Using a misdemeanor to charge a former president with 34 felony counts - facing 100+ year in prison while the same DA drops charges of career violent criminals and murderers.
You are telling me somebody that allegedly paid money to a career hooker is facing more time than most murderers, child molesters, and rapists?
This is a clown show circus that the feds and DOJ refused to pursue due to lack of evidence. There may be other things that he actually did that are illegal and rise to the level of felonies, but this political witch hunt on these particular charges in NYC using the judicial system isn’t it.
I don’t think the state should be involved in marriage in any way to begin with, but that is another story.
I agree with this too, but since they are state officials they shouldn’t get to make the decision who gets to marry based on their own personal beliefs/opinions. If clergy want to refuse to officiate that’s one thing (can always use the justice of the peace - but maybe not anymore in TN), but to deny issuance of a marriage certificate - yikes.
This I would bet on - you know, things like storing classified docs in non-secure areas. That kind of stuff would get people in my industry thrown in federal lock up for a long time. He’s not the only politician who does this though.
Apparently it is okay to bleach and burn hard drives too, if your last name is Clinton. Not going after or investigating with the same fervor ALL crimes regardless of political affiliation is the first step of a banana republic and pushes your country closer to chaos and anarchy.
I don’t care what position you have held or what letter is next to your name - the judicial system should be removed from political bullshit. (I know I know this is an ideologically perfect world that does not exist, but it can’t be so brazenly weaponized).
if they would go after all the other politicians then i don’t see an issue, but they won’t, which is why this country has been lost…like you said, banana republic
Fair enough that anyone in a minority state of existence might not like the bill.
However, please consider the rights of those who are religious. There was a woman in Ky who was raked across the coals, a county employee, for refusing to sign a ‘gay marriage’ certificate bc her faith says there is no such thing possible. Instead of charges being pursued, the lady should have simply been moved to another spot in that office, or promoted for having guts.
I personally have strong personal disagreements with such things based on my Faith. I am entitled to have them, express, them, or print them out and put them under my pillow, so long as I do not harm another person. And when I say ‘do not harm,’ i ain’t talkin about their delicate feelings. Eff that entire safe space BS. Are we growing men in this country who, if needed, could protect it, or are we trying to feminize the entire population?
SCOTUS needs to roll back all laws to do with morality to what they were around the year 1900 IMO. Yes, every last one.
Ten Commandments and prayer back in schools, no damn ‘pronoun’ stuff allowed, men are men, women are women, and children of each gender striving to be the adult version of said gender.
As it stands, looks to me like both half the population and also most of the supreme court have lost their damn minds along with the ability to use a mirror to verify their sex.
Of course my viewpoint is becoming a minority, just as the pastel colored crowd would hope. What will not happen is, me not speaking up about my own opinions as often as every last minority that exists.
I’m a blue eyed, 6’2, 220lb white heterosexual (normal) male, married to a 5’5 100 lb beautiful lady, a Republican, Trump supporter, and all around bad man. I mean bad in the best sense of the word here!
As an employee of the state though she doesn’t have the choice to not issue a marriage certificate even if it is against her religion nor should she if the marriage is legal by the laws of that state. If she couldn’t handle that fact then she should have pursued other employment.
You don’t have to agree with someone to recognize their right under the law, whether you agree with that right or not.
Freedom of religion does not entitle one to force one’s religious beliefs onto another human (which is what a person doing something like this is doing). She has every right not to attend that wedding or associate with that couple in any way outside of her job capacities.
Because this led to such great outcomes in the past…
Growing up being told you are going to eternal damnation if you don’t behave doesn’t produce well educated, thoughtful, kind adults like many thinks it does. It produces people intolerant of any differences in humans and, ironically, makes many Christians behave in quite an un-Christian manner.
The amount of willful ignorance by placing the word “normal” here is astounding…
Hint: there have been non-heterosexual people since humanity began recording history (see the Greek empire for one glaring example).
Ahuh I reckon there have been. Yet, they have not been the ‘normal’, which I would here define as ‘typical,’ else humanity would not have survived.
That is, we who I consider “normal” have carried the ‘abnormal’ population along with us throughout history, probably like a case of crabs.
One item I will be watching for in candidates is if they support the rainbows. I am fine with tolerance but not support.
If a candidate includes the T in that string of letters, they are out of touch and don’t realize the T doesn’t go there. The other 3 are a preference while T is a bona fide text book delusion.
Like if I look in the mirror with what is right now a 3/8" beard, and say I am clean shaven damn it I want you to preface every usage of my name with Clean Shaven Mr. xyz.
Nice observational and logical reasoning skills. Ugh.
Any candidate I vote for will need to be clear that:
Trans is a delusional state, diagnosed as a disorder in a DSM, not for affirmation but treatment
Guns are tools and we have always been legal to have, carry, and use them
The national debt is ludicrous
Veterans are worth caring for
If they can’t get that much, they need to go home.
K, The Revolutionary era freedom fighters eventually organized into actual troops, typically brought their own rifles. They were militia - firearms weren’t issued by the government. Then being militia is where the wording of our 2A came from .
Yes, Americans from the founding of America have owned, used, and carried firearms. It is the one Anendment that is critical to defending all other rights.
A good book - “Revolutionary Summer” by Joseph Ellis - this information and the book will be enlightening to most regarding the founding of America and how it was accomplished.
IMO, to tell an American they can’t have any type firearm is analogous to saying they can’t have a hammer. Both can be equally deadly in the wrong hands, but nobody pushes for hands-control legislation now do they? Nope, the push is always under the guise of public safety when in fact, more armed citizens is the most effective means of ensuring public safety, not having SWAT serve no knock warrants to confiscate under BS red flag laws that allow ANYONE including an ex to claim you’re dangerous…they can bust in middle of the night and if you aren’t damn sure it’s cops and grab the shotgun or whatever that’s your ass.
I personally do NOT wish to have LEO’s in my world who are armed exponentially better than the citizenry. That’s not ok. If I want a truck mounted fifty caliber I should be well within legal rights to have one as long ss I’m not hurting anyone.
But I’m from a world where I had a pocket knife that my first grade teacher would borrow, and took my shotgun out Rabbit hunting before walking to that primary school…this is how it should be still. Problem is, a ton of American dads have dropped the ball and didn’t teach their sons these things. Now we have a bunch of adult males in the country who are clueless about protecting their own, are wreak in character, and have zero heart.
Eff that - precisely why I trained my son to use firearms and how to deal with force on force situations.
We men ARE still the hunter gatherers when we marry & that’s supposed to translate into us protecting the families we create. Try protecting your loved ones from armed criminals without being armed yourself.
And the disarm the criminals plan won’t work, they can care less about the gun laws because the harder it is for law abiding citizens to legally buy guns the higher the price on the street, so don’t be surprised if your local gangsta supports more gun legislation.
Lastly, they always call it “Common sense gun legislation” when it is anything but common sense to try disarming the citizenry.
This generation will eventually learn this lesson, but it’s looking like they’ll insist on learning the hard way while bogging down the system for everyone else with their sensory friendly candy ass demands.
What that type person needs to experience is being under duress while being clearly informed, “You are alone. Nobody is coming to help you. If you survive you do it alone.” This is reality. When it comes to safety it is incumbent upon us to handle our own.
I’m done. Guns are integral to our society and our freedoms so everyone who tried can stop bringing more gun legislation for votes. Consider me a no vote on any of these because there’s plenty of laws already.
Maybe
Then how do you think we should curb the shooting violence (especially in schools) that is more prevalent in this country than anywhere else?
More guns clearly isn’t the answer or it would have worked already.
I am pro-gun within reason. To truly believe a few rifles could go up against the might of the military if push came to shove is farcical.
I like this idea, but instead of it being just regular armed security guards I was thinking maybe veterans or other military personnel can be stationed there.
Then again ironically you probably got veteran security guards.
If I was a parent I’d feel more safe about that than a regular joe schmo security guard. Imagine if the gov’t funded something like that, not knocking the idea btw.
I agree that the US military would run roughshod over the “armed citizenry” in short order. I like to think that enough of the military’s leadership would have the wherewithal to reject the command to do so.
