NWO/Illuminati US politics - Pt 2

Remove this Banner Ad

EasternTiger said:
Lol democrats considering asking dopey to step aside.

Brilliant.
Click to expand...
I must admit that even I, the great FK, did not predict how badly this would go for sleepy joe. Had an AFL team performed that horribly, I would demand that they be investigated for tanking.

Now we get to see the Don bully whoever replaces Joe in the second debate.

Celebrate In Love GIF by Max
 
FireKrakouer said:
I must admit that even I, the great FK, did not predict how badly this would go for sleepy joe. Had an AFL team performed that horribly, I would demand that they be investigated for tanking.

Now we get to see the Don bully whoever replaces Joe in the second debate.

Celebrate In Love GIF by Max
Click to expand...

Simping for both Trump and Elon at once? Impressive, your knees must be red raw.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Not sure the Democrats have an alternate candidate that makes up for the general advantage of incumbency.
That being said, Biden's public appearances for the last 2 years or so have been really, really bad.
I'm sure he's in good health for an 81 year old, but he is just visibly shot. Maybe he is in denial about the toll the job is taking on his body. If he is serious about contesting he shouldn't have agreed to a debate. Would not be surprised if scheduling an early debate was a play to get him out of the nomination early.

I think Trump probably wins in November, it's just whether that's against Biden or someone else.
He has made gains with black voters, which will likely get him over the line in a few swing states, and it seems in general there are fewer 'never Trumpers' than in 2016 and 2020.
 
FireKrakouer said:
I must admit that even I, the great FK, did not predict how badly this would go for sleepy joe. Had an AFL team performed that horribly, I would demand that they be investigated for tanking.

Now we get to see the Don bully whoever replaces Joe in the second debate.

Celebrate In Love GIF by Max
Click to expand...

I am surprised a man as intelligent as yourself did not foresee this result. Biden is an absolute trainwreck.

The great man impressed the hell out of me with his ability to stay calm and not take the bait.

Ubermensch
 
bourbons said:
Getting surreal here zill :drunk:

Ahh, the J6 defense. It didn't work, therefore all good play on.

But no, thats just what you'd like to point to be. The actual point, as would be obvious to anyone unfortunate enough to be following this shambolic exchange, is that Trump wanted Biden investigated (per his call to Zelensky) and was looking for anything to hang that on. Lo and behold, the "laptop from hell" emerges, complete with ironclad proof of the Bidens' corruption. Yet somehow, despite this proof, Trump's handpicked guys running both the DoJ and FBI decline to do anything about it. Rather than accept the fairly obvious implication that there actually wasn't much on the laptop they could get the Bidens for, you go with "coz they're corrupt", and these life long Republicans are actually covering up for the Bidens.

You know it makes sense! :tearsofjoy:


Right, and you've specifically carved out an exception to this for Trump.


Never said he wasn't, and of course he is. According to your own logic, that means he won't shy away from trying to get another politician in court.

We about done here?
Click to expand...
What exactly are you struggling with? I've said pollies aren't interested in prosecuting other pollies. Trump is an obvious exception given the amount of charges he has faced. Even then the only thing that stuck was misuse of campaign funds or whatever he got done for.
 
Malifice said:
No, answer my question. Stop deflecting.

Would the Bill (providing billioms in drug counseling and education and other social welfare provisoms) have passed Ronald Reagan (and the Republican Senate) without those tough on crime provisions?

Yes or No will suffice.
Click to expand...
You are the one who is deflecting. If you were in any wau informed about the bill you wouldn't be asking this. Democrats were clearly looking to be tougher on crime than the republicans.

"The Anti-Drug Abuse Act authorized more than $1 billion for drug enforcement, education and treatment programs. But one of its most consequential provisions was the “100-1” rule, so named because it required a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for trafficking in 500 grams of powder cocaine or five grams of crack.

Though Biden took responsibility for the formula in 2002, it is unclear exactly how it came to be part of his bill. The ratio was more aggressive than proposals from either the Reagan administration, which sought a “20-1” rule, or House Democrats, who held the majority and sought a “50-1” rule, but less aggressive than the “1,000-1” ratio proposed by Sen. Lawton Chiles (D-Fla.), the co-chairman of Biden’s working group."

 
Last edited:
zill said:
You are the one who is deflecting.
Click to expand...

No, I've already ****ing agreed with you. Biden literally sponsored the Bill. Im in 100 percent agreement with you (and so is Biden, who has publicly disavowed his sponsorship and admitted the Act disproportionately targeted Black Americans).

Agreeing with you, is anything BUT deflecting.

Now, for the third time, answer MY question:

Would the Bill (providing billions in drug counseling and education and other social welfare measures) have passed Ronald Reagan (and the Republican Senate) without those tough on crime provisions?

Yes or No will suffice.
 
Malifice said:
No, I've already ****ing agreed with you. Biden literally sponsored the Bill. Im in 100 percent agreement with you (and so is Biden, who has publicly disavowed his sponsorship and admitted the Act disproportionately targeted Black Americans).

Agreeing with you, is anything BUT deflecting.

Now, for the third time, answer MY question:

Would the Bill (providing billions in drug counseling and education and other social welfare measures) have passed Ronald Reagan (and the Republican Senate) without those tough on crime provisions?

Yes or No will suffice.
Click to expand...
Still deflecting. Raegan would have accepted a 20:1 ratio for cocaine vs crack, Biden pushed it to 100:1.

Another quote from Biden, about the 1994 crime bill:

Democratic Senator Joe Biden of Delaware used the law to respond to the common and erroneous criticism that liberals were soft on crime:

"Let me define the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is now for 60 new death penalties. That is what is in this bill. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party has 70 enhanced penalties.... The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is for 100,000 cops. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is for 125,000 new state prison cells."

www.newsweek.com

Did Liberals Put Black America Behind Bars? - Newsweek

A Princeton professor argues that well-meaning progressives helped imprison record numbers of African-Americans.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

zill said:
Still deflecting. Raegan would have accepted a 20:1 ratio for cocaine vs crack, Biden pushed it to 100:1.

Another quote from Biden, about the 1994 crime bill:

Democratic Senator Joe Biden of Delaware used the law to respond to the common and erroneous criticism that liberals were soft on crime:

"Let me define the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is now for 60 new death penalties. That is what is in this bill. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party has 70 enhanced penalties.... The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is for 100,000 cops. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is for 125,000 new state prison cells."

www.newsweek.com

Did Liberals Put Black America Behind Bars? - Newsweek

A Princeton professor argues that well-meaning progressives helped imprison record numbers of African-Americans.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com
Click to expand...

I AGREE WITH YOU.

Now stop weaseling out and show some integrity. I'll ask you again, for the 5th time.

In your opinion, would the Bill (providing billions in drug counseling and education and other social welfare measures) have passed Ronald Reagan (and the Republican Senate) without 'tough on crime' provisions?

Yes, or No?

Come on mate, you can do it.
 
Malifice said:
I AGREE WITH YOU.

Now stop weaseling out and show some integrity. I'll ask you again, for the 5th time.

In your opinion, would the Bill (providing billions in drug counseling and education and other social welfare measures) have passed Ronald Reagan (and the Republican Senate) without 'tough on crime' provisions?

Yes, or No?

Come on mate, you can do it.
Click to expand...
The billions weren't just for drug counselling, it was also for drug enforcement.

And the democrats controlled the house at the time. Deflecting the blame away from Biden is pathetic.
 
zill said:
The democrats controlled the house at the time.
Click to expand...

I know, I literally said as much above. But a Bill has to pass the House AND the Senate (which was controlled by the Republicans) and also it has to clear the President (who at the time was Reagan, a Republican not exactly known for his profligate spending on social welfare programs like 'drug counseling and welfare', and in fact literally known for his policy to cut government spending everywhere other than on Defence and 'Tough on Crime' shit).

Again, for the sixth time. Stop weaseling out and answer the damn question.

In your opinion, would the Bill (providing billions in drug counseling and education and other social welfare measures) have passed Ronald Reagan (and the Republican controlled Senate) without the 'tough on crime' provisions?

Yes, or No?
 
**** it, I presume your reluctance to answer the question and obfuscate repeatedly tells me you know the answer is 'Not a chance in Hell the Republicans and Ronald Reagan would approve of billions of dollars in drug counselling, education and rehabilitation measures, without the Bill containing 'Tough on Crime' measures.'

Yes Biden authored the Bill. And yes, he likely supported many of its provisions (likely including the mandatory sentencing for 5 grams of Crack provision). But the political reality was that without those provisions, the Bill never would have gotten off the floor of the Senate, and even if it did, Reagan would have shitcanned it with his Veto.
 
Malifice said:
I know, I literally said as much above. But a Bill has to pass the House AND the Senate (which was controlled by the Republicans) and also it has to clear the President (who at the time was Reagan, a Republican not exactly known for his profligate spending on social welfare programs like 'drug counseling and welfare', and in fact literally known for his policy to cut government spending everywhere other than on Defence and 'Tough on Crime' shit).

Again, for the sixth time. Stop weaseling out and answer the damn question.

In your opinion, would the Bill (providing billions in drug counseling and education and other social welfare measures) have passed Ronald Reagan (and the Republican controlled Senate) without the 'tough on crime' provisions?

Yes, or No?
Click to expand...
Like I said, the money was for drug enforcement as well as counselling and welfare. You keep omitting that part. You are also deflecting away from the democrats tough on crime stance. Biden literally said that republicans weren't tough enough on crime. Led by Biden, they were trying to outdo the republicans. Clinton achieved that with another Biden led bill a few years later.

And just so you know, the bill can pass even if the president vetoes it.
 
Malifice said:
Also, it's worth mentioning that Biden has repudiated his support of the Bill. Repeatedly.

Doesn't exactly sound like the words of a man who 'supports life sentences for all drug charges'.
Click to expand...
Yeah, he wrote it, then he repudiated it. Then doubled down on it when it suited him, like his 2008 presidential campaign.

"Biden added in his speech that rehabilitation could not be a condition for release or sentencing, because the United States criminal justice system didn’t know how to rehabilitate offenders.

“I’m the guy that said rehabilitation, when it occurs, we don’t understand it and notice it and even when we notice it and we know it occurs, we don’t know why,” he said. “So you cannot make rehabilitation a condition for release.”

The consensus, Biden again said, was the need to make streets safer. With an impassioned plea, Biden said he did not care what led someone to commit crimes.

“I don’t care why someone is a malefactor in society. I don’t care why someone is antisocial. I don’t care why they’ve become a sociopath,” Biden said. “We have an obligation to cordon them off from the rest of society, try to help them, try to change the behavior. That’s what we do in this bill. We have drug treatment and we have other treatments to try to deal with it, but they are in jail.”"

Doesn't really sound like a guy commited to social welfare of any sort. Sounds like a guy commited to locking up as many people as possible, for as long as possible. Which is exactly what his bills achieved.

edition.cnn.com

Biden in 1993 speech pushing crime bill warned of 'predators on our streets' who were 'beyond the pale'

Joe Biden in a 1993 speech warned of "predators on our streets" who were "beyond the pale" and said they must be cordoned off from the rest of society because the justice system did not know how to rehabilitate them.
edition.cnn.com edition.cnn.com
 
zill said:
Doesn't really sound like a guy commited to social welfare of any sort. Sounds like a guy commited to locking up as many people as possible, for as long as possible. Which is exactly what his bills achieved.
Click to expand...

Yes, his Bill... passed by a Republican President, and a Republican Senate.

That he now repudiates.

Can we agree that all the above that I just posted is factual before we move on?
 
zill said:
And just so you know, the bill can pass even if the president vetoes it.
Click to expand...

Via a 2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate.

Ronald Reagan Vetoed 78 Bills, with only 9 being overridden.

Ronald Reagans signature policies were the 'War on Drugs' and 'Cutting government spending'.

In order to get government spending on drug rehab and education, the Bill had to include tough on Drugs measures, or it was not going to pass.

This isnt anything partisan or controversial. It's how Washington works.
 
7 years ago we had the Mainstream Media going after Trump with the narrative of not fit for President and the 25th admendment ... fast forward to the 2024 first presidential debate and the world got to see the truth of which President's health should be scrutinised.

Trump continues to shine the light on the corrupt one sided establishment anti-trump mainstream media agendas and fake narratives. It is only now that the powers to be and Democrat puppet masters are timing their strategic replacement of Joe that we will finally start to see some general discussion about Joe's fitness to lead the US.
 
Malifice said:
Yes, his Bill... passed by a Republican President, and a Republican Senate.

That he now repudiates.

Can we agree that all the above that I just posted is factual before we move on?
Click to expand...
No we can't agree on it. He flip flops between owning and disowning the bills he wrote.

This is a press release from when he was campaigning for the 2008 presidency. He was seeking the further militarisation of the police force.

"Senator Biden is the author of the 1994 Crime Law that is widely credited with helping to create the lowest crime rates in decades"

Biden Campaign Press Release - Biden Continues Fight For Law Enforcement | The American Presidency Project

www.presidency.ucsb.edu www.presidency.ucsb.edu
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top