placeholder

Biden administration didn’t steal $1 billion from FEMA for migrants. Trump’s claim is Pants on Fire! Here are the facts: Current FEMA funding for migrants does not come at disaster relief’s expense. Neither of FEMA’s two programs for migrants uses money from the agency’s Disaster Relief Fund, which is primarily used after natural disasters. Congress funds the migrant and disaster relief programs separately. And Trump’s administration, not Biden’s, shifted FEMA funding — including money from the Disaster Relief Fund — to address immigration. https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2024/fema-hurricane-milton-money-spent-immigrants/

The only way your claim to American citizenship makes sense, is if there's a positive correlation between US citizenship and ignorance of American laws and politics. But if you've got evidence to offer to support your position, go ahead and do so. You've got nothing.

Well, if Elon Musk says it's a lie... Such moronic comments from you and Musk. FEMA isn't just given X amount of funding to allocate how it pleases. Congress stipulates how those funds are to spent.

You questioned whether or not the evidence I cited from the BBC was valid. It is. I cited that evidence to refute theblether's claim that the judges ruling was just about employment issues. Stop trying to deflect. You've got nothing.

What makes your comment particularly moronic is that the piece of the article I used includes a direct quote from the lawsuit. Or you so clueless as to claim that the BBC is making that up, too?

Your lack of any evidence to counter what the BBC says is typical and shows why your posts are generally worthless. Put up or shut up.

Another moronic comment. Instead of replying to the substance of a comment, you go after a member for not being American. What's sad is that you haven't demonstrated that you have the intellectual resources it takes to discuss issues intelligently.

Please link me to proof that the people in the article are leftists. Otherwise it's just your typical dishonest name-calling.

That power actually is not delineated in the Constitution. It was Madison vs. Marbury that the Supreme Court under John Marshall first made a ruling on constitutional grounds.

It's up to the Supreme Court to decide if that is the case. Not Donald Trump nor Elon Musk.

I don't pretend to be an expert. That's why I cite those who are. Whereas your information looks like the kind that is gleaned from made-for-tv movies.

Thanks for sharing with us your expertise. It is to laugh.

Crack vs. powder cocaine: Were differences exaggerated? During some of the bloodiest years of the drug wars of the 1980s, crack was seen as far more dangerous than powder cocaine, and that perception was written into the sentencing laws. But now that notion is under attack like never before. Criminologists, doctors and other experts say the differences between the two forms of the drug were largely exaggerated and do not justify the way the law comes down 100 times harder on crack. https://archive.ph/g0fIx#selection-1585.4-1585.59 . In the United States during the mid-1980s, for example, crack cocaine was believed to be so powerfully addictive that even first-time users would become addicted. Even more worrisome was the perception that the drug produced unpredictable and deadly effects. Despite the fact that there was virtually no real evidence supporting these claims, in 1986, the United States Congress passed the now infamous Anti-Drug Abuse Act setting penalties 100 times harsher for crack than for powder cocaine convictions. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/uploads/43c2d274-ab5d-4c77-b162-f29034de40a8/methamphetamine-dangers-exaggerated-20140218.pdf

Anyone who claims that they what they say is the truth without offering evidence to back it up is in effect offering evidence...that they are a simpleton.

Overall, your claims are rarely substantiated.

They're begging for trade deals? Really? You got some evidence for that? Even the leader of Canada's Conservative party has shown nothing but defiance towards Truimp?

While I don't have much use for Liz Cheney, I have to concede that she's got this one right: “If you believe any of the multiple federal courts that have ruled against you so far are exceeding their statutory or Constitutional authority, your recourse is to appeal. You don’t get to rage-quit the Republic just because you are losing. That’s tyranny.” https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/jd-vance-claims-judges-arent-allowed-to-overrule-president-trump-on-executive-orders-suggests-potus-has-legitimate-power-to-defy-judicial-rulings/

I've been searching for a link to your claim that Justice Thomas believes that district court judges have too much power. Where has he said that? In a decision? In a speech? In some writing?

The most important difference between crack and standard cocaine is that it tended to be consumed by people with lower incomes. Which meant that they deserved harsher punishment. "Crack, a smokable rock form of cocaine, became prevalent in the 1980s, especially among those of lower socioeconomic status (SES) as it was sold in small, cheap quantities (e.g. $5 or $10 compared to the usual $50 or $100 for powder cocaine) (2,3)." https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5066573/#:~:text=Crack%2C a smokable rock form,) (2%2C3). Cracks in the System: 20 Years of the Unjust Federal Crack Cocaine Law A comprehensive examination of the 100-to-1 crack versus powder cocaine sentencing disparity under which distribution of just 5 grams of crack carries a minimum 5-year federal prison sentence, while distribution of 500 grams of powder cocaine carries the same 5-year mandatory minimum sentence. https://www.aclu.org/documents/cracks-system-20-years-unjust-federal-crack-cocaine-law

You might want to check the contents of what you're boiling in that pot. "The lawsuit argues that the president is violating the US Constitution and federal law by attempting to dismantle the agency. "Not a single one of defendants' actions to dismantle USAID were taken pursuant to congressional authorization," it says. "And pursuant to federal statute, Congress is the only entity that may lawfully dismantle the agency."" https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y6701gl60o

Was Donald Trump mentioned at all in the quote. It was about a polling showing strong public support for social security? The only Trump derangement I can see any evidence for is yours. You are an invaluable and apparently unstoppable rsource of irony.

Really? Because Americans are unfamiliar with what Social Security does? This is laughable. They may not now much about the details but to claim that they don't understand it's basically a retirement program is just nuts. Stop making things up.

Now your seeing Trump derangement in a post that didn't cite him and was only about Social Security? You are an invaluable natural resource of irony.

Because, you, as a self-proclaimed socialist, don't believe that most folk don't want to see government support in their old age be diminished? You're not fooling anybody.

Are you experiencing hallucinations similar to those of Frank83628? I'm going to try and offer you a little cognitive therapy here. I'm going to quote from the original post and then you can tell me where you see the bitching and crying. "85% of Americans Willing to Raise Taxes to Save Social Security, Survey Shows A new survey from the National Academy of Social Insurance, AARP, the National Institute on Retirement Security, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in collaboration with Greenwald Research, finds that most Americans are willing to accept tax increases to prevent benefit cuts. The survey shows that 85% of respondents believe Social Security benefits should stay the same or even increase, even if that means raising taxes on some or all Americans. It also found that only 15% of respondents preferred keeping tax rates the same, even if that means reducing benefits. https://www.aol.com/85-americans-willing-raise-taxes-153018526.html