placeholder

Where do you 2 get your misinformation from? New York City’s Adams ups pressure on Biden amid border trip New York City Mayor Eric Adams (D) is blasting President Biden on immigration as his city struggles to handle an influx of asylum seekers, escalating tensions that could prove to be a hassle for both of them heading into reelection years. Adams, up for reelection in 2025, has been sounding the alarm since last spring over what his office reports is a surge of more than 110,000 asylum seekers into the nation’s most populous city — and he’s repeatedly criticized the Biden administration and Republicans, while calling on the federal government for help. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4242783-adams-pressure-on-biden-border-migrant/ NYC Mayor Eric Adams goes to DNC without speaking spot in snub: ‘This is a slap in the face’ Eric Adams will be heading to the 2024 Democratic National Convention in Chicago despite not being offered a coveted speaker spot — a snub for the Dem mayor of the nation’s largest city, political insiders said. The Windy City cold shoulder awaiting Adams — who will visit the DNC Wednesday and Thursday — is Democratic pooh-bahs’ revenge for the mayor bucking President Biden on the migrant crisis, as well as potential concern over a federal corruption probe swirling around City Hall, sources said. https://nypost.com/2024/08/20/us-news/eric-adams-snubbed-by-dnc-goes-without-speaking-spot-this-is-a-slap-in-the-face/ Because neither of you did your homework, you missed your chance to claim that the Biden administration was persecuting Adams for his criticism of the Biden administration. Although I wouldn't put it past either of you to pull a reverse.

Not published in a peer-reviewed Journal by rather by the Global Warming Policy Foundation: The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a charitable organisation in the United Kingdom whose aims are to challenge what it calls "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming.[2] The GWPF, and some of its prominent members individually, have been characterised as practising and promoting climate change denial.[3][4]... ...The GWP..F website carries an array of articles sceptical of the scientific consensus of anthropogenic global warming and its impacts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation As for the author of this "study". "Susan Janet Crockford is a Canadian zoologist and climate change denialist known for her research and publications on polar bears... Although Crockford has not published peer-reviewed research on polar bears, she has challenged findings of widely recognized polar bear scientists, notably Steven Amstrup and Ian Stirling, stating that a 2015 paper by these researchers and others deliberately misrepresented data about polar bear population collapse.[10]... "According to a 2018 study by Netherlands ecology professor Jeffrey Harvey and others, while Crockford has neither conducted any original research nor published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on the effects of sea ice on the population dynamics of polar bears, her blog, Polar Bear Science, was a primary source used by websites that either deny or are skeptical of climate change, with over 80 percent citing it as their primary source of information on polar bears.[15]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_J._Crockford In other words, garbage.

Remember when Cannon ruled in favor of Trump and required a special master to examine the documents. And how the panel from the 9th circuit court harshly shot her decision down?

You claimed that the courts denial was due to the fact "their lack of inclination to grant standing." What don't you understand about the fact that the author of the opinion specifically said “it is not clear that no one else would have standing to challenge the FDA’s relaxed regulation of mifepristone.”... The court's conservatives suggest Comstock might be a valid approach. Are you claiming that the Trump administration would refuse to obey a Supreme Court decision? As for the FDA being embarrassed...remember when Trump appointed a coal industry lobbyist to head the EPA? Why would Trump not appoint some right wing ideologue, like, say, Joseph Ladapo, the loon who is currently the Surgeon General for the State of Florida?

What do you mean, like you said. That's not what you said. Stop making things up. What you said was this: "Even where abortion is illegal women can procure these killer pills via mail and have abortions anyway. Given the above Supreme Court decision is it clear that if a comprehensive case were to go before the Supreme court on restricting mail order pills for abortion they would not support it." No, it wasn't their "lack of inclination to grant standing". The people who brought the case clearly had no standing. The case only got as far as it did because of the loons at the Fifth Circuit Court. st the BBC article noted, the court left it open for a case to be brought again. In fact... "However, Kavanaugh also wrote that “it is not clear that no one else would have standing to challenge the FDA’s relaxed regulation of mifepristone.”... During oral arguments, the conservative justices even laid out a potential legal argument for a new plaintiff to use—the Comstock Act of 1873. That law outlaws the mailing of “any drug or medicine or any article whatever for causing unlawful abortion,” but the government hasn’t enforced it, considering it vastly outdated. https://archive.ph/Q3Hul#selection-1343.0-1363.182 And you don't even address that fact that the decision to make mifepristone widely available was made by the FDA. Nothing stands in the way of the FDA undoing it or limiting it.

Sure. You don't like him but he's "someone who will fight for their people and country." Sure sounds like you don't merely like him but love him. Another case of I don't like Trump but...

As for the nutjob's ideas, you think the public health infrastructure of the USA is in good shape?

The reason the Supreme Court rejected the effort was that the plaintiffs didn't have standing. It never ruled on whether the FDA had overstepped its bounds. You should have actually read the article: "The justices decided the plaintiffs, a group of anti-abortion doctors and activists, did not have a legal right to sue. But they left the door open to other attempts to limit the availability of the drug." https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2qq1wqw3w2o The decision was not clear or comprehensive. In fact, the FDA under the Trump administration could roll back the permissions it gave under the Biden administration. As for Comstock, it may not be Trump who would decide the outcome of a court case, but he could definitely decide to start enforcing it and see what happens. A national ban does seem unlikely now. But in 2 years who knows?

That's utter B S. The FDA eased restrictions and it can tighten them again should it so choose. Congress would have no say in that. And there is the possibility that the Trump administration could enforce the Comstock act.

Please share with us the information about these "Covid nuts" who are pressuring Harris

So what? They saved lives and lessened the severity of the symptoms. That's not enough?

And what makes Trump's rejection of project 2025 particularly suspect is it on the one hand he claimed not to have heard of it and on the other he said it had some good ideas and some bad ideas. How does that work?

Actually, Trump hasn't ruled out a national prohibition. And he definitely hasn't ruled out restricting the use of mifepristone which is how most pregnancies are avoided currently. And what he said about project 2025 is that it has some bad ideas and some good ideas. But he's never specified what are the good ideas. So his rejection of it really amounts to next to nothing.

First off, Harris didn't enact anything. She was VP not POTUS. And are you climbing that the Biden administration acted contrary to the advice of the CDC?

I see that the right still has plenty of volunteers who have the courage to make stupid generalizations.

What about Texas?

Wow. A Progressive conspiracy theorist! You ought to be awarded endangered species status.

John Lance Garner, a former vice President of the United States, one said that the office wasn't worth a bucket of warm spit. But according to you, it's the vice president, not the president who decides policy. You badly need to get acquainted with the Constitution of the United States. And while you're at it, you might want to look up what Marxism is and what it isn't. Maybe then he'll give up on the pavlovian responses.

It looks like Iowa may not be such a sure thing for Trump: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/iowa This poll from the highly respected of Selzer & Co.has Trump ahead only by four points. Previously it had Trump ahead of Biden by 18 percent.

You got me there.

Anyone who reads the stories is their mind at least halfway engaged will note that this unnamed whistleblower offered no evidence to back up their claim. Nor was it any evidence offered by Fox News.

Clearly, you don't recall the fact that William Barr and John Durham tried their best to prove that the FBI was motivated by political opposition to Donald Trump. They found nothing.

There's nothing wrong at all with Trump respectfully voicing his disagreement. It's a good thing he didn't question the motives or character of the dissenting senator...

Like Trump is talking about immigration even though he already has the voters who want severe restrictions?

You mean this Karen Kingston? https://www.verificat.cat/en/mrna-vaccines-do-not-carry-graphene-in-their-lipid-nanoparticles/ No wonder you didn't provide a link to her.