« first day (3808 days earlier)      last day (655 days later) » 

02:16
What a nice day it is.
@JoeW indeed true it is. Nevertheless, it doesn't add any solace to how dumb and hoodwinked you can be to still root for this moron.
 
11 hours later…
George Santos is facing 15 different charges
Not that I have seen
I am seeing reports that he is in custody and they have unsealed the charges
But I could have missed his statement last night
13:24
> Santos is expected to appear as soon as Wednesday at federal court in New York's eastern district, where the charges have been filed under seal.
> A spokeswoman for Santos, Naysa Woomer, would not respond to shouted questions from reporters Tuesday afternoon and abruptly departed the congressman's DC office with her backpack when asked about the federal charges against him. Prior to her departure from the office, CNN witnessed three staffers for Santos abruptly depart with their bags. They wouldn't talk when pressed for comment.
So, I guess he cannot appear in the House to exercise his duties, or can he?
From what I understand he can unless they decide to not allow it and as Republican's control it I don't see that happening
Though it is hard to appear if he is in custody
I see.
> Mr. Santos was charged with seven counts of wire fraud, three counts of money laundering, one count of theft of public funds, and two counts of making materially false statements to the House of Representatives.
13:43
Was just about to mention that as the news just listed them out
The theft of public funds is for claiming unemployment during covid when he had a salary.
What a mess. And still this man got elected. His lies caught him finally.
Btw, why is CNN doing a town hall for Trump? They are again treading on the same path.
You would think that the lies to congress which is on information that he was legally required to provide as part of being elected would be enough to get him out of doing things in the house.
@User1865345 Honestly it can be seen as showing people how bad he really is though it is unlikely to change anyone's mind on him
0
Q: Should accusations of being a *Russian sympathiser* be treated as *unfriendly or unkind*?

Roger VadimShould accusations of being a Russian sympathiser be treated as unfriendly or unkind? What is the current moderation policy in this respect? Here is an example taken from one of the threads that I was scrolling through today: you must be a Russian sympathizer. That's the only way to not see that...

13:52
@JoeW this makes sense but it might backfire. And any platform to him is bad.
I agree that it might backfire but it also isn't good to deny a strong political candidate air time
Hm. Makes sense.
14:17
> The difference between Serbia’s action and the US’s inaction boils down to the gun industry’s political influence. The US can’t take the sweeping actions favored by the majority of Americans, including even universal background checks, because a small – but powerful – minority of lawmakers have adopted the gun lobby’s complete opposition to sensible gun laws and regulations.
> The gun lobby – and not just the NRA – has spent decades making this possible by funneling endless supplies of donations to political candidates as well as by creating an extremist view of the second amendment that is antagonistic towards any and all firearm restrictions and safeguards.
The author forgot to add one thing - Serbia doesn't have a compromised Supreme Court like that of US.
14:56
I remember that some gun companies faced bankruptcy when Trump was in office because they could not longer use the fear of the government taking guns to drive gun sales
This tells a lot. I think unless there is a functional supermajority, the Democrats cannot do anything. But then again, there is this Supreme Court.
15:11
If you really want to see how sad it is take a look at the gun control laws from the founding fathers era
Five types of gun laws the Founding Fathers loved
> #5: Loyalty oaths
One of the most common claims one hears in the modern Second Amendment debate is the assertion that the Founders included this provision in the Constitution to make possible a right of revolution. But this claim, too, rests on a serious misunderstanding of the role the right to bear arms played in American constitutional theory.

In fact, the Founders engaged in large-scale disarmament of the civilian population during the American Revolution. The right to bear arms was conditional on swearing a loyalty oath to the government. Individuals who refused to swear such an oat
So the so-called Originalists got it wrong.
Yep
Speaking of mental health, the rights' go-to reason after every massacre, even in that area Texas is performing worse than any other states.
Even in the wild west people couldn't open carry in town like all the westerns claim
Wow. I was not aware about that.
They are not even interested to bring forth again the law that Biden in his Senate days formulated.
15:33
In a lot of the towns you had to check your guns in with the local sheriff and that was to prevent violence.
Okay people are learning history from wrong sources. This is sad.
 
2 hours later…

« first day (3808 days earlier)      last day (655 days later) »