America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,707 comments
  • 1,596,117 views
Oops.



There's another Twitter thread in which a respondent refers to the mistake(?*) as a "false flag operation." Fantastic stuff.

*The author of the other thread posits that use of the "new" flag may have been an attempt to skirt laws prohibiting deliberate misuse of the state seal and other iconography.
 
Wow. This story just keeps getting darker and more depraved the further you dig into it.

Edit: Wouldn’t the use of a fake flag for Massachusetts fall under “consciousness of guilt”?
 
Last edited:

There aren't 10 republican senators willing to vote for gay marriage today. Apparently there is some hope that there will be after the midterms, but there is a reasonable chance that the senate will be a republican majority after the midterms, in which case it's reasonably likely that gay marriage falls at the supreme court. Even if the Senate does have the votes after the midterms, they're changing the wording and if the house is republican-led they'll be too busy impeaching biden or some nonsense to take up re-passing the bill.

The basic idea is this. There are republican senators that would support the gay marriage bill if not for the fact that they fear they'll be ousted in the election if they do. So they want to wait to support it until after the midterms. Not only does this assume good faith, which is not a safe assumption, it puts gay marriage at the whim of the midterms because some senators are scared they'll lose their seat. Again, the assumption here is that they know this is the right thing to do, and are fine with risking screwing everyone over if it helps them save their senate position.
 
fine with risking screwing everyone over if it helps them save their senate position.
Isn't this modern day politics 101, ombined with the classes of how to keep your friends in high positions?
 

There aren't 10 republican senators willing to vote for gay marriage today. Apparently there is some hope that there will be after the midterms, but there is a reasonable chance that the senate will be a republican majority after the midterms, in which case it's reasonably likely that gay marriage falls at the supreme court. Even if the Senate does have the votes after the midterms, they're changing the wording and if the house is republican-led they'll be too busy impeaching biden or some nonsense to take up re-passing the bill.

The basic idea is this. There are republican senators that would support the gay marriage bill if not for the fact that they fear they'll be ousted in the election if they do. So they want to wait to support it until after the midterms. Not only does this assume good faith, which is not a safe assumption, it puts gay marriage at the whim of the midterms because some senators are scared they'll lose their seat. Again, the assumption here is that they know this is the right thing to do, and are fine with risking screwing everyone over if it helps them save their senate position.
Yep. Once a politician gets elected, they will do everything they can to stay elected. With great power, comes no responsibility or morality.
 
There's an F-bomb here not censored fully (three of four letters have been substituted with asterisks) per GTP filter standards so I'm putting it behind a spoiler just in case.

Right-wing activists flooded a veterans suicide prevention hotline in an attempt to get criminals they like released from jail.

 
This is a worthy cause.
Definitely.

But at the end of the day, it's probably business as usual. You can't trust a modern day politician to do the right thing anymore. Doesn't matter if they're American or Dutch. All they want is to keep their asses in their seats, and have companies throw money at them.
 
Sigh.


In the meantime...

"Authorities in Texas have opened a criminal investigation into Gov. Ron DeSantis’ operation to fly roughly 50 Venezuelan migrants from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard last week."
 
Last edited:

He's trying to stall for time so the mid-terms can allow for the Republicans to immediately impeach Biden for going after the former president. This is what the Republicans are hoping for as the incentive to vote red. "A vote for me is a vote to save Donald Trump from the evil communists who are unfairly going after him for taking souvenirs."
 
Screenshot-20220920-085729-Samsung-Internet.jpg


Reason's ENB said this better than I could ever hope to, not least because I'm a dick and I don't suffer conservative ****wits like @Marqus and @Adamgp (it would be rude to talk about them without cueing them into my having done so) mildly.



Note that she mentions immigration offices and courts. See, what the right so frequently disregards is that migrants residing in the country legally (applying for asylum is in full compliance with the law) are still subject to the immigration system and its mandates that include court appearances. The only migrants who are not have either been deported (and by that I mean actual real deportation beyond the country's borders rather than temporary relocation to another place in the same country) or they have become naturalized citizens.

Also, "sanctuary city" isn't actually defined as one "accepting of all people." Sure that's frequently in the spirit of the designation, but what it actually means is that cities won't readily comply with federal immigration forces (ICE), and that's certainly in the spirit of the sort of federalism that has conservative ****wits presently throwing a bitchfit over treatment of they're bronzer daddy. Clearly they pick and choose how they want it applied.

Massachusetts has eight sanctuary cities. Obviously they include Boston and Cambridge, but Amherst, Chelsea, Concord, Newton, Northampton and Somerville round out the list. Martha's Vineyard isn't on that list, which makes sense given that it's a small community.

Now it's not inconceivable that ICE would seek out individuals who have applied for asylum legally, but it tends to be because they have failed to appear for hearings in immigration courts likely scheduled at or around the time of application and in specific locations that may be changed if necessary but that's also a process. Something else conservative ****wits frequently disregard is that a staggering number of those who are residing in the country illegally are doing so not because of illegal entry but because of failure to comply with immigration law that mandates these court appearances.

That about wraps what I want to say at this time on the topic, but I do have something else to add...

Screenshot-20220920-102119-Samsung-Internet.jpg


AAAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Edit: The "Haha" reaction in the second screenshot was added just prior to taking it and I've added one to the remark presented at the top of this post.
 
Last edited:
Instructions unclear. Is the left buttcheek a sanctuary city, or does the left buttcheek need a sanctuary city? Or do I read it like a headline where the comma means "and" so Sanctuary Cities and My Left Buttcheek? Or perhaps it's a list of places where migrants can go, which consists of sanctuary cities and the OP's left buttcheek. The latter doesn't seem like it would be the appropriate place for migrants.
 
Instructions unclear. Is the left buttcheek a sanctuary city, or does the left buttcheek need a sanctuary city? Or do I read it like a headline where the comma means "and" so Sanctuary Cities and My Left Buttcheek? Or perhaps it's a list of places where migrants can go, which consists of sanctuary cities and the OP's left buttcheek. The latter doesn't seem like it would be the appropriate place for migrants.
:lol:

Edit: Apologies. I wasn't sure how I wanted to react/respond and so I suppose I ended up spamming your notifications. It's not a serious "poopy" (it basically never is when I use it).
 
Last edited:
lol

Trump's lawyer--ironically named "Trusty"--before the Special Master accuses the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) of being "highly politicized" (it's not, of course). The reality is that NARA didn't become "highly politicized" (still not, mind) until Trump violated actual real federal law (per the Federal Records Act and Presidential Records Act) that mandates records be promptly transferred to the agency.

I have to take special care not to say "unbelievable" or "amazing" to express exasperation, as these circumstances are neither. They're predictable and, apart from the gravity thereof, wholly mundane.
 
Martha's Vineyard is flat, mostly cold, has few services, the soil is barren (because it's surrounded by ocean), and everything is quite expensive since it literally has to be shipped in. Neat to visit for a weekend, but not my idea of a place to stay.

Imagine if hippie commune decided to move to some Panhandle county in Texas; it would fail in about two weeks. Or hey, some of the places where they moved Native Americans during the Trail of Tears...I suppose he wants us to think he was kind enough not to send them to Mars before the colony was fully constructed, because they'll be provided with all the necessary oxygen and supplies on a subscription basis.
 
Last edited:
Martha's Vineyard is flat, mostly cold, has few services, the soil is barren (because it's surrounded by ocean), and everything is quite expensive since it literally has to be shipped in. Neat to visit for a weekend, but not my idea of a place to stay.
"But sanctuary city. Let's go Brandon."
 
But yes, conservatives, do go on with your outrage over the genuinely necessary relocation of these people from an island with no resources to the mainland where they can be properly cared for and helped with their suddenly much bigger immigration problems.
 
Can we just take a moment to acknowledge that the whole country knows that Trump took classified documents to an unsecure location with the intent to use them as some kind of leverage for some kind of gain, and that a big portion of the country seems to be just totally fine with that?

What's going on in court is not really to decide whether any of that is true, it's to figure out whether Trump can find some kind of technicality or corruption to get off. The question of whether he did this is not really even being discussed. Trump is simply testing whether our legal system is robust against a rogue president. We're not trying to figure out whether he's innocent or guilty, we're trying to figure out whether a legal system that has never been tested by a president that will act against the country is able to hold him accountable while a portion of the country wants him to skate.
 
Last edited:
Can we just take a moment to acknowledge that the whole country knows that Trump took classified documents to an unsecure location with the intent to use them as some kind of leverage for some kind of gain, and that a big portion of the country seems to be just totally fine with that?

No, because then I won't be able to sleep at night.

Yes, because these are some of the people I actually have to board an airplane alongside of every week.

Maybe, a good portion of those same people ought to get electroconvulsive therapy and stop believing everyone else's excuses.
 
Last edited:
What's going on in court is not really to decide whether any of that is true, it's to figure out whether Trump can find some kind of technicality or corruption to get off.
Which he will - he'll appeal all the way up to the SCOTUS where, by an amazing coincidence, Republicans have stacked the deck in their favour.
 
Did Trump's lawyers accidentally suggest someone competent to be the (unnecessary, forced upon the Justice Department by a partisan hack judge) Special Master? Because it certainly seems like they accidentally did.
 
Back