Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Politics'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Community Calendar


  • Articles


  • Buffalo Stampede
    • The Rick Serafin Buffalo Sports & Political Forum
    • The Meathead Technical Service Center

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



About Me

How long have you been a Buffalo fan?

Found 1,572 results

  1. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-immigration-billl-illegal-immigrants-path-to-citizenship Gotta have those priorities!!!! LOL. God help us all.
  2. Biden wants to give parents $300 per month, per child. Parwnts with 3 kids, for example, would receive $900 per month from the government. Forever. https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/01/22/biden-childtaxcredit-stimulus/
  3. https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-bidens-first-day-began-the-end-of-girls-sports-11611341066 I mean, who out there can't get behind this, right??? These people are CRAZY. We just go along with this shit? Thoughts?
  4. The former president dropped the efforts to replace the acting attorney general after top DOJ officials agreed to resign en masse in protest if he succeeded, people familiar said In his last weeks in office, former President Donald Trump considered moving to replace the acting attorney general with another official ready to pursue unsubstantiated claims of election fraud, and he pushed the Justice Department to ask the Supreme Court to invalidate President Biden’s victory, people familiar with the matter said. Those efforts failed due to pushback from his own appointees in the Justice Department, who refused to file what they viewed as a legally baseless lawsuit in the Supreme Court. Later, other senior department officials threatened to resign en masse should Mr. Trump fire then-acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, according to several people familiar with the discussions. Senior department officials, including Mr. Rosen, former Attorney General William Barr and former acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall refused to file the Supreme Court case, concluding that there was no basis to challenge the election outcome and that the federal government had no legal interest in whether Mr. Trump or Mr. Biden won the presidency, some of these people said. White House counsel Pat Cipollone and his deputy, Patrick Philbin, also opposed Mr. Trump’s idea, which was promoted by his outside attorneys, these people said. “He wanted us, the United States, to sue one or more of the states directly in the Supreme Court,” a former administration official said. “The pressure got really intense” after a lawsuit Texas filed in the Supreme Court against four states Mr. Biden won was dismissed on Dec. 11, the official said. An outside lawyer working for Mr. Trump drafted a brief the then-president wanted the Justice Department to file, people familiar with the matter said, but officials refused. After his Supreme Court plan got nowhere, Mr. Trump explored another plan—replacing Mr. Rosen as acting attorney general with Jeffrey Clark, a Trump ally in the department who had expressed a willingness to use the department’s power to help the former president continue his unsuccessful legal battles contesting the election results, these people said. Mr. Trump backed off that plan after senior Justice Department leadership threatened to resign en masse if the president removed Mr. Rosen, people familiar with the discussions said. Weeks before the Nov. 3 presidential election, Mr. Trump had predicted the outcome could be determined by the Supreme Court; that possibility was a reason he gave for rapid confirmation of his third appointee to the court, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death in September. “I think this [election] will end up in the Supreme Court. And I think it’s very important that we have nine justices,” Mr. Trump told reporters on Sept. 23. “Having a 4-4 situation is not a good situation.” As challenges to the election results went nowhere in multiple state and federal courts, Mr. Trump and his allies placed their hopes in a lawsuit that Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton planned to file directly in the Supreme Court against four states that voted for Mr. Biden. The suit alleged that Texans’ rights were violated because Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin failed to follow their own election laws in the November vote. Before the Texas suit was filed, a group of Republican state attorneys general spoke with Mr. Barr about getting the Justice Department to back the claim, particularly if the Supreme Court asked for the department’s views on the case, people familiar with the discussions said. Mr. Barr consulted with Mr. Wall, who is the government’s advocate before the Supreme Court. Mr. Wall told Mr. Barr that Texas’s lawsuit was likely to fail because the state lacked legal standing to challenge other states’ administration of their own laws, the people said, accurately anticipating the grounds the Supreme Court ultimately cited in dismissing the case. Mr. Barr told the Republican officials that the department couldn't be counted on to support their legal claim if the Supreme Court sought its opinion, these people said. Representatives of Mr. Paxton and the Republican Attorneys General Association couldn't immediately be reached. After the Texas case was dismissed on Dec. 11, Mr. Trump began pushing for the Justice Department to file its own lawsuit against the states directly in the Supreme Court, the people said. Frustrated that his wishes weren’t being implemented, Mr. Trump at one point planned to bypass the attorney general and telephone Mr. Wall directly, these people said. Mr. Trump didn’t follow through with a phone call, but one of his outside lawyers sent over a draft legal brief he wished the department to file with the Supreme Court, these officials said. After Mr. Barr resigned shortly before Christmas, Mr. Trump pushed Mr. Rosen to authorize the lawsuit. At Mr. Rosen’s request, the solicitor general’s office prepared a brief memo with talking points he could use in an effort to explain to Mr. Trump why the lawsuit wasn’t legally viable, the people said. Mr. Clark denied involvement in a plan to oust Mr. Rosen, which was earlier reported by the New York Times. Mr. Rosen couldn’t immediately be reached for comment. “My practice is to rely on sworn testimony to assess disputed factual claims,” Mr. Clark said in a statement sent to The Wall Street Journal after the publication of the story in the Times. “There were no ‘maneuver.’ There was a candid discussion of options and pros and cons with the president. It is unfortunate that those who were part of a privileged legal conversation would comment in public about such internal deliberations, while also distorting any discussions.…Observing legal privileges, which I will adhere to even if others will not, prevents me from divulging specifics regarding the conversation.” Mr. Trump has defended his efforts to change the election results by alleging, without evidence, that there was widespread fraud as an attempt to “honor” the votes of those who supported him and ensure Americans “can have faith” in the electoral process. Mr. Trump’s push to employ the Justice Department in that effort drew sharp criticism from Democratic lawmakers. “This powerful report shows how Trump came within a hair’s width of taking down our democracy,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.) said Saturday. “Now my Senate colleagues must show spine and break silent complicity—and vote to convict,” he said. Mr. Trump’s plan to orchestrate a last-minute change in the department was part of the broader effort by the former president and his allies to involve the Justice Department in their attempts to cast doubt on Mr. Biden’s November victory. White House officials had pressured Atlanta’s top federal prosecutor to resign before Georgia’s Jan. 5 Senate runoff elections because Mr. Trump claimed he wasn’t doing enough to investigate unproven claims of election fraud there, the Journal previously reported, a matter now under investigation by the department’s inspector general, a person with knowledge of the probe said. Atlanta U.S. Attorney Byung J. Pak stepped down Jan. 4, the day after news organizations published a recording of a call between Mr. Trump and Georgia’s Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a fellow Republican, in which Mr. Trump pushed the state officials to “find” enough votes to overturn the November presidential election results. Mr. Trump acknowledged the call with Mr. Raffensperger, tweeting: “He was unwilling, or unable, to answer questions such as the ‘ballots under table’ scam, ballot destruction, out of state ‘voters’, dead voters, and more. He has no clue!” Mr. Raffensperger tweeted back: “Respectfully, President Trump: What you’re saying is not true. The truth will come out.” After two recounts and one audit of ballot signatures, Mr. Raffensperger had concluded there was no evidence of widespread fraud that could change the results and Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, also a Republican, certified Mr. Biden’s narrow win in the state on Nov. 20. In Washington, Mr. Rosen became acting attorney general after Mr. Barr resigned Dec. 23. Mr. Trump and Mr. Barr’s relationship had become strained after Mr. Barr’s public assertion that the Justice Department hadn’t found evidence of widespread voter fraud that could reverse Mr. Biden’s victory, including claims of fraud, ballot destruction and voting-machine manipulation. Even before Mr. Barr’s departure, Mr. Trump had called Mr. Rosen to the White House to pressure him to appoint a special counsel to investigate unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud and voting-machine manufacturer Dominion, the people said, a move Mr. Barr had concluded was unnecessary. Mr. Trump and his attorneys had lost dozens of cases in courts at all levels, including the U.S. Supreme Court. In the five weeks after Election Day, the Trump campaign and other Republicans lost at least 40 times in six pivotal states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In several other cases, the campaign or allies withdrew claims after filing them. Mr. Rosen refused, reiterating Mr. Barr’s conclusion that there was no widespread fraud.
  5. On Friday night, writing for The Washington Post, conservative attorney George Conway laid out the way forward to investigate former President Donald Trump for his criminal conduct in office now that he is a private citizen — and prosecute him where appropriate. "Trump departed the White House a possible — many would say probable, provable — criminal, one who has left a sordid trail of potential and actual misconduct that remains to be fully investigated," wrote Conway. "A desperate fear of criminal indictment may even explain Trump's willingness to break any number of laws to stay in office despite losing his reelection bid, democracy and the Constitution be damned." While President Joe Biden is correct to pledge to stay out of prosecutorial decisions surrounding Trump, wrote Conway, the Justice Department should not — and everything from the Russia obstruction of justice, to the Ukraine bribery scheme, to his attacks on the election and incitement of the Capitol riot, should be on the table to prosecute. One important avenue, wrote Conway, is to follow the lead of New York prosecutors. "[Manhattan DA Cyrus] Vance is running a state investigation, but if Trump has committed bank or insurance fraud, that would be chargeable as federal offenses as well, including mail or wire fraud," wrote Conway. "So, too, with state tax offenses, given how Trump's federal and state returns would no doubt track one another. Trump apparently had good reason to be concerned about who would fill [Preet] Bharara's old job." https://www.salon.com/2021/01/23/george-conway-hands-bidens-doj-a-roadmap-to-make-sure-trump-ends-up-in-jail/ Lock Shit up! Lock Shit up! god i would love to see that douche in jail
  6. Ju This woman is stark raving mad. She is out of control and has sold her soul to the devil to maintain power using a number of corrupt deceitful Democrat House members who quite easily resemble her sub human attributes. She is even trying to force her speaker seat power status on the other branches of the government. She is a lunatic. At 80 years old, or soon to be, she continues to stay when most normal people would have retired, written a book on their wonderfulness and sat back in a porch rocker. She must have soiled herself so badly in the political area that the only way to keep the citizens from finding out about her misdeeds is to keep hold of the reins. She is going to die before long and their won't be any statues made or buildings named after her because even the House/Senate creatures she props up hate her but at the same time fear her current power and they need her Hollywood and Chinese money to stay in Congress and pad their own bank accounts. There are both Democrats and Republicans that reap the benefits of her corrupt power. She is the perfect example of the greedy and thirst for power type that fills our congress. I can't say it enough; she is nuts, a fucking loon. The devil may not be able to deal with her when she has to pay her debt to him. By Elizabeth Stauffer Published January 23, 2021 at 3:38pm The acting Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security during the capitol incursion, Ken Cuccinelli, made an alarming revelation during an interview with Fox News’ Martha MacCallum on her show, “The Story” on Jan. 20. In the video below, MacCallum pointed out that the presence of 25,000 National Guard troops deployed to Washington, D.C. ahead of the inauguration was several times the troop levels currently serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. Agreeing with MacCallum, Cuccinelli replied that 25,000 troops was the equivalent of an entire division. He then disclosed that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had requested the “last up of the final troops” and had asked for crew-manned machine guns. A division. You have a division,” he told his host. “The last up of thousands of these troops was requested by the speaker through the Capitol Police. She even wanted crew-manned machine guns in Washington. That was rejected because there’s simply no use for that in a security arrangement for a civilian undertaking. Just — so some of this has gone beyond any legitimate security need.” It’s pretty astounding that Pelosi thought this was a reasonable request. Crew-manned machine guns are the types of weapons you see deployed against citizens in places like North Korea, Russia and nearly every African dictatorship. These aren’t rifles or pistols, but crew-served weapons. They can dish out the hurt in ways a standard-issue carbine cannot. Fully automatic and made to confront armed enemy combatants, these should never be used against civilians. Asking for these weapons to be put in D.C. when there were already 25,000 troops paints a questionable picture of Pelosi’s judgment. Pelosi’s request for additional National Guard troops and machine guns also flies in the face of her outrage last June when then-President Donald Trump called for National Guard assistance to quell the riots in Washington, D.C. In a letter to Trump, she wrote: “We are concerned about the increased militarization and lack of clarity that may increase chaos. I am writing to request a full list of the agencies involved and clarifications of the roles and responsibilities of the troops and federal law enforcement resources operating in the city. Congress and the American people need to know who is in charge, what is the chain of command, what is the mission, and by what authority is the National Guard from other states operating in the capital.” “As peaceful people all over the country turn out to honor the memory of George Floyd and protest for change, we must ensure that their safety and their constitutional rights are being respected,” she continued. Appearing quite unconcerned about the violence which was spreading through American cities, Pelosi, then-Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and other lawmakers donned African kente cloth scarves and knelt for eight minutes and 46 seconds in the Capitol Visitor Center to honor Floyd before holding a press conference “unveiling a legislative package of police reforms.” That was how Pelosi dealt with riots back then. With compassion for those who were trying to make their voices heard and through actions she hoped would appease them. Discussing the enormous troop build-up in the nation’s capital, Cuccinelli emphasized that DHS is responsible for defending all of America, not just Washington, D.C. In the days leading up to the inauguration, the FBI had issued warnings about armed protests in state capitals. “The world is not about Washington. It’s supposed to be about everywhere else, which is what the Department of Homeland Security tries to keep secure,” Cuccinelli said. He noted that he was seeing little “concern for the rest of America.” “But when their own butt was on the line, all of a sudden they [Washington politicians] want every troop and soldier they can find to protect them. And we’re perfectly happy to contribute to keeping them safe. That’s part of our goal and our job, but not at the sacrifice of the rest of America.” And everyone in this country should be kept safe and that’s what the Department of Homeland Security has endeavored to do through this entire difficult year.” He is entirely correct. Most politicians do see themselves as more important than any other American. Those who refused to denounce the deadly riots taking place in cities throughout the country last summer have been portraying the events that occurred on Jan. 6 as the darkest day in American history. In an appearance with Tucker Carlson on his Fox News show earlier this week, conservative commentator Jason Whitlock made a humorous, but truthful observation. He noted that lawmakers are acting as if they’ve been through Pearl Harbor. Well said, Whitlock.
  7. The systems to manufacture, distribute, and track vaccine doses set up by the Trump administration are even more broken than Biden’s COVID team feared. Twelve minutes before noon on Wednesday, President Joe Biden was sworn into office as the nation’s 46th president. Seven hours later, the United States reported more than 4,409 new deaths from the novel coronavirus, according to data collected by the COVID-19 Tracking Project. The Biden administration came into power with purpose and an extensive agenda to combat the coronavirus pandemic, but purpose and planning only gets you so far—particularly when the president’s team is only just now getting a clear picture of how badly the previous administration had managed the crisis. “What we’re inheriting from the Trump administration is so much worse than we could have imagined,” Jeff Zients, the Biden administration’s COVID-19 czar, said in a call with reporters Wednesday. “We don't have the visibility that we would hope to have into supply and allocations.” “I think we have to level-set expectations,” added Tom Frieden, the former director for the Centers for Disease Control in the Obama administration. “There are lots of things that an incoming administration can do on Day One, including speaking honestly about the pandemic.” The new administration is already behind, in part because the Trump administration was unprecedentedly hostile during the transition. The question now, however, is how Biden can get a handle on a raging pandemic when his team is already so far behind. The task at hand is enormous. More than 400,000 Americans have died of COVID-19. Every state, territory and the District of Columbia is in a state of emergency. The number of people infected with the virus who are now hospitalized is more than double the number reached during the spring and summer peaks. At least we won’t have a president that’s actively fighting those rules on national television. — official working with Biden COVID team It’s not just the spread of the virus that the Biden team needs to tackle. Officials will also have to confront the disinformation and misinformation about the virus that has permeated all four corners of the country—where people still believe the virus is a hoax and that public health guidelines are too great of an imposition on their personal freedom to follow. But it’s unclear what power of persuasion the Biden administration will hold and if it will be enough to convince people to take the virus more seriously. “At least we won’t have a president that’s actively fighting those rules on national television,” one official working with the new Biden COVID-19 team said. More urgently, Biden and his team will have to handle the growing frustration among states over the lack of a comprehensive vaccine-distribution program that enables them to inoculate their residents quickly. They will have to find a way to get states more vaccines needed to meet Americans’ growing demand for the shot. Biden’s COVID-19 team says the president will use the Defense Production Act (DPA) to ensure that health-care facilities have what they need for personal protective equipment and to continue to scale testing across the country. Officials say Biden will also use the act and “other legal authorities” for “raw materials to ensure that bottlenecks do not slow down [vaccine] production,” Zients said, specifically mentioned the production of syringes as critical to success. It’s still unclear exactly when the president will invoke the DPA, and if the administration will lean on the legal authority for the production of supplies other than vaccine syringes. “Making vaccines is not simple, and you can't cut any corners,” Frieden said. “We'll see if there's anything more that can be done.” Biden enters office as states across the country are grappling with massive vaccine shortages. Hospitals and pharmacies have begun to run out, forcing them to cancel first and second dose appointments. Officials in states such as California, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, New York, New Jersey, and Arizona this week called on the federal government to not only help facilitate the shipment of additional vaccines but to clearly communicate how many doses they should expect to receive in the coming days. They’ve received no answers, according to six state health officials, all of whom requested to remain anonymous to speak more freely about the issue. Those officials said the Biden team has for weeks reached out to states to assuage their concerns about the lack of a cohesive and functioning vaccination distribution system. The Biden message to frustrated governors was simple: help is on the way. But as White House officials begin to strategize on how best to remedy the situation they are finding that the foundation on which the Trump administration built its vaccine distribution program is more flawed than previously understood, according to two individuals involved with vaccine planning. From the accounting to the way vaccines are allocated and scheduled for delivery—the system doesn’t allow for the quick movement of vaccines off the manufacturing line to state vaccine distribution points, those officials said. The former Trump administration built out the vaccine distribution process within the confines of Operation Warp Speed, a public-private partnership to fast-track a novel COVID-19 vaccine. In the first few months of its existence, Operation Warp Speed focused on development—creating the country’s first effective mRNA vaccine and supporting companies’ clinical trials. The distribution strategizing came later. Developed by the military, the plan was to have the federal government, specifically the military officials within Operation Warp Speed, lead the logistics part of the vaccine delivery. The military would not actually touch the vaccine but would instead coordinate the effort from the Pentagon. Part of that coordination required states using the Pentagon’s Tiberius system—a platform that allows local officials to input their orders and see when they will be receiving their next doses. States only had a few weeks to try out the Tiberius platform before the vaccine rollout began in December, officials said, and they were provided false projections on how many doses they would be receiving once the Pfizer vaccine became available. Two state health officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said they believe the Tiberius system is still not accurately updating and is miscounting either how many doses the companies have manufactured or how many have been allocated by the federal government. Those officials said they have yet to receive responses from federal officials about whether their most recent orders for Pfizer and Moderna jabs have been filled. Part of the confusion among states is how the newest Trump administration federal guidelines on vaccine distribution have impacted the manufacturing process. The Department of Health and Human Services, along with the Centers for Disease Control, recently released a new set of recommendations that allow states to hand out the vaccine more freely—to widen the population of who can receive the shot in the first wave. The federal government also said it would start to release doses it had originally held in reserve for second-shot dosing. The recommendations almost worked too well—they ramped up demand significantly. Now, states say they don’t have enough doses. What we’re inheriting from the Trump administration is so much worse than we could have imagined. We don't have the visibility that we would hope to have into supply and allocations. — Jeff Zients, the Biden administration’s COVID czar “There were more than 12 million hits to a map of providers we posted yesterday so it is clear that many Pennsylvanians are eager to get the COVID-19 vaccine,” a spokesperson for the Pennsylvania Department of Health. “Unfortunately, we do not have enough vaccine for everyone who wants it right now.” The policy centerpiece of Biden’s attempt to turn the tide on the pandemic—and the devastating economic consequences it has also wrought—is a $1.9 trillion relief package he rolled out a week ago. It calls not only for expanded unemployment help, small business aid, and $1,400 direct checks, but $350 billion in relief aid to state and local governments to boost testing and vaccine rollout, and $20 billion and $50 billion for separate vaccine and testing initiatives, respectively. But that proposal faces an uncertain environment on Capitol Hill—particularly the Senate, where Democrats now hold the tie-breaking vote and where an impeachment trial of Trump is expected to eat up at least a week of the upcoming legislative calendar. The president’s allies fear that the trial, combined with Biden’s urgent push to confirm members of the cabinet who will help enact his efforts to control the virus, could push passage of his trillion-dollar “rescue plan“ into late spring. Democratic senators, who largely agree with Biden’s assessment that their $900 billion December relief bill was merely a “down payment” for a more expansive follow-up, are anxious to see the Senate leap into action at a pivotal moment in the country’s struggle to control the virus. “It’s the top priority,” said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA). “My gut tells me we will do all we can to find a bipartisan accord on it. There are many pieces of the proposed package I think that will generate significant Republican support.” Biden’s transition has actively reached out to lawmakers in both parties to sell them on their plan; Kaine told The Daily Beast that the process will “really accelerate” now that Biden has been sworn in. With GOP support a must to reach the 60-vote threshold—otherwise, the legislation will be stripped down only to issues relating to government spending and revenues—the administration is making a point of courting Republicans inclined to support such a proposal. One of them, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), said as she left the inaugural ceremony on Wednesday that she had already gotten the Biden team’s pitch and a chance to directly ask them questions. “I got a pretty good walkthrough of their COVID proposal yesterday,” Murkowski told The Daily Beast. “It's going to require, I think, a fair amount of debate and consideration. But he's made it clear that this is his initial priority. I don't disagree with that. We've got an economy that's really been hurt, we've got a vaccine that needs to get distributed—we’ve got a lot of work to do.” There’s space for a deal. — Sen. Lindsey Graham A key Democratic vote, centrist Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), told reporters on Wednesday that a bipartisan group of senators—the same cohort that pushed the last round of COVID relief out of a stalemate last year—is slated to meet with White House officials this weekend to talk about the economic side of their plan. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told reporters he hoped that group could produce a counter-proposal, rejecting some parts of Biden’s plan—such as its raising of the federal minimum wage—out of hand. “There’s space for a deal,” he said. The willingness of senior Republicans to even contemplate a deal puts wind at Biden’s back—and justifies the prayer, invoked in his inaugural address, that a nation united in common purpose may be able to turn the tide against the virus. “We must set aside politics and finally face this pandemic as one nation,” Biden said. “And I promise you this, as the Bible says: ‘Weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.’ We will get through this together. Together.”
  8. Fox News anchor Chris Wallace shared some high praise for President Joe Biden's inaugural address to the American people on Wednesday, calling it the "best" he's ever heard. "I thought it was a great speech," Wallace said during a Fox News segment shortly after Biden was sworn in and delivered the address. "I've been listening to these inaugural addresses since 1961—John F. Kennedy: 'Ask not...' I thought this was the best inaugural address I ever heard." Wallace described Biden's speech as like a "sermon" and a "pep talk" combined together. "It was a call to our better angels, it was a call, saying, look, we've got tremendous challenges—COVID, the economy, racial injustice, climate change—but there's nothing we can't do if we come together," the Fox News journalist explained. LINK
  9. Earlier this week, before Donald Trump left office in disgrace, he was heard consoling himself by saying that his fans still loved him in spite of everything. But it seems one of his most notorious and crazed supporters has abandoned him now that he no longer wields presidential power. The legal representative of Jacob Chansley—better known as the “QAnon Shaman,” who burst into the U.S. Capitol wearing furs and Viking horns—has said his client feels cheated by Trump. Attorney Al Watkins told the St. Louis NBC News affiliate KSDK: “[Chansley] regrets very, very much having not just been duped by the president, but by being in a position where he allowed that duping to put him in a position to make decisions he should not have made.” https://www.thedailybeast.com/qanon-shaman-jacob-chansley-disowns-trump-saying-he-was-duped so if even THIS guy realizes he made a huge mistake in following don, how about the rest of you zombies that continue to pray at the altar of King Shittankhamun way past time to seek redemption? repent and be saved from braaaain waaaaashed insanity
  10. WASHINGTON (AP) — The words of Donald Trump supporters who are accused of participating in the deadly U.S. Capitol riot may end up being used against him in his Senate impeachment trial as he faces the charge of inciting a violent insurrection. At least five supporters facing federal charges have suggested they were taking orders from the then-president when they marched on Capitol Hill on Jan. 6 to challenge the certification of Joe Biden’s election win. But now those comments, captured in interviews with reporters and federal agents, are likely to take center stage as Democrats lay out their case. It’s the first time a former president will face such charges after leaving office. “I feel like I was basically following my president. I was following what we were called to do. He asked us to fly there. He asked us to be there,” Jenna Ryan, a Texas real estate agent who posted a photo on Twitter of herself flashing a peace sign next to a broken Capitol window, told a Dallas-Fort Worth TV station. Jacob Chansley, the Arizona man photographed on the dais in the Senate who was shirtless and wore face paint and a furry hat with horns, has similarly pointed a finger at Trump. Chansley called the FBI the day after the insurrection and told agents he traveled “at the request of the president that all ‘patriots’ come to D.C. on January 6, 2021,” authorities wrote in court papers. Chansley wrote a threatening note to then-Vice President Mike Pence that said: “It’s only a matter of time, justice is coming.” For weeks, Trump rallied his supporters against the election outcome and urged them to come to the Capitol on Jan. 6 to rage against Biden’s win. Trump spoke to the crowd near the White House shortly before they marched along Pennsylvania Avenue to Capitol Hill. “We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn’t happen,” Trump said. “You don’t concede when there’s theft involved. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore.” “If you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore.” He told supporters to walk to the Capitol to “peacefully and patriotically” (after sending rudy out to say they were going to have a "trial by combat" - mh) make your voices heard. Unlike a criminal trial, where there are strict rules about what is and isn’t evidence, the Senate can consider anything it wishes. And if they can show that Trump’s words made a real impact, all the better, and scholars expect it in the trial. A retired firefighter from Pennsylvania told a friend that that he traveled to Washington with a group of people and the group listened to Trump’s speech and then “followed the President’s instructions” and went to the Capitol, an agent wrote in court papers. That man, Robert Sanford, is accused of throwing a fire extinguisher that hit three Capitol Police officers. Another man, Robert Bauer of Kentucky, told FBI agents that “he marched to the U.S. Capitol because President Trump said to do so,” authorities wrote. His cousin, Edward Hemenway, from Virginia, told the FBI that he and Bauer headed toward the Capitol after Trump said “something about taking Pennsylvania Avenue.” https://apnews.com/article/64b8fee697d922bb75727e5781af815f sadly, todays republican party is so evil and unamerican that i seriously doubt we have 17 with a conscience that would vote to convict this very dangerous man it certainly is evil incarnate if fomenting a violent insurrection that threatened the lives of many people, including congresspeople, and did kill six, is NOT enough to get someone to vote to convict thats the party and former shit president you zombies support. shameful i pray we get surprised and at least 17 decide they couldnt live with themselves if they dont do the right thing here and hold him accountable, as they should. its a looong shot, and thats pathetic
  11. Interesting. Obama pardoned quite a few more people. 1927 vs. 237. Of course, the only ones the MSM, etc. go over with a fine tooth comb are President Trump's. Nah, no liberal, partisan bias on the part of the MSM. LOL. Priceless.
  12. Like a charm! Fatfuk is off twitter and FB and instagram and it is glorious. The firehose of lies has stopped. love it.
  13. MH Edit note: this is an excellent but long read. a video analysis is available several posts below, if your attention span is short. id advise trumpers to examine both as you shouldnt want to be drawn into this kind of evil ever again Forensic psychiatrist Bandy X. Lee explains the outgoing president’s pathological appeal and how to wean people from it The violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol Building last week, incited by President Donald Trump, serves as the grimmest moment in one of the darkest chapters in the nation’s history. Yet the rioters’ actions—and Trump’s own role in, and response to, them—come as little surprise to many, particularly those who have been studying the president’s mental fitness and the psychology of his most ardent followers since he took office. One such person is Bandy X. Lee, a forensic psychiatrist and president of the World Mental Health Coalition.* Lee led a group of psychiatrists, psychologists and other specialists who questioned Trump’s mental fitness for office in a book that she edited called The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President. In doing so, Lee and her colleagues strongly rejected the American Psychiatric Association’s modification of a 1970s-era guideline, known as the Goldwater rule, that discouraged psychiatrists from giving a professional opinion about public figures who they have not examined in person. “Whenever the Goldwater rule is mentioned, we should refer back to the Declaration of Geneva, which mandates that physicians speak up against destructive governments,” Lee says. “This declaration was created in response to the experience of Nazism.” Lee recently wrote Profile of a Nation: Trump’s Mind, America’s Soul, a psychological assessment of the president against the backdrop of his supporters and the country as a whole. These insights are now taking on renewed importance as a growing number of current and former leaders call for Trump to be impeached. On January 9 Lee and her colleagues at the World Mental Health Coalition put out a statement calling for Trump’s immediate removal from office. Scientific American asked Lee to comment on the psychology behind Trump’s destructive behavior, what drives some of his followers—and how to free people from his grip when this damaging presidency ends. The reasons are multiple and varied, but in my recent public-service book, Profile of a Nation, I have outlined two major emotional drives: narcissistic symbiosis and shared psychosis. Narcissistic symbiosis refers to the developmental wounds that make the leader-follower relationship magnetically attractive. The leader, hungry for adulation to compensate for an inner lack of self-worth, projects grandiose omnipotence—while the followers, rendered needy by societal stress or developmental injury, yearn for a parental figure. When such wounded individuals are given positions of power, they arouse similar pathology in the population that creates a “lock and key” relationship. “Shared psychosis”—which is also called “folie à millions” [“madness for millions”] when occurring at the national level or “induced delusions”—refers to the infectiousness of severe symptoms that goes beyond ordinary group psychology. When a highly symptomatic individual is placed in an influential position, the person’s symptoms can spread through the population through emotional bonds, heightening existing pathologies and inducing delusions, paranoia and propensity for violence—even in previously healthy individuals. The treatment is removal of exposure. Why does Trump himself seem to gravitate toward violence and destruction? Destructiveness is a core characteristic of mental pathology, whether directed toward the self or others. First, I wish to clarify that those with mental illness are, as a group, no more dangerous than those without mental illness. When mental pathology is accompanied by criminal-mindedness, however, the combination can make individuals far more dangerous than either alone. In my textbook on violence, I emphasize the symbolic nature of violence and how it is a life impulse gone awry. Briefly, if one cannot have love, one resorts to respect. And when respect is unavailable, one resorts to fear. Trump is now living through an intolerable loss of respect: rejection by a nation in his election defeat. Violence helps compensate for feelings of powerlessness, inadequacy and lack of real productivity. Do you think Trump is truly exhibiting delusional or psychotic behavior? Or is he simply behaving like an autocrat making a bald-faced attempt to hold onto his power? I believe it is both. He is certainly of an autocratic disposition because his extreme narcissism does not allow for equality with other human beings, as democracy requires. Psychiatrists generally assess delusions through personal examination, but there is other evidence of their likelihood. First, delusions are more infectious than strategic lies, and so we see, from their sheer spread, that Trump likely truly believes them. Second, his emotional fragility, manifested in extreme intolerance of realities that do not fit his wishful view of the world, predispose him to psychotic spirals. Third, his public record includes numerous hours of interviews and interactions with other people—such as the hour-long one with the Georgia secretary of state—that very nearly confirm delusion, as my colleague and I discovered in a systematic analysis. Where does the hatred some of his supporters display come from? And what can we do to promote healing? In Profile of a Nation, I outline the many causes that create his followership. But there is important psychological injury that arises from relative—not absolute—socioeconomic deprivation. Yes, there is great injury, anger and redirectable energy for hatred, which Trump harnessed and stoked for his manipulation and use. The emotional bonds he has created facilitate shared psychosis at a massive scale. It is a natural consequence of the conditions we have set up. For healing, I usually recommend three steps: (1) Removal of the offending agent (the influential person with severe symptoms). (2) Dismantling systems of thought control—common in advertising but now also heavily adopted by politics. And (3) fixing the socioeconomic conditions that give rise to poor collective mental health in the first place. What do you predict he will do after his presidency? I again emphasize in Profile of a Nation that we should consider the president, his followers and the nation as an ecology, not in isolation. Hence, what he does after this presidency depends a great deal on us. This is the reason I frantically wrote the book over the summer: we require active intervention to stop him from achieving any number of destructive outcomes for the nation, including the establishment of a shadow presidency. He will have no limit, which is why I have actively advocated for removal and accountability, including prosecution. We need to remember that he is more a follower than a leader, and we need to place constraints from the outside when he cannot place them from within. What do you think will happen to his supporters? If we handle the situation appropriately, there will be a lot of disillusionment and trauma. And this is all right—they are healthy reactions to an abnormal situation. We must provide emotional support for healing, and this includes societal support, such as sources of belonging and dignity. Cult members and victims of abuse are often emotionally bonded to the relationship, unable to see the harm that is being done to them. After a while, the magnitude of the deception conspires with their own psychological protections against pain and disappointment. This causes them to avoid seeing the truth. And the situation with Trump supporters is very similar. The danger is that another pathological figure will come around and entice them with a false “solution” that is really a harnessing of this resistance. How can we avert future insurrection attempts or acts of violence? Violence is the end product of a long process, so prevention is key. Structural violence, or inequality, is the most potent stimulant of behavioral violence. And reducing inequality in all forms—economic, racial and gender—will help toward preventing violence. For prevention to be effective, knowledge and in-depth understanding cannot be overlooked—so we can anticipate what is coming, much like the pandemic. The silencing of mental health professionals during the Trump era, mainly through a politically driven distortion of an ethical guideline, was catastrophic, in my view, in the nation’s failure to understand, predict and prevent the dangers of this presidency. Do you have any advice for people who do not support Trump but have supporters of him or “mini-Trumps” in their lives? This is often very difficult because the relationship between Trump and his supporters is an abusive one, as an author of the 2017 book I edited, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, presciently pointed out. When the mind is hijacked for the benefit of the abuser, it becomes no longer a matter of presenting facts or appealing to logic. Removing Trump from power and influence will be healing in itself. But, I advise, first, not to confront [his supporters’] beliefs, for it will only rouse resistance. Second, persuasion should not be the goal but change of the circumstance that led to their faulty beliefs. Third, one should maintain one’s own bearing and mental health, because people who harbor delusional narratives tend to bulldoze over reality in their attempt to deny that their own narrative is false. As for mini-Trumps, it is important, above all, to set firm boundaries, to limit contact or even to leave the relationship, if possible. Because I specialize in treating violent individuals, I always believe there is something that can be done to treat them, but they seldom present for treatment unless forced.
  14. THOUSANDS Lined the streets of Palm Beach, Florida today to welcome President Trump home from the DC Swamp. After four long years of constant and unprecedented attacks by Democrats, their fake news media it must feel good to be back in Florida. LINK
  15. This one is uniquely representative of the MAGAT movement A man from Hampton Roads photographed wearing a sweatshirt with the words “Camp Auschwitz” during the U.S. Capitol insurrection last Wednesday is in custody. Robert Keith Packer, 56, was arrested on Wednesday morning by U.S. Marshals based in Norfolk.
  16. Or to have to defend themselves. They're above it and all the "little people". Watch your backs, folks. Just a friendly tip. Do not allow these fucks to silence you.
  17. MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) — MyPillow CEO and President Donald Trump supporter Mike Lindell said to CBS News that he’d welcome a lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems, which is threatening to sue Lindell for slander over his election fraud claims. In an interview with CBS News’ Sara Cook Monday, Lindell said that the lawsuit would allow him to show the world that the presidential election was rigged. “I want them to sue me. Please. Because I have all the evidence, 100%. I want all the American people and the world to see the horrific things that these (Dominion voting) machines are capable of and what they did to our country and what — they’re allowing other countries to steal our election and just to hijack our election,” Lindell said. Dominion sent legal letters to Lindell in December and early January over his false and conspiratorial claims about the machines being “rigged” or influencing the results of the U.S. Presidential election. Lindell was spotted at the White House Friday. The Republican donor, who has informally advised President Donald Trump, was seen leaving the West Wing carrying pages of notes that appear to outline a series of recommendations. Lindell confirmed to CNN’s Jim Acosta that he did meet with Trump for about five minutes on Friday and said he had tried to hand the President what he described as evidence of voter fraud. Lindell said in an interview Saturday that Bed Bath & Beyond and Kohl’s are among the retailers that will stop selling his products due to his continued support of conspiracy theories related to President Donald Trump’s election loss. MyPillow is based in Chaska, Minnesota. LINK
  18. In his farewell speach today, Trump touted his so called "accomplishments" during his four years in the White House. Let's unpack that. (1) "I will build a big, beautiful wall and make Mexico pay for it". Facts: Only 80 miles of new wall were built. About 400 miles of replacement wall were built in the new easily climbable form that he eventually selected. Mexico did not pay one red centavo. (2) "I built a great economy until the 'China Virus' wrecked it." Facts: Obama/Biden inherited an economy in free fall from 8 years of George W. Bush and spent 8 years rebuilding it. It was going great guns as of 2016 and experienced naturally expected levels of growth after Trump moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Nothing that Trump, who spent most of his time as President watching Fox News and tweeting, did, contributed anything to improvement of that growth other than the rich friendly tax reforms which resulted in only a temporary bump. Further, his lack of any attempt to foster a unified federal response to the pandemic and politicization of mask wearing and distancing probably made an economic recovery more difficult to obtain. (3) " I appointed over 200 new conservative federal judges and 3 Supreme Court Justices". Facts: This is true. However, whether you consider that to be a good thing or not depends on your point of view. Good luck if you, as a powerless citizen, have a federal case in which you need a favorable ruling from a judge. I know. I used to practice in the federal courts before my retirement as an attorney. If you think that a more conservative Supreme Court will overturn Roe v Wade, think again. The right to an abortion has become so much a part of the fabric of our society that trying to again outlaw it will not succeed and will not be attempted no matter who is on the Court. (4) "I governed for all Americans". Facts: Right. You fomented hatred and divisions like no other President in American history. On the negative side we have the above described non handling and probable resulting worsening of the COVID 19 pandemic, withdrawal from the WHO and the Paris Accords, denial of science and global climate change which will increase future peril to the planet, destruction of many of our relations with our allies and fawning over dictators, telling over 30,000 lies, and more things than I have time to mention all of which was capped by fomenting and inciting an assualt on the Capitol in an attempt to overturn a confirmed and certified election. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
  19. Beautiful day, ain't it? Amazing. Your Great PRESIDENT BIDEN is now here to clear 4 years of utter incompetence. Hopefully the jail cell awaits the evil corrupt racist.
  20. There has been a lot of debate about race on the range lately. I think it ultimately comes down to many range members believing in rugged individualism, while others like myself, see societal factors that need to be addressed before the black community as a whole has a fair shot at success. Here are some of the points that I agree with: 1. Ultimately the choices that you make are yours alone. 2. The urban gang banger lifestyle, culture, and mentality is really bad for the black community. 3. The black community needs to do more for themselves. Even as someone who leans left in America, (or the center in most parts of the developed world) I understand that these are undeniable facts. But, what I see here on the range is that members believe that the black community got their rights during the civil rights movement, and therefore institutional (systemic) racism does not exist, and black victimhood/entitlement and culture is the real problem. Let’s think of it like this institutional racism like this: You and 5 of your friends decide to play a game of monopoly. Your one black friend Tyrone (that you tell everyone about because he acts white) doesn’t get to roll for the first 30 turns. Damn, that would sure suck for him, right? You and 4 other people get to go around acquire property and wealth for 30 turns, epic! Well, Tyrone, the entitled black, keeps complaining about the rules, and finally you change them so he stops bitching. So now the rule is Tyrone can play but he can only own the cheapest properties, he can’t ever get a loan from the bank, and anytime he rolls doubles he goes straight to jail. Tyrone says, “ok fine, it’s better than watching for another 30 turns”. Throughout the course of the game Tyrone continues to end up in and out of jail and is barely hanging in there. So again, Tyrone, being the lazy, angry, black that he is, says “Can I play by the same rules that you 5 are?” You guys notice how angry he is and you agree to play by the same rules. 10 turns later Tyrone finally goes bankrupt and loses the game. Tyrone says “That was not fair!”. Angrily Tyrone knocks the board off the table like the typical violent black that he is. Then you and your friends say, “Tyrone! Chill out dude! You’re destroying the game; property destruction is not cool!” “I don’t support that kind of violent protests” “The rules are the same now, so stop complaining and play better” This is where we are in 2020. What is institutional racism? I know there is at least one**** member on here that doesn’t have a clue what institutional (systemic) racism is. I’ll break it down and I’ll provide some data to support my arguments. But firstly, if you are going to argue that academics and peer reviewed studies are “Marxist/communist bullshit”, or something similar, just stop reading here. You are too far gone. If we can’t discuss objective reality, then there is no point in you reading or responding to this thread. However, if you want to discuss the methodology of the study, or you have updated data; please by all means lets discuss. If you’re arguments are merely anecdotal or feelings based, don’t bother. I don’t care about your fee fees. Here is a great way to break down what institutional racism is: Institutional racism is distinguished from the explicit attitudes or racial bias of individuals by the existence of systematic policies or laws and practices that provide differential access to goods, services and opportunities of society by race. Institutional racism results in data showing racial gaps across every system. For children and families it affects where they live, the quality of the education they receive, their income, types of food they have access to, their exposure to pollutants, whether they have access to clean air, clean water or adequate medical treatment, and the types of interactions they have with the criminal justice system. https://fpg.unc.edu/sites/fpg.unc.edu/files/resources/other-resources/What%20Racism%20Looks%20Like.pdf In the wake of recent events, let’s start with institutional racism within the criminal justice system. Okay hold on, I know what you are thinking! Let’s get this whole 13/50 meme out of the way! “Despite making up about 13% of the population, blacks commit about 50% of the crimes.” The origin of this meme is from FBI statistics. Technically, even these statistics show that Black people were arrested for 38.7% of homicides when you include thousands of homicides where the race of the perpetrator was unknown, so the people using this statistic don’t actually use it correctly. Finally, even when you use the 38.7% figure, the FBI itself has said that its UCR data is unreliable for the following reasons: 1. The statistic refers to arrests made, not even convictions made. FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) stats are collected from law enforcement, not courts. If police departments are racist and disproportionately arrest Black suspects (which they do), then the number of “Black homicides” would artificially increase. 2. It relies on voluntary reports from local law enforcement agencies, so it suffers from selection bias. Law enforcement agencies are essentially allowed to choose whether to disclose their data or not. 3. The UCR program admits that it doesn’t have a real means of ensuring that the data they receive is reliable. “The accuracy of the statistics depends primarily on the adherence of each contributor to the established standards of reporting. It is the responsibility of each state UCR Program or individual contributing law enforcement agency to submit accurate monthly statistics or correct existing data that are in error.” https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3.xls https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/ucr/a-word-about-ucr-data.pdf/view Bring that to Stormfront forums and blow some minds. But enough of the race realism, and on to the criminal justice system. Police Subconscious Bias https://scihub.wikicn.top/10.1111/socf.12367 This study highlights the philosophical and racial reasons why white police officers have a discriminatory bias against African-Americans. It also pulls data collected via nationally representative survey which focuses on a number of specific racial attitudes of police officers to gain a broader understanding of their racial views and biases. The study finds that officers believe blacks are more violent, lazy, and should not be given special treatment compared to whites. (who is shocked to hear this?) The study further highlights that people with less education adopt conservative views on race and the harmful impacts discrimination denial can have. Meaning, it shows how denial of racial discrimination can lead to the establishment of racial hierarchy, which is pretty much what the range likes to do! Go figure! A 2017 study of interactions between officers and citizens taken from footage captured by police officer body cameras found that “officers speak with consistently less respect toward black versus white community members, even after controlling for the race of the officer, the severity of the infraction, the location of the stop, and the outcome of the stop.” https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2017/05/30/1702413114.full.pdf Policing and Traffic stops In a WaPo: Interview with Frank R. Baumgartner, Derek A. Epp and Kelsey Shoub 18 (book) the study found that “Blacks are almost twice as likely to be pulled over as whites — even though whites drive more on average” Relative to whites, a black person in a car is 2x as likely to be pulled over and 4x as likely to be searched - despite the fact that they’re less likely to be found with contraband as a result of those searches. According to a Justice Department study released in 2013, throughout the United States, black drivers are about 30 percent more likely to be pulled over than white drivers. Black drivers are also more likely to be pulled over for alleged mechanical or equipment problems with their automobiles, or for record checks. White people are actually more likely to get pulled over for noticeable traffic violations such as speeding. Black drivers are more likely to not be told why they were pulled over. Pierson et al. 20 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-0858-1.pdf This is an Enormous study of nearly 100,000,000 traffic stops conducted across America. The analysis finds the bar for searching black and hispanic drivers’ cars is significantly lower than the bar for white drivers. Black drivers are less likely to be pulled over after sunset, when “a ‘veil of darkness’ masks ones’ race”. Legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington has caused fewer drivers to be searched during a stop, but that did not alter the increased frequency with which black and Latino drivers are searched. NYCLU, ACLU's branch in New York https://www.nyclu.org/en/stop-and-frisk-data I’ve cited this one before, but if you got this far, congrats! White people generally made up only about 10 percent of police stops, despite making up about 45 percent of the city. Black and Latino people made up more than 80 percent of the stops, despite making up just over 50% of the city population. Consistently, between 85 and 90 percent of such stops produced no arrest, citation or evidence of criminal activity. Police use of Force Edwards et al. 19 https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793 In this study it showed that Black, Indian, and Native people are significantly more likely to get killed by the police than white people. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/01/black-americans-killed-by-police-analysis “Black Americans are more than twice as likely to be unarmed when killed during encounters with police as white people, according to a Guardian investigation which found 102 of 464 people killed so far this year in incidents with law enforcement officers were not carrying weapons.” Prosecutors, Discretion, and Plea Bargaining The overwhelming majority of criminal cases are resolved by plea bargains before ever going to trial. While this makes sense because if every case went to trial, the court systems would become overburdened. What this data looks at is who is more likely to get plea deals, and the kinds of deals that they are offered. A 2017 study of about 48,000 criminal cases in Wisconsin showed that white defendants were 25 percent more likely than black defendants to have their most serious charge dismissed in a plea bargain. Among defendants facing misdemeanor charges that could carry a sentence of incarceration, whites were 75 percent more likely to have those charges dropped, dismissed or reduced to a charge that did not include such a punishment. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3036726 A 2011 summary of the research on race and plea bargaining published by the Bureau of Justice Assistance concluded that “the majority of research on race and sentencing outcomes shows that blacks are less likely than whites to receive reduced pleas,” that “studies that assess the effects of race find that blacks are less likely to receive a reduced charge compared with whites,” and that “studies have generally found a relationship between race and whether or not a defendant receives a reduced charge.” https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/files/media/document/PleaBargainingResearchSummary.pdf A 2013 study found that after adjusting for numerous other variables, federal prosecutors were almost twice as likely to bring charges carrying mandatory minimums against black defendants as against white defendants accused of similar crimes. https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/files/media/document/PleaBargainingResearchSummary.pdf A 2008 analysis found that black defendants with multiple prior convictions are 28 percent more likely to be charged as “habitual offenders” than white defendants with similar criminal records. The authors conclude that “assessments of dangerousness and culpability are linked to race and ethnicity, even after offense seriousness and prior record are controlled.” http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi= Judges and Sentencing U.S. Sentencing Commission 12 https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2017/20171114_Demographics.pdf Extensive multivariate regression analysis indicates black male offenders receive 19.1% longer sentences than similarly-situated white male offenders (white male offenders with similar past offenses, socioeconomic background, etc.) As the name implies, multivariate regression is a technique that estimates a single regression model with more than one outcome variable. When there is more than one predictor variable in a multivariate regression model, the model is a multivariate multiple regression. https://stats.idre.ucla.edu/stata/dae/multivariate-regression-analysis/ This disparity seems to stem mostly from black males being 21.2% less likely to receive non-government sponsored downward departures or variances. Non-government sponsored departures and variances refer to deviations from standard sentencing guidelines due to judicial discretion. Black males who do receive non-government-sponsored departures and variations still serve 16.8% longer sentences than white males on average. In contrast, when sentencing length follows standard guidelines, that disparity is only 7.9%, and a substantial assistance departure for both groups nullifies that disparity. This study shows that much of the sentencing disparity between similarly situated black males and white males comes down to judicial discretion to deviate from standard sentencing guidelines. For the race realists: regression analysis suggests violence in a criminal’s history does NOT explain sentencing disparities between black males and similarly situated white males - the effect of that factor seems to be statistically insignificant. Prison and Incarceration Black people are of course overrepresented in the prison population. As noted in one study below, they’re overrepresented even after you account for variables such as the crime rate among blacks. A 2016 Yale University study of solitary confinement in 48 jurisdictions across 45 states found that black prisoners were more likely to be held in isolation than white prisoners. The discrepancy was even greater among women — black women made up 24 percent of the female prison population but 41 percent of those who had been held in isolation (that figure came from 40 jurisdictions.) https://law.yale.edu/yls-today/news/asca-liman-program-release-new-report-restrictive-housing A report found that in Texas, black prisoners are much more likely to be sent to solitary confinement, even as Texas prisons are phasing out the practice. https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Black-prisoners-in-Texas-more-likely-to-be-in-12853969.php In surveying the research on the topic, the Sentencing Project estimates that 61 to 80 percent of black overrepresentation in prisons can be explained by higher crime rates in the black population. (Of course, those higher crime rates themselves could be due in part to racial bias.) The rest is probably because of racial bias. https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Black-Lives-Matter.pdf The War on Drugs and Racism Black people are consistently arrested, charged and convicted of drug crimes including possession, distribution and conspiracy at far higher rates than white people. This, despite research showing that both races use and sell drugs at about the same rate. A 2014 ACLU survey of SWAT teams across the country found that “dynamic entry” and paramilitary police tactics are disproportionately used against black and Latino people. Most of these raids were on people suspected of low-level drug crimes. https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/jus14-warcomeshome-report-web-rel1.pdf The Concentrated Racial Impact of Drug Imprisonment and the Characteristics of Punitive Counties http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/vortex.pdf While White & Black Americans admit to using and selling illicit drugs at similar rates, Black Americans are VASTLY more likely to go to prison for a drug offense. In 2002, Black Americans were incarcerated for drug offenses at TEN TIMES the rate of White Americans. Today, Blacks are 3.7x as likely to be arrested for a marijuana offense as Whites, despite similar usage. 97% of “large-population counties” have racial biases in their drug offense incarceration In contrast to the assertion that blacks are more likely to be arrested because they’re more likely to use drugs in public, a 2002 study of narcotics search warrants in the San Diego area — that is, warrants to search for drugs in private homes — found that black and Hispanic residents were “significantly over-represented as targets of narcotics search warrants,” even after adjusting for usage rates. The study also found that “searches of White suspects were more successful in recovering the targeted drug than were searches of either Black or Hispanic suspects.” http://faculty.cwsl.edu/benner/aaRacialDisparityinNarcoticsSearchWarrants.pdf When Harris County, Tex., saw a flaw in how drug testing was conducted at its crime lab, officials went back and exonerated dozens of people who had been wrongly convicted for possession — most pleaded guilty, despite their innocence. This is because prosecutors often promise harsher sentences or more charges for defendants who take a case to trial. Black people comprise 20 percent of the Harris County population but made up 62 percent of the wrongful drug convictions. https://www.texastribune.org/2017/03/07/report/ Alright, so I realize that many of you did not get this far and that this a lot of information to go through, if you actually give a shit. But I must say, for racism that “does not exist” in our criminal justice system, that sure does look like a mountain of evidence to show otherwise. I guess the blacks just bring it all on themselves? We can look at some other forms of racism that have put the black community behind the 8 ball at a later date when I have time.
  21. Richard L. "Rachel" Levine! A transgender granny killer. Smooth pick Biden, real smooth. Pennsylvania’s Nursing Home COVID-19 Scandal: “Misgendering” proves to be more “insulting” than the callous decisions that hugely increased deaths in nursing homes. Pennsylvania’s nursing home deaths are far higher than comparable states. As for how this came about, the report pointed directly to Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf’s health secretary, Dr. Rachel Levine: On March 18, Pennsylvania Health Secretary Dr. Rachel Levine directed licensed long-term care facilities to continue admitting new patients, including those discharged from hospitals but unable to go home, and to readmit current patients after hospital stays. “This may include stable patients who have had the COVID-19 virus,” according to a copy of the guidelines. Continued admissions was ordered “to alleviate the increasing burden in the acute care settings,” according to the directive. Pennsylvanians who gasped when they heard that Andrew Cuomo had permitted such directives in New York recoiled in angered amazement when they heard it might have happened in their state, as well. They were likewise aghast to hear that Dr. Levine removed her own 95-year-old mother from a nursing home. “My mother requested and my sister and I, as her children, complied to move her to another location during the COVID-19 outbreak,” Levine confirmed in a press conference. Yes, you read that right. So, who’s responsible? Who made these decisions? To what degree should Rachel Levine be blamed, or Tom Wolf? Are the reports accurate? Certainly, hard questions need to be asked. And the politics of Wolf and Levine probably help explain why the liberal national media has gone easy on them. Cuomo-like, the partisan press will protect Wolf because he’s a staunch liberal Democrat. That’s likewise true for Levine. In fact, Levine is a liberal darling as the nation’s first (and arguably highest-ranking) transgendered public official. This has earned Levine nothing but love from liberal “journalists.” Transgender Pennsylvania Health Director Melts Down In Press Conference After Reporter Uses Wrong Pronoun Dr. Rachel Levine, the transgender state official who heads up Pennsylvania’s health department — a department now under fire for sending COVID-19 positive, potentially infectious patients back to nursing homes before they were deemed recovered — melted down during a press conference Wednesday after a reporter referred to Levine several times as “sir.” The incident occurred during a press briefing discussing the state’s plan to reopen businesses and lift coronavirus related lockdowns. A radio personality named Marty Griffin called Levine, who is a male-to-female transgender individual, “‘sir’ in both his initial question and follow-up,” according to a local news outlet. Levine lashed out, warning Griffin “please don’t misgender me” several times and calling the question “insulting.” Griffin said later, on Twitter, that he apologized profusely and that he used the wrong pronoun in error. “I apologize. I apologized twice. I truly did. It was not intentional. It was not. I was not focused. I was doing six things at once,” Griffin wrote, referencing the incident. It was too little too late, however. Pittsburgh’s mayor, Bill Peduto, defending Levine, canceled a morning radio interview with Griffin’s station — a punishment, he said on social media, for Griffin’s behavior.
  22. https://www.foxnews.com/us/anti-biden-antifa-portland-police So what's going on here, people? I was assured everything was going to calm down once Senile Joe Biden was President (illegitimate). What's Sleepy Joe going to do about these violent radicals who hate him and this country? Invite them to the White House for tea?
  23. PALM BEACH, Florida – As Joe Biden was sworn in as America's 46th president on Wednesday, talk-radio star Rush Limbaugh said he believes Democrats are fully aware the 2020 presidential election was illegitimate. "I think they know that they are not – I gotta be very careful here in the words I choose. I think they know that this is something that's been arranged rather than legitimately sought and won," Limbaugh said on his national broadcast. "They have not legitimately won it. Now, I'm on thin ice saying this. I'm making myself a target saying this, but I've been doing this for 30 years. And it's really no different today than 30 years ago. No different than last week, in terms of the way I approach this. It's almost a question of legitimacy. "I'm almost of the mind that they know that there's not a full-fledged legitimacy to this. But it doesn't matter because they're able to lie to themselves. They're able to tell themselves stories. They really don't have anybody there [at the inauguration] and they've got people replaced by 200,000 flags, 200,000 flags that have been placed on the Washington mall." "But what do you think the real truth is that they are not confident that if they open this thing up to open seating that they would be overflowing with a crowd? I don't think they think they would. I mean, nobody showed up at Joe Biden political rallies. Nobody showed up at any of the rallies of Kamala Harris. They have not throughout any of this demonstrated that they have a bond with the people that voted for them, like Trump had. They don't have anything near that. They don't have, I think, any assurance or confidence that if this were open to the public, that they'd set records for attendance." As he watched the inauguration unfold, Limbaugh imagined himself as one of the people on stage at the event. "I do not live in the lie," he explained. "I do not live in the false impression just to make myself feel better about myself or about things. I may not go public with how I don't accept it. But in the way I deal with myself, I do not allow myself to accept praise for things I haven't done, things I haven't accomplished. "So I'm watching this, I'm watching all the people that are performing and all the people that are speaking and all the people just there observing and watching. And I know they're going through a gamut of emotions. They're excited as they can be that they have vanquished Trump. They've been trying for four years. Everything they tried bombed. "Everything, every step they took blew up. It didn't work, in terms of getting rid of Trump. They retarded the speed of his agenda implementation. They did do great damage to his reputation, but they didn't get rid of him. That was the objective. The objective was to overturn the election results, and they failed. But then they finally succeeded. "But you see this is where accepting false praise comes in. They didn't really succeed. I don't think that the people on that stage today are genuinely the choice of a majority of Americans. Now, the results say they are, and they will tell themselves they are – and they will, thus, lie to themselves, something I will never do. "I just don't. I can't. I can't lie to myself about praise for things I really didn't do. They can; they're doing it. This does not set them up well. This allows them to be arrogant; it allows them to be condescending, when those two things are not really warranted and deserved." Limbaugh, a staunch supporter of President Donald Trump, a fellow Palm Beach resident, was severely critical of those on the political left. "These are the kind of people that demand loyalty, and when it's not there, they'll take care of it another way. Because when you boil it all down, they really don't expect loyalty. They demand it. And if you don't exhibit it, they've got other ways of dealing with you. "As I say, they're not interested in persuading anybody. It's beneath them. They want the power to deal with you regardless. Now they think they've got it. And what I'm trying to say here is that that power they think they have, I believe it's tenuous." Limbaugh aired an audio montage of media personalities who lamented the fact that at least a third of all Americans don't believe Biden is a legitimate president. "They can't believe it. They have told everybody Biden was legitimate. That's all you need to know," he said. "They are bummed that so many millions of Americans do not accept it. I'm telling you, folks, they think they took care of that, they think they have persuaded everybody. And the fact that two-thirds of Americans that didn't vote for Biden do not think he's legitimate, it bugs 'em, because it means that they're not effective in one of their primary objectives here. It really bothers 'em. "And it's this kind of reality, they're gonna sit around and they're gonna understand that all these millions of Americans are still not buying it in, and it's gonna cause them to go overboard or to overstep in their efforts to make sure you get the truth, whatever. You watch. I don't know when it's gonna happen. It may take a couple years for this to manifest itself, but it will." "When I say I think the Democrats are gonna overstep, it's not that they're gonna purposely do it, it's not that they're gonna realize they're doing it. My point is they're not gonna be able to help themselves. They're gonna make incorrect assumptions about their popularity. They always do this." LINK
  • Create New...