NWO/Illuminati US politics - Pt 3

[Kurve]

Here is US Politics Pt 2

The 2024 US presidential election is on Tuesday, 5 November 2024. The winner will serve a term of four years in the White House, starting in January 2025.

 

[Mofra]

So he didnt spefically say Veteran's healthcare. Did you read the article of just the fear pr0n headline…

It's one example. There's a lot more reading if you are interested.

Project 2025 would cut benefits for disabled veterans

In addition to cutting off access to reproductive health care, the right-wing playbook for a new Republican presidency could result in cuts to millions of veterans’ disability benefits.

michiganindependent.com

Experts raise Project 2025 warnings about veteran care

Defense experts and nonpartisan veterans groups have issued warnings about veteran care under Project 2025 policy proposals.

www.newsweek.com

In August, the nonpartisan Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute said, "A second Trump term would decimate veterans' healthcare and benefits," as it analyzed Project 2025's proposals. It added: "The Heritage plan aims to finish, in a second Trump administration, the VA demolition job that was launched in the first one. It's an unconscionable approach to those who've risked their lives for this country."

They're going full austerity, except for military spending and tax cuts to the top 20% of earners.

 

[Bostonian]

Veterans' health care could be cut by Department of Government Efficiency

Vivek Ramaswamy has said the government should not "spend money on programs that have expired."

www.newsweek.com

516 billion in expired bills most definitely needs looking at.

Wouldn't you agree?

Maybe it means new bills are created.

 

[Mofra]

516 billion in expired bill most definitely needs looking at.

Wouldn't you agree?

Maybe it means new bills are created.

We're not talking about every bill. We're talking about Veterans specifically.
There's plenty of waste in US spending but that's not what this conversation is about.

 

[Stokey]

It's one example. There's a lot more reading if you are interested.

Project 2025 would cut benefits for disabled veterans

In addition to cutting off access to reproductive health care, the right-wing playbook for a new Republican presidency could result in cuts to millions of veterans’ disability benefits.

michiganindependent.com

Experts raise Project 2025 warnings about veteran care

Defense experts and nonpartisan veterans groups have issued warnings about veteran care under Project 2025 policy proposals.

www.newsweek.com

They're going full austerity, except for military spending and tax cuts to the top 20% of earners.

Project 2025 isn't relevant and has been denied by Trump repeated.

 

[Stokey]

Alina Habba not taking the press secretary job.

Bit disappointed tbh.

Get Kayleigh back.

 

[Malifice]

You can't be serious, surely?

Mate, the criminal justice system clearly favors the wealthy.

Leaving aside fines and bail (financial penalties that affect the poor disproportionately to the wealthy), look at theft.

Steal someone's wallet on the street with 100 bucks in it, and odds are you'll go to prison in the USA.

Steal millions of dollars from shareholders and odds are you won't go to prison in the USA.

Or defraud thousands of people out of millions of dollars, and simply settle it out of court, and claim the settlement out of your insurance, and never see a day in prison:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_University

Anatole France famously said: 'The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.'

Or if none of that works for you, head down to your local Magistrates Court, and see how many wealthy people are walking in through the front doors.

 

[Mofra]

Project 2025 isn't relevant and has been denied by Trump repeated.

Project 2025 was drafted by Trump staffers, and not everyone is naive enough to expect a pathological liar to keep a promise.

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

Was Trump ever convicted for raping Jean Carroll? Or charged for any of the other dozens of sexual assaults?

The cult are ok with sex crimes as long as they're neo-conservatives.

So you think Trump being an ex President is what saved him from a conviction?

It couldn't be that the evidence or lack thereof wouldn't make it through a police investigation? Or that Carroll did not report the alleged attack to the police after it happened? That she couldn’t nail down the exact date, month or year and because of that Trump had no opportunity Trump to present an alibi witness in the defamation case?

Just being an ex president saved him? Really?

 

[Stokey]

Project 2025 was drafted by Trump staffers, and not everyone is naive enough to expect a pathological liar to keep a promise.

Get back to me when you can show these previous staffers are part of the current Trump administration. Surely they would be given prominent roles.

 

[Malifice]

So you think Trump being an ex President is what saved him from a conviction?

No, being a billionaire is what saved him.

If you disagree, get on TV and make a disparaging remark about Clive Palmer.

 

[Stokey]

Mate, the criminal justice system clearly favors the wealthy.

Leaving aside fines and bail (financial penalties that affect the poor disproportionately to the wealthy), look at theft.

Steal someone's wallet on the street with 100 bucks in it, and odds are you'll go to prison in the USA.

You can steal <$1,000 from most shops in mant US states atm and not be prosecuted.

Do you agree with this?

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

No, being a billionaire is what saved him.

If you disagree, get on TV and make a disparaging remark about Clive Palmer.

I seem to recall dozens of instances of people on TV making disparaging remarks about Clive Palmer without them all being sued.

 

[Bostonian]

We're not talking about every bill. We're talking about Veterans specifically.
There's plenty of waste in US spending but that's not what this conversation is about.

Well it is about wastage. And we have no idea how much wastage there is in this 119 billion portfolio.

You can cut wastage and then redeploy it to better or newer programs.

 

[Malifice]

You can steal <$1,000 from most shops in mant US states atm and not be prosecuted.

Except (like much of what you've 'discovered' on the internet 'doing your own research') that's not actually true.

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-th...riminal-because-the-state-laws-are-on-my-side

Theft of up to 1,000 dollars is not nonpunishable in the USA

Proposition 47 adopted in 2014 in California, which is not applicable in all states of the US, reclassifies felony theft like shoplifting under 1,000 dollars, from an offense into a misdemeanor. That

meta.mk

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

How many days prior to Trump's inauguration will it be for Chris Wray and his deputy to resign?

 

[Bostonian]

No, being a billionaire is what saved him.

If you disagree, get on TV and make a disparaging remark about Clive Palmer.

Didn't save Sam Bankman-Fried or Changpeng Zhao.

It's being a politician that saves them.

Kinda like how if regular folk were insider trading like Pelosi does they'd go to jail.

 

[Stokey]

Except (like much of what you've 'discovered' on the internet 'doing your own research') that's not actually true.

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-th...riminal-because-the-state-laws-are-on-my-side

Theft of up to 1,000 dollars is not nonpunishable in the USA

Proposition 47 adopted in 2014 in California, which is not applicable in all states of the US, reclassifies felony theft like shoplifting under 1,000 dollars, from an offense into a misdemeanor. That

meta.mk

Quora and Wikipedia.

You really hang around the factual websites.

Both are literally just opinion.

 

[Satan]

Quora and Wikipedia.

You really hang around the factual websites.

Both are literally just opinion.

https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/public_defender/prop_47_faq.html

 

[Stokey]

https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/public_defender/prop_47_faq.html

'NOTE: the value taken or intended to be taken must be $950 or less; if the value taken or intended to be taken is over $950, Prop. 47 will not help you.'

 

[Malifice]

Quora and Wikipedia.

Provide a source for your claim that 'you can steal 1000 dollars and it's not punishable'.

I'm telling you 100 percent that you're wrong, and only an idiot would read the above (that it's lawful to steal 1000 bucks in the USA), and think it might be true.

California raised the limit for where theft switches from a misdemeanor (effectively what we know as a summary offence in Australia) to a felony (a more serious crime, equivalent to an indictable offence in Australia) to 1000 dollars.

We do the same in Western Australia with petty theft (amounts less than 10,000):

Criminal Code	1 June 2005 TO Current Word Version PDF Version​
Part VI - Offences relating to property and contracts
Division XL III - Summary conviction for stealing and like indictable offences
426 Summary conviction penalty for certain stealing and like offences

• 426. Summary conviction penalty for certain stealing and like offences
  (1) Subsection (2) applies to the following indictable offences ¾
  (a) an offence under section 378, 382, 383 or 388 in respect of which the greatest term of imprisonment to which an offender convicted of the offence is liable does not exceed 7 years;
  (b) an offence under section 378 to which Item (5)(a), (6), or (7) of that section applies;
  [(c) deleted]
  (d) attempting to commit, or inciting another person to commit any of the offences mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b);
  (e) receiving anything that has been obtained by means of an indictable offence of such a nature, or committed under such circumstances, that the offender who committed the indictable offence might be summarily convicted under this Code.
  (2) Summary conviction penalty: for an offence to which this subsection applies where the value of the property in question does not exceed $10 000, unless subsection (4) applies ¾ imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of $24 000.
  (3) Summary conviction penalty: for an offence ¾
  (a) under section 378 or 414; or
  (b) of attempting to commit, or inciting another person to commit, an offence under section 378 or 414,
  where the property in question is a motor vehicle, unless subsection (4) applies ¾ imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of $24 000.
  (4) Summary conviction penalty: for an offence ¾
  (a) under section 378, 382, 383, 388 or 414; or
  (b) of attempting to commit, or inciting another person to commit, an offence under section 378, 382, 383, 388 or 414,
  where the value of the property in question does not exceed $1 000 ¾ a fine of $6 000.

https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/former/Swans.nsf/cffd29506903f87848256580002a6527/804db9929386aba14825701900169abd?OpenDocument#:~:text=Criminal Code - 426 Summary conviction penalty for certain stealing and like offences&text=(d) attempting to commit,,(a) or (b);

You've read some cooker nonsense somewhere online and you actually believed it, without bothering to check if its true.

Again.

Lol.

 

[Malifice]

'NOTE: the value taken or intended to be taken must be $950 or less; if the value taken or intended to be taken is over $950, Prop. 47 will not help you.'

Prop 47 simply makes it a misdemeanor (as opposed to a felony) for theft of amounts under 1000.

We do the same thing in all jurisdictions in Australia with 'petty theft' distinctions, and other similar laws that set an amount for when stealing is either an indictable offence (bail required etc) or a summary one (you get a summons to appear in front of a Magistrate).

In all instances, its still a crime, and it comes with a punishment on conviction.

 

[Stokey]

Provide a source for your claim that 'you can steal 1000 dollars and it's not punishable'.

I'm telling you 100 percent that you're wrong, and only an idiot would read the above (that it's lawful to steal 1000 bucks in the USA), and think it might be true.

California raised the limit for where theft switches from a misdemeanor (effectively what we know as a summary offence in Australia) to a felony (a more serious crime, equivalent to an indictable offence in Australia) to 1000 dollars.

We do the same in Western Australia with petty theft (amounts less than 10,000):



https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/former/Swans.nsf/cffd29506903f87848256580002a6527/804db9929386aba14825701900169abd?OpenDocument#:~:text=Criminal Code - 426 Summary conviction penalty for certain stealing and like offences&text=(d) attempting to commit,,(a) or (b);

You're read some cooker shit somewhere claiming its now lawful to steal up to a grand and you actually believed it.

Lol.

You're arguing over $50.

$950. I'm correct even in a post trying to dispute it.

$1,000 RAHHH. WIKIPEDIA AND QUORA SAYS YOU ARE WRONG!!!!!!'

So effing childish.

 

[Malifice]

Proposition 47, also known by its ballot title Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. Initiative Statute, was a referendum passed by voters in the state of California on November 4, 2014. The measure was also referred to by its supporters as the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act. It recategorized some nonviolent offenses as misdemeanors, rather than felonies, as they had previously been categorized.

The crimes affected were:

• Shoplifting, where the value of property stolen does not exceed $950
• Grand theft, where the value of the stolen property does not exceed $950
• Receiving stolen property, where the value of the property does not exceed $950
• Forgery, where the value of forged check, bond or bill does not exceed $950
• Fraud, where the value of the fraudulent check, draft or order does not exceed $950
• Writing a bad check, where the value of the check does not exceed $950
• Personal use of most illegal drugs, below a certain threshold of weight.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_California_Proposition_47

My favorite part of the above article:

Contrary to a misconception that circulated on social media, it did not make thefts under $950 no longer criminal offenses, nor would such thefts be left unpunished.

Stokey getting cooked by misinformation on social media again.

 

[Malifice]

You're arguing over $50.

$950. I'm correct even in a post trying to dispute it.

What?

No, Im not arguing about the amount. You claimed above that:

You can steal <$1,000 from most shops in mant US states atm and not be prosecuted.

You will 100 percent be prosecuted if you steal <1000 dollars within any US State.

It's still a ****ing crime to steal <1000. In California, it's simply been reclassified from a felony (what it used to be, which is a serious crime that allows imprisonment pending bail on remand etc, and carries much higher penalties on conviction) to a misdemeanor (equivalent in Australia to a summary offence, where you get a summons to appear in front of a Magistrate, and the penalties are generally much lower).

You read some misinformation nonsense on social media somewhere claiming 'you can't be prosecuted for minor theft in the USA' and you actually believed it.

Lol.

It's. Not. True.

 

[Stokey]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_California_Proposition_47

My favorite part of the above article:



Stokey getting cooked by misinformation on social media again.

You are the one normalising making theft easier but I am the cooked one. FMD.