Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

USA Politics/Election Thread: California Gov. Newsom Defeats Recall Referendum


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, 4petesake said:

 

Another new fish with a silver spoon up his ass for the boys in the cell block to bet on.


Lawyer for eye-gouging MAGA rioter whines that his client is in jail with people who did 'inner-city crimes'

 

 

An attorney representing a MAGA rioter who infamously gouged a Metropolitan Police officer's eyes argued on Friday that his client doesn't deserve to be held in a cell with people who have committed "inner-city crimes."


The Washington Post's Rachel Weiner reports that an attorney representing retired New York City Police officer Thomas Webster argued to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that his client should not be detained in his current conditions, which he described as a "dormitory setting."

The attorney went on to say that his client was not used to living in conditions that are usually reserved for people who commit "inner-city crimes."

"For a middle aged guy whose never been arrested before this has been a shock for him," said the attorney, who also touted his client's "sparkling" record as a New York cop.

 

 

 

70093A8A-9997-4E1B-86E4-13723232651A.jpeg

I agree, domestic terrorism and assaulting the police is worse than "inner city crimes".  Send this piece of garbage to Guantanamo Bay.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, King Heffy said:

I agree, domestic terrorism and assaulting the police is worse than "inner city crimes".  Send this piece of garbage to Guantanamo Bay.

Guantanamo Bay to use amnesty international's words is "a symbol of torture,rendition and indefinite detention with out charge or trial".

 

Another of Obama's failed promises,in 2009 he promised to close the camp down within a year.

 

When China or Russia puts people in camps like this there is an outcry from supposed democracies like the US.

 

 

 

 

  • Vintage 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

ThOsE LibTArDs iNdoCtRiNaTe oUr KiDs.  

 

BTW, lets pass a bill allowing SCIENCE teachers to also teach creationism.  The bill isn't likely to survive a court challenge, as SCOTUS has ruled that creationism cannot be taught as science.  I can be taught in philosophy or religion classes (where it belongs).  QOP on point.

 

https://katv.com/amp/news/local/creationism-bill-passed-in-house-headed-to-senate

 

Creationism bill passed in Arkansas House, headed to Senate

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

ThOsE LibTArDs iNdoCtRiNaTe oUr KiDs.  

 

BTW, lets pass a bill allowing SCIENCE teachers to also teach creationism.  The bill isn't likely to survive a court challenge, as SCOTUS has ruled that creationism cannot be taught as science.  I can be taught in philosophy or religion classes (where it belongs).  QOP on point.

 

https://katv.com/amp/news/local/creationism-bill-passed-in-house-headed-to-senate

 

Creationism bill passed in Arkansas House, headed to Senate

Rep. Mary Bentley better be careful what she wishes for. Teaching Creationism as science opens up a can of worms that will have Arkansans running for the hills. Imagine the hell unleashed when little Jim-Bob starts learning the Quran in science.

  • Hydration 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

ThOsE LibTArDs iNdoCtRiNaTe oUr KiDs.  

 

BTW, lets pass a bill allowing SCIENCE teachers to also teach creationism.  The bill isn't likely to survive a court challenge, as SCOTUS has ruled that creationism cannot be taught as science.  I can be taught in philosophy or religion classes (where it belongs).  QOP on point.

 

https://katv.com/amp/news/local/creationism-bill-passed-in-house-headed-to-senate

 

Creationism bill passed in Arkansas House, headed to Senate

I wonder who these "scientists" are....:rolleyes:

  • Hydration 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The My Pillow guy has hired a private investigator to find out why Faux News isn't letting him speak on air...

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/companies/mypillow-ceo-mike-lindell-says-he-hired-private-investigators-to-find-out-why-fox-news-isnt-letting-him-speak-on-air/ar-BB1fvIhr?li=AAggFp5

 

Quote

 

MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell said Friday he's hired private investigators to find out why Fox News isn't letting him go on the network as a guest to talk about his baseless claims of election fraud.

Dominion Voting Systems sued Fox News and Lindell for defamation last month, seeking $1.6 billion and $1.3 billion, respectively. The conservative news network is also facing a $2.7 billion lawsuit by Smartmatic allegedly spreading election misinformation earlier this year.

Lindell, who has continued to push voter-fraud conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, appeared on Steve Bannon's "War Room: Pandemic" podcast to talk about the lawsuit and Fox News.

The CEO said he believes that Fox News and their reluctance to speak about the election fraud seem suspicious to him, adding that it is allegedly among several entities involved in a conspiracy against former President Donald Trump.

In a video of the interview, posted to social media, Bannon says to Lindell: "I don't remember seeing you on Fox recently...Why are the Murdochs afraid of Dominion? Why is Mike Lindell not on Fox and why do they seem to say, hey, when Dominion says something, we're just gonna shut up about it and talk about Biden's tax bill?"

 

It's actually kind of impressive.....imagine being such a prolific liar that even Faux News won't let you talk....:blink:

 

Hey Mike! While you're at it, have the PI find out why you're such a moron too....

Edited by RUPERTKBD
  • Hydration 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

ThOsE LibTArDs iNdoCtRiNaTe oUr KiDs.  

 

BTW, lets pass a bill allowing SCIENCE teachers to also teach creationism.  The bill isn't likely to survive a court challenge, as SCOTUS has ruled that creationism cannot be taught as science.  I can be taught in philosophy or religion classes (where it belongs).  QOP on point.

 

https://katv.com/amp/news/local/creationism-bill-passed-in-house-headed-to-senate

 

Creationism bill passed in Arkansas House, headed to Senate

The supreme Court is now packed with people who have strong religious beliefs.

Maybe even more than than the politicians what cases/challenges come before the court:ie Roe v Wade,teaching creationism and the decisions the court makes could set the state's back decades.

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

I wonder who these "scientists" are....:rolleyes:

I believe some of the names they use are priests,bishops,Imams and Mullahs.

  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ilunga said:

The supreme Court is now packed with people who have strong religious beliefs.

Maybe even more than than the politicians what cases/challenges come before the court:ie Roe v Wade,teaching creationism and the decisions the court makes could set the state's back decades.

There isn't anything in the Constitution that states how many Supreme Court justices should be (though the number has changed for a long time now, it has changed in the history of the US).

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ilunga said:

The supreme Court is now packed with people who have strong religious beliefs.

Maybe even more than than the politicians what cases/challenges come before the court:ie Roe v Wade,teaching creationism and the decisions the court makes could set the state's back decades.

I kinda agree and not.  The court has already shown that they do care about past precedent.  None of the people on the court are really beholden to the potitical movements that got them there.  They are fully aware of the legacy that certain decisions have. 

 

I do agree that this court has a very real chance to overturn Roe or allow creationism in science class.  There is a chance.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

There isn't anything in the Constitution that states how many Supreme Court justices should be (though the number has changed for a long time now, it has changed in the history of the US).

I know there are no set limits to the amount of justices who can serve on the court however it gets a bit confusing when you start to do some research.

George Washington appointed the most justices,11.

The number who have been allowed to sit seems to have varied between 7- 10.

 

The number has sat at 9 since Congress set that number in 1869.

 

FDR tried to convince Congress to pass legislation that would allow a new justice to be added to the court-for a total of 15 members-for a justice over 70 who choose not to retire however Congress did not agree with his plan.

 

 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

I kinda agree and not.  The court has already shown that they do care about past precedent.  None of the people on the court are really beholden to the potitical movements that got them there.  They are fully aware of the legacy that certain decisions have. 

 

I do agree that this court has a very real chance to overturn Roe or allow creationism in science class.  There is a chance.

As you have stated they are not beholden to those who put them there just ask trump.

The fact they rejected his attempts to overturn the election results made me very happy on several levels.

 

However we are dealing with their fundamental beliefs here in regards to abortion and creationism and I believe they would be proud to have as their legacy the overturning of such legislation as Roe v Wade and the teaching of Creationism as science.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ilunga said:

I know there are no set limits to the amount of justices who can serve on the court however it gets a bit confusing when you start to do some research.

George Washington appointed the most justices,11.

The number who have been allowed to sit seems to have varied between 7- 10.

 

The number has sat at 9 since Congress set that number in 1869.

 

FDR tried to convince Congress to pass legislation that would allow a new justice to be added to the court-for a total of 15 members-for every justice over 70 who choose not to retire however Congress did not agree with his plan.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • DonLever changed the title to USA Politics/Election Thread: California Gov. Newsom Defeats Recall Referendum

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...