rambot said:

On other topics you already claim he isn't guilty of what he's been proven guilty of in a court of law.

Why would anyone further this discussion here?

Click to expand...

Perhaps, one day, liberals will accept the reality of weaponized lawfare.

Valletta said:

Trump had money before he became president, Nancy Pelosi made her fortune while she was in the government.

Click to expand...

I'll allow that you haven't read any media or watched any TV since the election so I'll class that as a statement based on ignorance of what Trump has been doing. Allow me to fill in the gaps in your knowledge.

From here: Trump Jumps 118 Spots On The Forbes 400 List Thanks To Presidency

'His primary vehicle for enrichment: cryptocurrency, an asset class full of hype and vulnerable to regulators. Teaming up with his three sons, Trump announced a crypto venture in September 2024 named World Liberty Financial, which initially struggled to gain traction. Then he won the White House.

His primary vehicle for enrichment: cryptocurrency, an asset class full of hype and vulnerable to regulators. Teaming up with his three sons, Trump announced a crypto venture in September 2024 named World Liberty Financial, which initially struggled to gain traction. Then he won the White House.

In office, Trump rolled back regulatory enforcement of crypto and signed legislation favorable to the industry, ensuring he would personally benefit from conflicts of interest. His memecoins, initially tied up for three months, now unlock daily, freeing tens of millions per week. World Liberty Financial, meanwhile, has continued selling tokens, including to opaque buyers, generating an estimated $1.4 billion so far. A Trump family entity receives a roughly 75% cut of those sales, amounting to more than $1 billion.'

Now you know. Yeah, I was just as shocked as you must be now.

Animal Farm

Yes, my son cooks noodles.

MYSON

Definitions are always good before you start a discussion, so can you tell us what definition you are using for life?

Valletta said:

Trump had money before he became president, Nancy Pelosi made her fortune while she was in the government. My taxpayer dollars are being spend to fund illegals, illegals millions who were brought in just so one party could seize control of our government.

Click to expand...

Your one party has control of our government right now.

zippy2006 said:

If you read his article you will learn why he says that.

Click to expand...

I read the article. I added it for background, context. I think it informs. But I never said I agreed with his “GIRM say nothing either for or against” statement.

probinson said:

Then why include all the language about "responding" to and "neutralizing" Texas?

Click to expand...

Because they wanted to state the reason for the change.

Since January 20....

By August, Trump estimated that he had collected at least $1.5 billion since the election, more than all the money raised to support his 2024 campaign over two years, including funds raised by supportive independent super PACs. The tally is now approaching $2 billion, two people familiar with the effort—who, like others, were not authorized to speak publicly—told us.

Trump has kept careful track of the money coming in, regularly calling O’Rourke late at night for updates. He monitors who is giving, who is not, and the role of lobbyists who bundle donations, those familiar with his efforts told us. At times, the actual donation amount is less important to the president than the percentage of the donor’s overall assets. He thanks the most generous benefactors at swanky events at the White House and his clubs.

....and tonight, the POTUS is throwing a Black Tie Dinner for a Saudi Prince...who earlier today pledged up to 1 Trillion dollars in US investments [nevermind the Trump family projects in Saudi Arabia].

Posing as true events, either current or historical.

Landon Caeli said:

IMO, any kind of AI use that *controls* human behavior is an abomination. AI should never be used that way, it should only be used to assist humans. Exclusively. So I create this thread for people to share every possible way we can think of that AI should NOT be used.

I am openly stating here, that I think there should be laws restricting the use of AI that controls, or attempts to control any human being.

Click to expand...

Login to view embedded media
Ever hear of AI powered "Slaughter Bots?"

rambot said:

It's not fair to try to have a discussion with other people if you refuse to abide by reality.

Click to expand...

"Fair" is a four letter word.

Hentenza said:

Raiding private businesses without probable cause can be oppression. The 4th amendment protects ALL against unreasonable searches.

I do.

This is irrelevant to our convo.

The 4th amendment should work the same way.

Again, what does an illegal look like? Is the color of their skin sufficient probable cause?

I am not attacking ICE but I expect for them to work within the legal constitutional framework.

Click to expand...

No you expect them to be constrained and prevented from ever thinking that the law needs to be enforced


Presence in the US without authorization is a civil offense

Re-entry after deportation is criminal. Entering through a non designated point of entry is criminal

Even if your argument is merely civil offenses, the civil penalty for unauthorized presence is deportation. Deporting for civil offenses is not unreasonable, criminal acts involve jail time and imprisonment. ICE is deporting, not imprisoning unless there is also concurrent criminal offenses.

Here illegally? Expect to be civilly deported. The government is even offering a free plane ticket and a thousand dollars for those who choose to self deport

Keeping ICE from enforcing the law does nothing to elevate Latino dignity. It even lowers it by giving the perception that as a group of people, they are exempt from the law. No society functions like that just because you call it racist

Apple Sky said:

You may as well be talking double dutch to me.



I thought he mean''''''''t people on here, I'm not a mind reader.

Click to expand...

You’re going to pretend that you can’t understand a simple distance and time calculation?

Gene2memE said:

Meanwhile, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against Texas' new congressional maps, finding they were "racially gerrymandered".

Federal court blocks new Texas congressional map for 2026

The decision is a major blow for Republicans, in Texas and nationally, who pushed through the mid-decade redistricting at the behest of President Donald Trump. Attorney General Ken Paxton said he would appeal.

www.texastribune.org

Click to expand...

Hrm, I thought an attempt to argue--that it was racially gerrymandered--this was dismissed by a court, as I said in my prior post. Maybe this is an appeal or possibly a different case than the one I was thinking of.

ChubbyCherub said:

Furthermore, is this why Catholics confess to priests?

Click to expand...

Sort of. The Priest stands in as a representative of the faithful so James 5:16 is fulfilled.

Also, at Mass the following prayer is recited by all, which also fulfills James 5:16

I confess to almighty God and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have greatly sinned
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do; through my fault, through my fault,
through my most grievous fault; therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin, all the Angels and Saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.

RocksInMyHead said:

The thing is that it has happened.

Click to expand...

It sure has.

RocksInMyHead said:

It may or may not be reversed, but Texas did go through congressional redistricting in 2025.

Click to expand...

Indeed they did. But if it's reversed, there is no longer anything to neutralize.

RocksInMyHead said:

I don't disagree, but the way that the California law was written, the only ways to reverse it prior to 2030 are to find it unconstitutional or pass another law to roll it back.

Click to expand...

Then why include all the language about "responding" to and "neutralizing" Texas? There is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. The sprit of the law was very clearly to "neutralize" Texas' gerrymandered maps. But if Texas doesn't have gerrymandered maps, there is nothing to "neutralize". Again, IANAL but that seems pretty significant to me. If the intent of the law was to institute gerrymandered maps no matter what, then all the other language about Texas was completely unnecessary and superfluous.

BobRyan said:

He has their back. He has them covered..

Click to expand...

Until they exercise their self-awareness, leaving the innocent family pets in their dust

rambot said:

I disagree.

IT's not like the early churches had salaries or major expenses. House churches were common. These were legitimate ways to freely exercise your rights.

I don't see how a tax could inhibit me practicing my religion. I can't think of a single "requirement of the faith" that requires any kind of significant expenditure...or frankly any expenditure except for a bit of wine and bread.
And I'm not trying to be facetious or anything now...... is there?.

It costs me nothing to meet with my friends in our houses. To sing and worship and have fun together for a while.

Just because a church building would get taxed, doesn't mean I can't practice my religion as a privately owned physical building is also no real requirement to the faith.

Click to expand...

The early churches did have salaries, as we know from Paul refusing to take his. And one of the complicating factors over taxation is that the judiciary has affirmed that the power to tax is the power to destroy, so subjecting churches to taxes runs the risk of not only free exercise complications but also establishment risks. There is also an extreme financial element to Christianity given the extent of Christ's focus on financial issues, and religious reasons for secretive charitable giving(do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing) that such government enforced transparancy may lead to the violation of a person's religious conscience. So it does serve to have an inhibitory effect, even if you personally don't feel inhibited by it.

wing2000 said:

....I guess Disney isn't censoring ABC News reporters.

Click to expand...

More likely they think no one will notice

probinson said:

Would you do "X" if "Y" hadn't happened? It may not be a condition, but "Y" was a catalyst for the action. And if "Y" isn't a factor any longer, "X" is no longer necessary.

It's "in response to the congressional redistricting in Texas in 2025". But if there is no congressional redistricting in Texas in 2025, there is nothing to "respond" to.

Click to expand...

The thing is that it has happened. It may or may not be reversed, but Texas did go through congressional redistricting in 2025.

probinson said:

Legal proceedings aside, the intent of this proposition was clearly stated to "neutralize" what Texas was doing. But if Texas can't use partisan gerrymandering to rig the election in their favor, there's nothing to "neutralize".

Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but the way that the California law was written, the only ways to reverse it prior to 2030 are to find it unconstitutional or pass another law to roll it back.

Fervent said:

It has an inhibitory effect that could easily qualify as a restriction on free exercise.

Click to expand...

I disagree.

IT's not like the early churches had salaries or major expenses. House churches were common. These were legitimate ways to freely exercise your rights.

I don't see how a tax could inhibit me practicing my religion. I can't think of a single "requirement of the faith" that requires any kind of significant expenditure...or frankly any expenditure except for a bit of wine and bread.
And I'm not trying to be facetious or anything now...... is there?.

It costs me nothing to meet with my friends in our houses. To sing and worship and have fun together for a while.

Just because a church building would get taxed, doesn't mean I can't practice my religion as a privately owned physical building is also no real requirement to the faith.

BPPLEE said:

Interesting that ABC asks this question when it's parent company has no qualms about doing business in Saudi Arabia

Disney recently built a pop-up theme park in Saudi Arabia

Disney built a 98-foot castle in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, along with "Lion King" and "Encanto" attractions — but now it’s all gone.

attractionsmagazine.com

Click to expand...

....I guess Disney isn't censoring ABC News reporters.