Thread contenitore generico sugli USA

[paulhowe]

Uno scandalaccio travolge l’accusa (falsa) a Trump

La tv non lo dice, ma accade questo:

Il procuratore distrettuale della contea di Fulton, Fani Willis, ha assunto il suo amante segreto per fungere da procuratore speciale nel caso di racket in Georgia contro Donald Trump e altri 18 imputati, secondo un documento depositato lunedì per conto di Mike Roman, un imputato che ha guidato le operazioni del giorno delle elezioni per Trump 2020. campagna:

https://www.maurizioblondet.it/uno-s...falsa-a-trump/

La tv infatti lo dice!

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/top...p-court-filing

[IlWehrwolf]

IL GENOCIDIO AMERICANO
https://comedonchisciotte.org/il-genocidio-americano/

[Amati75]

Uno scandalaccio travolge l’accusa (falsa) a Trump

La tv non lo dice, ma accade questo:

Il procuratore distrettuale della contea di Fulton, Fani Willis, ha assunto il suo amante segreto per fungere da procuratore speciale nel caso di racket in Georgia contro Donald Trump e altri 18 imputati, secondo un documento depositato lunedì per conto di Mike Roman, un imputato che ha guidato le operazioni del giorno delle elezioni per Trump 2020. campagna:

https://www.maurizioblondet.it/uno-s...falsa-a-trump/

Falsa…?

Ci sono le registrazioni telefoniche e vari co-imputati ai sono già dichiarati colpevoli e testimonieranno contro Trump…

Ma basta con le stronzate di Blondet et similia, pagliacci che scrivono baggianate per fessi e disinformati.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[alpha12000]

https://www.americansurveycenter.org...es-and-future/

[alpha12000]

https://www.theamericanconservative....eid=7c0dc7b7cb

Less than a week remains before the race for the White House begins in earnest with the January 15 Iowa Caucuses, but Capitol Hill is a bit more focused on two other dates: January 19 and February 2—the days that certain government agencies will enter a shutdown if an agreement on appropriations can’t be reached.
On Sunday afternoon, House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced that the pair had agreed to a series of funding limits for the current fiscal year, firing the starter pistol for House and Senate appropriators to start working to prevent a government shutdown.
The agreed upon dollar-figure limit? Depends on whom you ask.
In a letter to House colleagues, Johnson wrote, “The topline constitutes $1.590 trillion for [fiscal year 2024] — the statutory levels of the Fiscal Responsibility Act. That includes $886 billion for defense and $704 billion for nondefense.” Johnson claimed he negotiated government spending to be at a point $30 billion less than what Senate lawmakers were seeking in previously drafted appropriations legislation. Johnson admitted the deal “will not satisfy everyone, and they do not cut as much spending as many of us would like”; nevertheless, Johnson believes that it is “the most favorable budget agreement Republicans have achieved in over a decade.”
Yet Schumer, joined by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, claimed in a Monday statement that the deal set non-defense discretionary spending levels at $772.7 billion while protecting “key domestic priorities like veterans benefits, health care and nutrition assistance from the draconian cuts sought by right-wing extremists.”
The House Freedom Caucus gave its own estimate. “It’s even worse than we thought,” the caucus’ twitter account claimed. “Don’t believe the spin. Once you break through the typical Washington math, the true total programmatic spending level is $1.658 trillion—not $1.59 trillion.”
The American Conservative interviewed Rep. Chip Roy of Texas over the phone regarding the proclaimed discrepancies.
“It's complete garbage to try to sell the American people that this bill is $1.59 trillion,” Roy said.
“It is true that there were recisions. But that is because we basically took dollars from existing appropriated money—there’s various programs where dollars will be used to continue to fund the government at the higher level,” Roy explained. “So you can say this is only going to score at $1.59 trillion, but that’s not the story. We’re $34 trillion in debt, quibbling over the few billion dollars of savings. You’re not appropriating new money because you're taking it to some other account. That’s not the point. The point is the government is going to be just as big. So it’s disingenuous to say this is $1.59 trillion. You could say it’s net scoring there, but it is a $1.659 trillion government. That’s the problem. We’re funding the tyranny in the bureaucracy. That’s insane.”
What the parties do agree upon, however, is that the figures agreed upon in the new Johnson-Schumer deal approximate the spending levels targeted between President Biden and former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy in the controversial debt-ceiling deal, codified in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (FRA), which eventually played a major role in dooming McCarthy’s brief tenure as speaker.
“It reflects the funding levels that I negotiated with both parties and signed into law last spring,” President Joe Biden said of the agreement in a subtle victory lap. “It rejects deep cuts to programs hardworking families count on, and provides a path to passing full-year funding bills that deliver for the American people and are free of any extreme policies.”
The deal Johnson and Schumer struck Sunday is even worse than the FRA in Roy’s eyes.
“When we set out a year ago, remember, we were trying to target pre-COVID spending levels—$1.471 trillion was the marker we put down—to try to return to 2019 levels of spending,” Roy told TAC by phone. “Well, then the FRA was cut. Okay, I didn’t love it, but at least some caps got put in place that if we adhere to those caps right now, and we were to go into Congress tomorrow and passing a Continuing Resolution for the rest of the year—full year appropriations at current levels—that level will be $1.562 trillion instead of $1.659 trillion. That’s a big problem, right? Because we’re funding the federal bureaucracy at $100 billion higher level.”
“We have rampant inflation,” he continued. “We have tyrants out of control at the Department of Justice. We have a DHS not securing the border. We got the frickin’ Secretary of Defense who won’t even tell the the President of the United States when he’s in surgery for four days. And your Republicans are going to say, ‘Here, take another $100 billion over what the cap level would be.’”
Rep. Bob Good of Virginia, the new chair of the House Freedom Caucus, tweeted, “Republicans agreeing to spending levels $69 billion higher than last summer’s debt ceiling ‘deal,’ with no significant policy wins is nothing but another loss for America. At some point, having the House majority has to matter. Stop funding this spending with an open border!”
Senator Mike Lee agrees with the Freedom Caucus’s math. “As the House Freedom Caucus has noted, the actual spending levels in this plan are nearly $100 billion above what we are being promised, but mostly preserve all the pre-existing funding for Biden’s priorities,” the Utah senator wrote in an email to TAC. “At a time when we’re $34 trillion in debt and inflation is hollowing out America’s middle class, Republicans can and must do better than this.”
Meanwhile, on Lee’s side of the Capitol complex, a small group of senators believe they are close to a border deal that could unleash other spending legislation: Biden’s four-part supplemental package, the bulk of which is destined for Ukraine.
“Text hopefully this week, to be able to get that out. Everybody will have time to be able to read and go through it. No one’s going to be jammed in this process,” Senator James Lankford, a Republican from Oklahoma, claimed on “Fox News Sunday.”
“This agreement has to work. Everyone’s counting on this actually working,” he added. Senators Krysten Sinema and Chris Murphy are among the senators still closing on a clandestine immigration deal that has been in the works for months.
The fly in the ointment for the senate negotiators continue to be the president’s parole authority and deportation provisions. Anonymous sources familiar with the talks told POLITICO that the deal is expected to include some changes to U.S. asylum laws and something like former President Donald Trump’s Title 42 policy. Visa policy changes are also reportedly included in the deal.
Lee told TAC that he remains skeptical of the immigration deal. “This so-called deal has not been shared with the Republican conference, which is not a good sign,” Lee wrote. “Our Democrat colleagues have been assuring each other that the deal surrenders nothing to conservatives in terms of real border security, and thus they are declaring victory—again, not a great sign.”
As for the reported policy particulars, Lee seems to find a repeat of Title 42 under Biden too good to be true.
“Even when President Biden had Title 42 and Remain in Mexico at his disposal, he fought to get rid of them. He has also ignored the law to grant parole to large categories of people. Our border is a lawless nightmare, not because President Biden and DHS Secretary Mayorkas lack the policy tools and resources to secure it, but because they lack the desire to do so (while willfully exploiting loopholes),” Lee explained. “Any provision that facilitates resettling illegal immigrants in the United States in lieu of actual border security and immigration enforcement will worsen the crisis, not make it better. The rumored provisions granting work visas to illegal immigrants immediately upon release from detention will only encourage more illegal immigration.”
Nevertheless, Lankford’s optimism was matched by Sinema, who recently informed the media that she had spoken to Speaker Johnson about the border negotiations.
“You’ve got to get a bill through both chambers to get it signed by the president,” Sinema claimed. “So we’re working very hard to ensure that this is a bill that can pass both the Senate, the House and get signed by the president.”
The senate negotiators were hoping to brief the party conferences on Tuesday.
While the House GOP is hoping to prevent a repeat of what transpired in October—the episode that eventually gave Johnson the gavel—it is hard to imagine Johnson retains his speakership unchallenged if he backs his deal with Schumer up with a weak border security deal. That said, a slim (and slimming) majority might make removing Johnson too risky.
Nevertheless, conservatives in the House, particularly the Freedom Caucus and its allies, are putting pressure on GOP leadership to hold the line on border security.
“My understanding of the Senate negotiated bill is that it sh*t, okay,” Roy said. “I’m using that word bluntly, because I’m tired of messing around with this stuff.”
Previously, in a “dear colleague” letter dated January 2, Roy claimed to be willing to shut down the government over the Biden administration’s unwillingness to secure the southern border.
“I am obliged to inform you of my duty to refuse to fund—or otherwise empower—the United States Government, or any foreign government it is supporting, unless and until it fulfills its constitutional obligation to defend our borders from invasion, as required in our republican form of government, and make the people of Texas whole for its breach of duty,” Roy wrote.
“To wit, we currently are funding—at the higher omnibus spending levels—the DHS regime perpetuating the policies, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) refugee ‘resettlement’ office, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) exploiting our laws, international bodies like the United Nations (UN) facilitating open borders (in addition to funding enemies such as Hamas), and an overall government—including the DOJ—perpetuating the lawlessness at odds with the well-being of its own citizens,” Roy’s letter continued.
“To be certain, use of our constitutional authority to withhold funds to force adherence to the law comes with cries of ‘government shutdown’ and concerns we will fail to sustain key priorities such as funding for troops and Border Patrol agents themselves. These claims can be dismissed if we pass legislation to fund those very basic responsibilities—including ensuring Border Patrol agents receive full salary, benefits, and overtime pay – while withholding funding for the vast majority of the federal government until it performs its basic duty to defend the borders of a supposedly sovereign nation.”
During a recent trip to the southern border, several Republican members of the House rallied behind Roy’s call. Arizona’s Rep. Andy Biggs said, “No more money for his bureaucracy until you’ve brought this border under control.” More than a dozen members of the House, including Reps. Matt Gaetz and Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, Eli Crane of Arizona, Bob Good of Virginia, and Matt Rosendale of Montana, have signaled they are willing to shut the government down over border security.
Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio was also on the recent trip to the southern border, where he floated the idea of inserting a sentence in any government spending bill that would suspend the processing and release of new migrants.
“I think it boils down to the will of Republicans in the United States Congress. Are we going to force that sentence, that solution, on a piece of legislation?” Jordan asked rhetorically.
If conservatives in the House are willing to shut down the government over a fight for border security, some senators could join them in the trenches. “If there ever were a legitimate demand that, if unmet, would justify withholding government funding, it exists today with calls to secure our lawless border,” Lee wrote. “It is not an unrealistic demand to ask President Biden to take the sovereignty and security of our country seriously; tragically, he has been utterly derelict in this duty. We should hold hostage as many Leftist priorities as we can through the legislative process, while amplifying the outcry of Democrat constituencies in New York, Chicago, and California, who are suffering under the burdensome yoke of Biden’s border failure.”
“The bottom line is nobody in any part of the Republican Conference wants us to be divided,” Roy said. “When we were united last year, we were kicking butt. We passed the best border security bill we've ever passed. We passed a strong bill that limited spending and had a limited increase in the debt and put caps in place and cut spending. Then, we unfortunately watered that down with the debt deal. Got us a really good defense bill. We passed seven appropriation bills. We were restoring regular order. We were doing that united.”
Then, Roy’s comments took a turn. “Now, we're doing things by suspension with Democrats, because we're operating out of fear. And we are not giving the American people a really strong reason to get in behind us. I think that's a mistake,” Roy stated. “I will be taking into consideration all of our options this week, trying to figure out what we can do to send a message to the speaker and to our Republican colleagues that I didn't sign up to come to Washington to keep spending money we don't have to fund the bureaucracy that is undermining the security and wellbeing of the people that I represent.”

[occidentale]

[Amati75]

Ma chi e' il vecchietto con gli occhiali che non va altro che sparare stronzate?

Quella su Trump, che starebbero "inventando" suoi crimini e' bellissima.. mi pare un MAGAFESSO qualsialsi che s'informa sui memes di facebook...

Chi e'?

Ma viene preso pure sul serio?

[Marximiliano]

La tv infatti lo dice!

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/top...p-court-filing

Per fortuna negli usa c'è fox news, in italia le notizie in cui trump viene accusato arrivano tutte ma quelle in cui delle accuse si dimostrano false qualche volta si dimenticano di darle, o pensano che non ne valga la pena

[Amati75]

Per fortuna negli usa c'è fox news, in italia le notizie in cui trump viene accusato arrivano tutte ma quelle in cui delle accuse si dimostrano false qualche volta si dimenticano di darle, o pensano che non ne valga la pena

Foxnews quella condannata a pagare 748 milioni di $ per sparare cazzate?

Quella che dava ti ad un giudice si è difesa dice di che nessuna persona razionale dovrebbe prendere sul serio le motivate che sparano in loro opinionisti (aka Tucker Carlson al epics)..?

Guardi che la Fox l’ unica cosa che fa è ”rage farming”, sparare idiozie per la
Base fessa di Maga e per le persone
le cui fonti principali d informazione sono i memes di Facebook…

Almeno in questo caso fix ha avuto la decenza di mettere la parola “alleged”… per evitare poi di dover pagare altre multe per diffamazione…


Ma, tralasciando le cose utili a ricordarsi al riguardo di Foxnews, la notizia è riportata su tutte le principali fonti informative in USA, nulla di segreto… sono atti pubblici….

Vi è un accusa di una relazione non resa pubblica… ma da quello ad annullare un caso che ha prove sostanziali e con vari imputati che si son già dichiarati colpevoli…

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[alpha12000]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/...st-is-hottest/

Over the holidays, X (formerly known as Twitter) was alight with a strange sight. Republican activists, who also happened to be women of the younger variety with a green body mass index, were photographed in bikinis, bathtubs, and bras for a $25 calendar. The artifact, titled
“Conservative Dad’s Real Women of America 2024 Calendar,” is peddled by a reactionary beer company: Conservative Dad’s Ultra Right Beer. National Review readers can probably guess the advertising scandal that inspired the new, “woke-free” brand marketed by the self-professed patriarchal beer company.
The calendar features, for the most part, lightly clad women recognized across the Right-o-sphere, including Riley Gaines, Ashley St. Clair, Sara Gonzales, Dana Loesch, and Josie the “Redheaded Libertarian.” Gaines lounges poolside atop an “Ultra Right” towel, St. Clair enjoys a bubbly soak next to a stack of beer cans, Gonzales cheekily lights the New York Times on fire, while Loesch brandishes two assault rifles. The “Redheaded Libertarian” cheekily takes what appears to be baked beans out of the oven.
The company’s website describes the calendar this way:
Conservative Dad’s Real Women of America Calendar is a celebration of conservative women who are fighting woke extremist[s] to preserve real women. . . . Featuring the most beautiful conservative women in America.
“Calendargate” ruffled many feathers of the conservative variety when the product made its debut. Religious and moral reasons aside, the project itself clashes with the term it co-ops: “conservative.”
I shall not refer to the “Conservative Dad’s” calendar as conservative, for I find nothing conservative about it. Rather, it is a reactionary endeavor — a heated rejection of transgenderism, soy boys, and blue-haired women in one, alluringly coiffed swoop. Rather than “empowering conservative women,” the project furthers an ugly impetus on the Right today: the desire to objectify women (again?) as a means of returning to previous gender norms.
More onConservatives
What Ukraine Can Teach a Conservative
Is Ricky Gervais Right-Wing?
OnPaul D. Clement’s Intolerable Success
With the release of Bombshell in 2019 — a film that appeared in the wake of the #MeToo movement — a piercing light was cast on Fox News’s practice (and that of many other Republican stalwarts) of objectifying women for monetary or political gain. Astonishingly, a mainstream movie with a left-leaning message (that also performed poorly at the box office) had little effect on the Right’s status quo. Unfortunately, too many on the right still hold the idea that women have some kind of moral obligation to be hot, or that a woman is somehow lacking something essential about being a woman if she does not ooze sexual enticement.
I would like to challenge this position, particularly when it’s held by self-described conservatives. There is nothing conservative about assuming — or demanding — that women should look like Barbie.
There are two extreme responses to this offered by the Left and the Right of today:
On the right: It is normal and fine for men to objectify women. That is simply the nature of men. (See this unnerving 2016 Dennis Prager article, “Yes, Men View Women as Sex Objects,” on the topic.)
More fromKayla Bartsch
Biden Administration Sinks $6 Billion on Utopian California Train Line
The Catholic Church Will Never — and Can Never — Condone Same-Sex Marriage
On the left: Objectification itself is not the problem. Rather, the issue lies in a woman’s lack of agency when being objectified by another. To evade being a victim of men’s objectification, women should subvert the male gaze by intentionally objectifying themselves and others.
Both positions are dehumanizing in different ways, and I would like to offer another path.
The primary moral problem of objectification, regardless of the source, is the turning of a “who” into a “what.” The woman in view becomes a “thing” in the process rather than a fellow person. The woman herself vanishes — she becomes the sum of her collective body parts.
Of course, turning a “who” into a “what” inevitably leads to inhumanity. This is the same depersonalizing rhetoric wielded by Roman conquerors against “barbarians,” by slavery apologists against the enslaved population, and by Nazis against Jews. In short, such rhetoric is often used by partisan extremists against their ideological foes.
To the liberal thinker, the core moral problem posed by sexual objectification is being other-ed by viewers who may be malicious. The problem is not sex itself or lust itself. The problem arises only when the woman being objectified has no choice in the matter. And so, in this scenario, objectification is a kind of subjugation — a trespass against the agency of the one being perceived.
However, if a woman chooses to be objectified and reap particular rewards from her own objectification, the modern progressive can find no issue here. If she utilizes her own status as a sex object to gain wealth, fame, power, confidence, etc., then one can only say: “You go, girl!”
In the opening of William F. Buckley Jr.’s famous 1966 Firing Line episode with Hugh Hefner, he introduces the founder and “captain” of Playboy magazine:
Mr. Hefner’s magazine is most widely known for its total exposure of the human female. Though of course other things happen in its pages. Mr. Hefner insists that it is a great deal more — there is such a thing as a playboy philosophy of which he is the prophet. And that that philosophy is destined to liberate us all from what he variously calls superstition, tyranny, moral absolutism, that sort of thing.
The seeds of this playboy philosophy that were sown in the ’60s have come to full fruition today. Left-leaning philosophy now insists that the body must be liberated from all conventional standards or “Puritanical” superstitions.
There is, of course, power to be gained by a beautiful woman who is willing to transgress the boundaries of bodily modesty. To be the most desired person in the room is to win mankind’s most rudimentary popularity contest. Platforms such as Instagram and TikTok — and OnlyFans, especially, which content creators (70 percent of whom are women) use to sell their own homemade porn — rely on the “feminist” glorification of self-objectification to make bank.
By baring her skin and reveling in her physical form, a woman can acquire liberation. Ultimately, this falls in line with the “porn empowers women” argument, advanced by some of the “sex positive” feminists of the ’90s and the pro–“sex work” progressives of today. (Even Crystal Hefner, former Playboy starlet and 21-year-old bride of then 81-year-old Hugh Hefner, has decried the degrading reality of life as a posh Playmate.)
The “Conservative Dad’s” pin-up calendar embraces this leftist ideology regarding women’s bodies. A woman’s sexuality is something for her to commodify, reveal, and sell as she sees fit. The culture of today encourages women to gain power and influence through such self-objectification.
NR’s Madeleine Kearns wrote about the scandal in “On ‘Right-Wing’ Smut”:
What needs conserving is not the liberalism of yesterday but timeless virtues and norms: a courtship culture, one that emphasizes male and female sexual complementarity, abstinence before marriage, fidelity within it, openness to the gift of children, as well as the cultivation of a culture in which beauty is prized over the vulgar and obscene. Lust, however lucrative, undermines this project. . . . Jesus Christ said: “Anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Deliberately provoking lust in another, whether by dress or behavior, is similarly sinful according to Christian tradition.
Kearns is, of course, right. When almost anything goes these days, an attempt to adopt a mode of dress or behavior to deliberately provoke lust in another would seem almost comedic.
A principle — not a list of do’s and don’ts — is required. Modesty, a close sister of Temperance, is this principle. Modesty shouldn’t be viewed as a repressive set of rules universally applied (i.e., skirts must fall to one’s knee, or shoulders must be covered). And, of course, we can’t ignore that women have been subjugated to absurd dress codes in the past.
While dress codes change according to time and place — what once passed for, say, modest swimwear in 1824 is light-years away from what might be considered a modest swimsuit today — the principle of modesty never changes. Within the nature of modesty itself, there lies a timeless assertion of human dignity despite the constant change in fashion, occasion, and social mores. Women, by their nature, are blessed with beauty — and so face the unavoidable task of stewarding their particular gift.
Simply put, modesty elevates the “who” above the “what.” Modesty is not a weapon to control women’s bodies, nor is it a silencer of free expression. Modesty affirms that other human beings are persons, not objects. The authentic liberation yearned for by modern women — to be treated as an equal interlocutor in the dialogue of society — can be acquired only by rejecting the self-objectification peddled by groups on both the left and the right.
To all of the folks at “Conservative Dad’s,” the truly conservative position is this one: Modest is hottest.