handbook, Mandate for Leadership.
It's the new Q Anon. Only the leftists are aware it exists.
Only the leftists need it to exist.
^ this.
Mostly seen on Reddit and Wapo-esque comments sections. Its the boogeyman bluanon stuff.
The people putting it forward are full on bought into the propaganda and hardcore leftists (and of course, gullible AF)
Lying Jeffy was lying about something to make Trump look bad? Why I never…
I feel like shrike was here recently almost claiming that Trump virtually dictated Project 2025 to the Heritage Foundation or something.
The idea that a presidential race will be decided not by fans of either candidate...
I don't think I've ever voted for a presidential candidate, only against another.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Incidentally, a slogan of "abortions for some, miniature American flags for others" may be what wins the day
Giant Meteor demands a recount!
Universities seem nervous about declining enrollment, largely on the back of their costs and open political advocacy. Go to The Atlantic to tell conservatives how those free palestine marches can really help them.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/how-liberal-college-campuses-benefit-conservative-students/ar-BB1pBr8v?cvid=9c84d058fa774a98fa84eb612e37eb20&ei=13
MOAR IMMIGRANTS! And free tuition.
A deep look into how the Biden administration and school district administration hides abuse of students by teachers, keeping information from parents and the public.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2024/07/10/forbidden_fruit_and_the_classroom_the_huge_american_sex-abuse_scandal_that_educators_scandalously_hush_up_1042969.html
Looks like all those campaign contributions from teachers’ unions are working.
This is something to keep in mind whenever leftists bring up church leaders or Boy Scout abuse cases. Child molestation, rape, grooming, and sexual assault by teachers is absolutely rampant, but somehow the left never seems to include this in their list of outrages.
It's not like it's difficult to find articles on this, teachers get caught diddling kids almost every day in this country. It's been an epidemic for decades. But these people are not tied to traditionally conservative institutions, and so their malfeseance is swept under the rug.
The main difference being that at least the scouts and church said "oops, our bad" even if they didn't deal with it in the best way.
The teachers union says "STFU its part of the curriculum now"
That's (D)ifferent.
The teacher's unions are led by people like this (Rebecca Pringle, president of the NEA):
https://youtu.be/E2ifRgiOOJ8?si=3KKrerMPOFGD-6bK
All the things!!!!
Interesting dive into whether Ozempic and other weight-loss drugs could be effective in fighting addiction (as well as a bit of media criticism as to how these drugs have been covered in the press).
These commercials are hilarious. If you read the tiny footnotes on the commercial they are forced to state most people regain the weight once they go off. It doesn't fix the issues that made you fat. It reduces muscle mass making the problem worse when you go off. And now it is linked to blindness so you at least don't have to see you're fat.
Plus, you get “ozempic face”. Not a good look.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13319655/hollywood-celebrities-ozempic-gauntness-weight-loss-effect.html
Skeletor is so hot right now.
Do you mean Pelosi? Eeewww!
Unfortunately that's a problem with weight loss generally, regardless of how it happens.
This shit was never meant as a weight-loss drug. It's meant specifically for diabetes patients, but of course Hollywood assholes had to begin employing it as a designer drug. I hope these people permanently fuck up their physiology and experience painful deaths in the service of their vanity.
"Call for help and you'll live. But you'll be disfigured."
"He cut off her nose..."
"To spite her face."
Correct. And just look at the people afterward. They all look like they got hit with some futuristic space ray that sucks the collagen, muscle, and life out of them.
As is often the case, if it sounds too good to be true, it is. This is definitely so with Ozempic.
Soon diabetes patients will be blaming someone for scarcity of Ozempic.
I think it's actually happened already, specifically because there's been a rush by fatties to get a prescription for it.
a rush by fatties
A waddle by fatties*
Also a waddle OF fatties if we go with similar terminology as for a group of penguins on land.
Done and done.
https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2024/07/10/nx-s1-5006103/ozempic-wegovy-semaglutide-shortage-type-2-diabetes-obesity
The most recent South Park hour-long streaming episode was about just that.
I can't paste a pic here, but years ago a fitness magazine (Men's Health Oct 2014 issue) had a title blurb "Lose 30, 50, 90 Pounds".
The cover photo was of Noah Galloway...double amputee veteran after injuries in Iraq.
I just shook my head.
If you read the tiny footnotes on the commercial they are forced to state most people regain the weight once they go off.
Which is the same classic rejoinder to "Diet and exercise don't work." and is a practiced retardation along the lines of "When I stop pumping gas into my car, the tank stops getting full, but when I go back to pumping, it starts getting full again!"
The article Liz cites mentions:
While ignoring the fact that the complaint isn't that people solve their obesity problem, it's that they get weaker, more stupid, more codependent, and more costly to themselves and others just to have around. The exact same things that caused them to get on the drug in the first place.
It's the same idiocy as "We can just print more money." solution to spending.
If you read the tiny footnotes on the commercial they are forced to state most people regain the weight once they go off.
They also say “used with a reduced calorie diet and increased physical activity”… kind of like how Lucky Charms is “part of a balanced breakfast” and is shown with a glass of orange juice, two eggs, a piece of toast, a sausage and hash browns.
Kinda the same argument about illegals...just let them stay--make them citizens even--because deporting them is too hard.
Political fragmentation is making countries such as France, Germany, Spain and the Netherlands less governable...
Just at the best possible time for their populations.
Is New York becoming a battleground state?
Those who didn't flee to Florida???
As to the Senate looking better for Democrats, the RCP average now has Sheehan beating Tester, meaning the no Toss-up projection is Republicans 51 seats, Democrats 49. Arizona and Ohio also are moving more in the Republican direction per the RCP average. It's quite possible if the trends continue, Republicans will hold 53 Senate seats and maintain control (likely expand slightly) of the house. We've seen hardcore Democratic states like Virginia, New Hampshire and Minnesota moved into the toss up category for president and now we're seeing shifts away from the D's in the Senate. Yes, 2022 could play out again (but as a Montanan, I'm fairly confident Tester is toast and you can tell he's running scared).
I think that when the Dems replace Biden on the ticket they will get a big bounce in the polls. Whether that bounce is sustained is another question, though.
I don't know if they can or will replace him. I think he's successfully running out the clock. And I see enough wagons circling to help him limp along till the convention. Short of a massive stroke or similar, I think they're stuck with him. Which serves them right for changing the rules to all but crown him.
Up here in NNY (NY21, Stefanik and NY24, Tenney) Trump signs and flags are all over the place. FJB decals adorn cars. Local radio personalities openly mock Joe Biden, Gov. Hochul, and the Albany machine. And everyone hates NYC, even Democrats.
...he has adopted a favorite theme of the floundering politician, insisting that the polls are wrong in showing that his presidency is historically unpopular.
As I've said before, the polls are irrelevant. His chances rely almost solely on the machinery that gets ballots where they need to be. If they actual sentiment of the voting public is at all close, that machinery will likely prevail in November.
FTFL: The case that GLP-1s can be sued [sic] against all addictions at scale.
*Niiiice* typo, or Freudian slip!
Interesting dive into whether Ozempic and other weight-loss drugs could be effective in fighting addiction...
Miracle drug? I declare it horse paste.
Youre not wrong…
https://www.accomplish.health/blog/blog-post-title-one-fpjb7-sgfjg
In the early 1990s, Dr. John Eng, a researcher at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in the Bronx, studied the venom of the Gila monster (Heloderma suspectum), a lizard native to the southwestern United States and Mexico. Eng noticed that one of the components of the venom, exendin-4, was similar in structure to GLP-1 and had similar effects on insulin secretion and blood sugar control.
So lizard spit.
I actually saw one of those little fuckers in the wild once when I went to ASU. One of my classes did a field trip out to a science museum, and I saw one running across the parking lot as I was walking back to my car.
He wasn't aggressive or anything, but I stayed well clear of him. I've heard their bite feels like you've been shot.
Their bites have a lot of bacteria. I've encountered many in my decades here. They aren't really aggressive at all.
A couple of my Dad's squad mates wanted to dig one out of a lava bed when he was stationed in California, they wanted to know if my Dad would assist. He said 'fuck that, leave the fucking sundowners alone'. I guess Gila Monsters are nicknamed sundowners because once the bite and clamp down, they're reputed not to let go until sundown.
There's a hilarious clip of one of those celebrity animal wranglers getting bit by a gila monster. You can tell he's in absolutely excruciating pain and wants to just lay down and die. It's like, well, shit, don't mess around with the highly poisonous lizard whose bite contains all kinds of nasty bacteria that could possibly kill you.
Of course with my Dad's story, they at least had some excuse, young, bored infantryman in the field (and no, the dumbest don't go into the infantry in the Army, the dumbest MOS per average ASVAB scores, and my personal experience working with them, are actually cooks and transportation, fuck the saying is if you even to dumb for the infantry, there's always the Transportation Corp).
When I went through the first round of MEPS, a bunch of us had just finished up our ASVABs and were moving on to the next assembly line station (I think it was the hearing test). We were in the waiting area and one of the girls who was going into the Army told her friend, “I’m so excited, I got the score I needed for the job I want!” I figured she got something in the 80s or 90s.
Her friend asked, “What was your score?”
“I got a 45.”
I thought at the time that was a hilariously low score, but apparently that’s about average for most testers, since you have a lot of kids who didn’t have the grades to even get accepted into Shit State University, and didn’t want to spend 4-6 years spinning their wheels.
It's really sad that there are such things as ASVAB waivers considering the minimum score for infantry in both Army and Marine Corp is a 13. Basically a 13 is filling out your name correctly in the little bubbles.
The minimum score for the Army is 31.
I remember when the recruiter took a bunch of us to Ft. Meade to take the test. On the way back there was this girl who was frustrated that she didn't get 31 (I think she said she got a 27). I told her, "don't worry, you can take the test a 2nd time, and if you study for it (strategies and such) you can get your score up a few more points." She replied that this was her 4th or 5th time taking it!
Oh, I stand corrected. I never had to worry about that, as I qualified for any job the military offers. I could have sworn it was a 13. Oh well.
Same. I initially qualified for and selected Intel Analyst, but wound up as Combat Engineer. There is more to the story, but suffice it to say that was a huge error.
Still, I served alongside some excellent and bright fellow 12Bs, but there were some guys I would have thought couldn't have scored even a 12, much less the required 35 to be a Combat Engineer (or whatever the minimum was at the time).
12B- infantry with explosives. Don’t feel bad I originally enlisted as a 19D before switching to the medical field. Also a long story. 19D the only MOS that has shorter estimated combat life expectancy is 13F- forward observers
100% safe and effective with no downsides?
Thing is, I actually need to use similar crap to that (Trulicity in my case) because I actually do have diabetes and these fucking idiots make it beyond a pain in the ass to find it.
That they look like heroin addicts for taking it makes it worth the struggle almost.
hey now! all 15 of the ladies in my office currently using the health insurance to pay for their weight loss drugs are thrilled with their results ... stomachs-turned-to-stone pending ...
stomachs-turned-to-stone pending …
I'm sure I've heard doctors recommend drugs and not eating to middling-aged women over diet and exercise in order to avoid osteoporosis, age-related wasting, cognitive decline...
Wonder how many birds have been killed at the Kennedy Space Center since it started in the 1950s as Cape Canaveral?
A smaller number than those killed by lovely green windfarms.
The New York Times has proclaimed Biden’s strategy to be “running out the clock.”
I think this guy says it best.
https://www.highly-respected.com/p/biden-will-stay-in
What people fail to realize is that Biden and his family are assholes. This was a well-known fact about Joe when he was a senator. When he was vice president, the media transformed him into a lovable uncle who spoke his mind and delivered hilarious sound bites. The Onion’s endearing “Uncle Joe” portrayal helped solidify this false depiction. This image occupied voters’ minds when they went to the polls in 2020. It still lingers in the public consciousness despite the undeniable evidence he’s an asshole.
The Bidens' asshole tendencies are best exemplified in how they handled their dogs constantly attacking staffers. They did not give a shit that their dogs bit Secret Service agents and terrified White House employees. That was a problem for others, not for Joe and Jill. The president watched his dog attack multiple subordinates without any concern. The Bidens flipped out when people expressed worries about the dogs. The well-being of others doesn’t matter to them. They only relented and got rid of the dogs after the press shamed them.
The Bidens are white trash with elite pretensions. Hunter’s life story testifies to that, but he’s not alone. The 43-year-old Ashley Biden danced inappropriately for the whole world to see at the White House’s July 4th event. That’s not very classy. Jill Biden’s insistence on being called “Dr. Jill Biden” perfectly illustrates elite insecurity.
This would explain a lot.
The well-being of others doesn’t matter to them. They only relented and got rid of the dogs after the press shamed them.
And here's the thing about German Shepherds--if they're well-trained and socially adjusted, they are WAY less likely to randomly bite strangers and can really be very sweet. And that goes double for people they would see often, like staffers and Secret Service agents.
Those dogs and their behavior are a direct reflection of their owners. It's not they're fault that they ended up being aggressive biters. They're simply acting the same way their pants-shitting owner, his harpy whore wife, and his crackhead son do.
The Bidens are white trash with elite pretensions.
Oh, I don't know about that. History has shown repeatedly that elites will act in the most degenerate manner because there often aren't any consequences for their deviant behavior. Hell, even Trump can't keep his ding-a-ling in check, and has a very clear problem chasing sluts around.
>>Those dogs and their behavior are a direct reflection of their owners.
word. all dogs.
Well when I think of elites I see Bill Gates, George Soros, Bill Clinton not Joe Biden. The elites run their grift through "philanthropic" rackets and hitch rides on the Lolita Express and when the host becomes a problem he conveniently hangs himself. Does anybody think Joe could get that done? Biden is nowhere near that league. His entire family fortune relies entirely on selling influence which he has been openly doing since his first senate term. He fucking brags about it. His genius strategy is laundering money through phony LLCs and taking millions in refinance cash out of his house. He claims his 10 million in net worth is from book sales which he runs through an S Corp even though nobody buys his books. Any competent prosecutor could put together an indictment in a couple days. Biden is a useful idiot but his usefulness is coming to an end.
Sure, but Biden is the epitome of the elite. These fuckers don't stay in politics for multiple decades if that isn't the case.
When I attended Boys State, our senators gave a speech and took questions from us. I asked about term limits, Larry Craig, who was a senior senator gave a long winded explanation about why he opposed term limits, mainly about how it would diminish the power of small state senators like our own state of Idaho. At the time, for 17 yo me, it basically sounded like he was arguing that he didn't want to give up his power. I mean he kinda had a point about committee assignments and leadership, but there's ways to work around that as well, that don't require you spending 50 years in the Senate.
Pennsylvania and West Virginia haven't suffered any from Byrd, Specter, and Murtha croaking. Grassley's over 90 years old, for fuck's sake.
I get that some people stay lucid and mentally sharp as they age, but that's not the norm in my experience. Amending the Constitution to put in an age limit of, say, 75 shouldn't be out of bounds, if not necessarily term limits. At some point the geezers need to accept that these weren't envisioned as lifetime sinecures.
Jill Biden’s insistence on being called “Dr. Jill Biden” perfectly illustrates elite insecurity.
Leftists in particular have a manic fetish for credentialism. I remember pretentious Millennials talking in online boards about "Dr. Howard Dean" as if his title made him some form of guru with special insight into everything. On the flip side, Rand Paul is a legitimate MD who still does eye surgeries even after joining Congress, but you don't see him waving that around constantly as if the credential makes him an inherently wise person.
I always thought the "Uncle Joe" bits were consistent with his being an asshole, and crazy/demented as well.
'The big swing states this time around, from easiest to hardest to win, will be Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania/Wisconsin'
Can we get these rated as most to least fortified?
Michigan, Wisconsin (New state court ruling), Pennsylvania (destroys ballot evidence in violation of state law), Nevada (ballots to casinos and empty lots), Georgia (Fulton county), Arizona, North Carolina.
I’d put Wisconsin before us. We’ve got the trio of corrupt leftist women running the state, but at least our courts are ruling against some shenanigans.
"...AOC shilling for Biden..."
Seems the story ended up on the cutting room floor.
"Political fragmentation is making countries such as France, Germany, Spain and the Netherlands less governable just as geopolitical pressures on Europe are growing,"
Does "less governable" mean more libertarian?
How about numbers that might answer something...
Recipients of...
Gov. Subsidized Housing ... [D]81% - [R]12%
Medicaid ............................. [D]74% - [R]16%
Food Stamps ...................... [D]67% - [R]20%
Unemployment ................... [D]66% - [R]21%
Welfare ............................... [D]63% - [R]22%
Disability ............................. [D]64% - [R]25%
Those who rob Peter to pay Paul can count on the support of Paul?
Who'd a thunk it?
Oddly does not apply to illegal immigrants in sarcs world.
But those immigrants aren't registered Democrats--yet. (Even though they might vote.)
Well… opposition to the SAVE act says otherwise.
>>It's all profoundly embarrassing for Team Blue
Liz, meet Muhammad Ali.
Hey ML, this is for you.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/s5Xqucj2nJI
Though I'm sure you'll disagree and say that children are responsible for the sins of their grandparents.
You watch YouTube shorts? Are you 10?
No wonder you know so little and pretend reading a single Bastiat quite means you read the essay. Lol.
Wasn’t he complaining about bastiat.com being down the other day?
Yeah. It was embarrassing. He basically proved he never read the essay he was appealing to.
https://reason.com/2024/07/09/biden-blames-the-elites/?comments=true#comment-10632964
His definition for morality is hilarious.
You're a weird little guy.
>>The idea that a presidential race will be decided not by fans of either candidate
I hear this time it will be all those registered illegals we've been told don't exist.
If Trump loses then the election was fraudulent.
If he wins then The People will have spoken.
Won’t know until the results are in.
The election results themselves are all the evidence anyone needs.
you seem optimistic an election will be held.
Yeah, I am. Though I’m not optimistic about the choices, because we’re fucked as a nation either way. The duopoly will win. It’s a coin with Trump on one side and Biden on the other. Heads they win, tails we lose.
I want a new coin.
I was one of the very few and fortunate to not be forced to the gulgag by the last president
25% of voters despise both candidates. One in four voters would drop a deuce in the candidates' bathrooms and not turn on the fan. They'd happily leave shit-stains in their toilet.
But they'll vote for one or the other because it's better than voting for a loser.
>>25% of voters despise both candidates.
90-something% of the Elected Class hates us lol.
They are the coin. Why do you insist on supporting them? Doesn't matter which side gets elected. Either way they win and we lose.
Are you aware that Republicans and Democrats are corporations?
>>Why do you insist on supporting them?
who's the them? I support one person who stands in obvious contrast.
Oliver?
When you support a candidate you are supporting the machine. That’s why I refuse to vote R or D. Whenever I have I felt dirty after, like I fucked a trailer trash girl. She looks ok now, but she's going to turn into her mom.
Yes. The guy who supported and helped Obama is completely not on the coin. Lol.
A vote for Oliver is worse than a vote for Biden.
Change my mind.
At this point it seems the LP is just trying to piss off its base and ruin any chances of ever winning anything. I held my nose after JoJo's authoritarian tweet but can't this time, fuck the LP.
I also somehow avoided the camps, despite openly calling him an idiot and asking that he STFU.
Hillary 2016?
C
U
Next
Tuesday
I do love this leftist behavior here from you, shrike, and jeff pretending they don't openly support democrats 95% of the time as the candidates collapse. Always after the fact. Always after their failures are so obvious even WaPo calls them out.
Forget
About
Gagging on
Gigantic
Opossum
Turds?
All we know is sarc demands we trust government and their institutions whenever it helps democrats. Have the links for when he denies it.
Depends on to what degree the "cabal" decides to play their reindeer games this time around:
"That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information."
As long as you support either side of the coin you are supporting the duopoly. I think your tribe calls it the "Deep State," which is deeply ironic being that y'all are neck-deep in it by virtue of your support and defense of one side of the coin.
This is where sarc pretends D.C. bureaucracy isn't democrat. And not allowed to use the decades old term or youre a conspiracy theorist. Again. Trust in institutions as sarc says.
It is even more strange seeing this complaint as he demands we trust election offices, courts, and other abusive parts of government. But both sides are equal completely even as the one sided bureaucracy greatly favors one side while the other side wants to cut down the bureaucracy.
Always equal in blame when democrats are losing.
When these people blatantly brag in the media about their coordinated corruption and manipulation of a presidential election, it’s not partisanship to oppose that.
I assume all the degrees. we just watched England and France fall in real time ...
Do you deny that party shills will defy legal constraints during the election? And deny that in key states Democrats are in position to skew the results?
So yes, a narrow Trump loss can be fraudulent. And a narrow Trump victory can be more indicative of actual voting.
Illegals don't generally vote.
No widespread illegal voting.
Totally safe and effective.
As long as no investigations are allowed we can prove it rarely happens.
At least claim that there is no evidence to support claims that they do.
>>"Why Is the Squad Backing Biden So forcefully?"
Who Will Be the First to Stop the "Squad" Nonsense?
Jamaal Bowman?
>>Is New York becoming a battleground state?
will the large pile of Newcomer Voters be enough to hold off Orange County Choppers?
Look to pizza sales for clues.
So, I guess my understanding of laws which might be disproportionately enforced is that we should lower the penalties for the law. So say, if life in prison is the penalty for 1st degree murder, but it might catch more Jewish people in its enforcement, we should lower the penalties for 1st degree murder.
Crazy, right?
compare (source):
"[A]n Illinois bill mandating stricter sentencing for illegal gun possession was blocked by the black caucus in Springfield in 2013, on the ground that it would have a disparate impact on blacks."
So, I think it's pretty clear at this point that the US effectively ended as a de facto nation in 2016, when Trump obliterated the left's historic deterministic belief that Hillary's win would keep the communist utopia advancing apace, and they decided that they needed to accelerate their efforts.
It's now a matter of when, not if, this becomes a de jure status, and there's an effective split into a Union of Soviet Socialist Americas, and a United States of America, mainly because like their commie forebears in 1930s Spain, these leftist idiots don't know when to quit pushing and are going to provoke a hot civil conflict.
I feel the same way. Every time the liberal mask slips it encourages them to double down and openly abandon another layer of pretense. And the party faithful (and naive fellow travelers) just swallow and regurgitate more bull shit.
Muh private companies colluding to influence public opinion based on their own left wing bent:
ENB and Mastadon hardest hit.
For those who don’t know, GARM is a WEF initiative designed to use online marketing strategies to manipulate public opinion in favor of their own globalist projects and schemes.
I’m all for a reduction in advertising.
Trump's strategy
If he, and the GOP, are not 100% focused on stopping another run of ballot-stuffing cheat shenanigans then they are cooked regardless.
I fear you are correct.
"Political fragmentation is making countries such as France, Germany, Spain and the Netherlands less governable just as geopolitical pressures on Europe are growing,"
It seems Israel is the best example for European fragmentation. The best recipe for upending an established political status quo is losing an 'existential war.' How many other European nations are fighting and losing an existential war?
Iran, too offers an interesting example of an election, like UK and France, where voters rejected a variety of hard liners in favor of the 'reformist' choice on the ballot.
Stop pretending the presidential election's going to be close.
The only reason the election might be close will be due to election fortification by the Democrats in certain battleground states.
In that case, surely the goal would not be a 'close election.' It would be a Biden victory.
Speaking of the new GOP platform, The Guardian isn't even trying to hide its allegiance anymore: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/10/republican-platform-liberal-rebrand
The Guardian has never tried to hide its left leaning stance.
"an ever-higher number of people who strongly dislike both candidates and feel comfortable plugging their nose and just getting their voting over with in order to vote against the worse one"
well there's your problem. there is no worse one.