America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,012 comments
  • 1,486,433 views
UKMikey
Aren't churches tax exempt too? Even the right wing ones?
Click to expand...
These are the top 100 non-profits as of about two years ago:

www.thenonprofittimes.com

NPT Top 100 (2019): An In-Depth Study of America's Largest Nonprofits

Revenue grew faster than expenses as donors did their part Fundraising was humming along about 10 percent ahead of budget for Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF) heading into December 2018. That month became the most volatile period of the year for stock markets. By year’s...
www.thenonprofittimes.com www.thenonprofittimes.com

Number 81 starts getting taxed and I'm going to take it personally.
 
TB
These are the top 100 non-profits as of about two years ago:

www.thenonprofittimes.com

NPT Top 100 (2019): An In-Depth Study of America's Largest Nonprofits

Revenue grew faster than expenses as donors did their part Fundraising was humming along about 10 percent ahead of budget for Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF) heading into December 2018. That month became the most volatile period of the year for stock markets. By year’s...
www.thenonprofittimes.com www.thenonprofittimes.com

Number 81 starts getting taxed and I'm going to take it personally.
Click to expand...
Well, you'd better hope they don't adopt a broad, leftist agenda, then, or J. D. Vance just may come a-knockin'.
 
Think Alex Jones is going to need more than just Mike Lindell's My Pillow money, to get him out of this hole.



Dave Chappelle Snl GIF by Saturday Night Live
 
Spacegoat
Think Alex Jones is going to need more than just Mike Lindell's My Pillow money, to get him out of this hole.



Dave Chappelle Snl GIF by Saturday Night Live
Click to expand...

I tend to not do Huffington Post, so if we're talking default judgments, I'm imagining he's failed to produce the sort of evidence he always claims to possess but can be assumed he never has. Am I close?
 
TexRex
I tend to not do Huffington Post, so if we're talking default judgments, I'm imagining he's failed to produce the sort of evidence he always claims to possess but can be assumed he never has. Am I close?
Click to expand...
Spot on.

Also, apologies. Don't know too much about the Huffington Post. It was just the first thing that came up when I searched for Alex Jones on Twitter.
 
Spacegoat
Spot on.

Also, apologies. Don't know too much about the Huffington Post. It was just the first thing that came up when I searched for Alex Jones on Twitter.
Click to expand...
No need to apologize and you aren't required to cater to me. I'm certain more information will come out and they won't be the only ones carrying it, but I have just enough grasp of the law and the situation to have made an educated guess as to what happened.

I do look forward to him bitching about the left's attacks on him.
 
TexRex
I do look forward to him bitching about the left's attacks on him.
Click to expand...
The left. The globalists. Bill Gates. The devil will probably be thrown in there too. Basically everyone's fault but his own. No doubt too, that he'll use this to try to squeeze as much money as he can from whoever is still listening to his bullcrap.
 
I just saw the deposition video from 2019 in which he blames the bereaved families themselves. Classy, but I guess no one ever made five million dollars from being Mr. Nice Guy.



I'm just sorry the parents who sued him had to wait nine years for some kind of justice. Hopefully Jones's fellow conspiracists like Wolfgang Halbig are also going to have to pay for their actions.
www.bbc.co.uk

Sandy Hook conspiracy theorist arrested over illegal ID possession

Wolfgang Halbig has been arrested over possessing the personal ID of a Sandy Hook victim's father.
www.bbc.co.uk
 
Last edited:
There is renewed talk of a modification to the filibuster today since Biden publicly stated it was on the table. I keep seeing rationale along the lines of "if we get rid of the filibuster, the republicans will use it against us if they have a majority". And the reason the debt ceiling thing is different is "if the republicans do the same, it's fine".

When will these friggin morons (Manchin and Sinema) not realize that the republicans will do this anyway!?! Imagine for a moment that Donald Trump wins re-election in 2024, and the republican have a narrow majority in the senate and the house. Do we think there's any chance, any chance at all, that they will abide by the filibuster and let the democrats stop their legislative agenda? NO! There is not! That ship has sailed.

There is no principle to stand on here. The filibuster is not a fundamental part of the nation's structure. It's not enshrined, or sacred. And it's not going to survive a republican majority. All they're doing is hampering themselves. That may be their goal, but let's call it what it is instead of pretending that republicans might be good faith actors in the future if some democrats hold firm to some misguided notion of principle here.
 
Last edited:
Danoff
There is renewed talk of a modification to the filibuster today since Biden publicly stated it was on the table. I keep seeing rationale along the lines of "if we get rid of the filibuster, the republicans will use it against us if they have a majority". And the reason the debt ceiling thing is different is "if the republicans do the same, it's fine".

When will these friggin morons (Manchin and Sinema) not realize that the republicans will do this anyway!?! Imagine for a moment that Donald Trump wins re-election in 2024, and the republican have a narrow majority in the senate and the house. Do we think there's any chance, any chance at all, that they will abide by the filibuster and let the democrats stop their legislative agenda? NO! There is not! That ship has sailed.

There is no principle to stand on here. The filibuster is not a fundamental part of the nation's structure. It's not enshrined, or sacred. And it's not going to survive a republican majority. All they're doing is hampering themselves. That may be their goal, but let's call it what it is instead of pretending that republicans might be good faith actors in the future if some democrats hold firm to some misguided notion of principle here.
Click to expand...
Agree on all points.

As for Manchin and Sinema, I can't really explain Sinema's dilemma but I think Manchin's is pretty obvious. He's a Republican. Many ships have sailed in the past several years and one of those was full of West Virginia Democrats which basically don't exist anymore. Manchin will not get reelected as a Democrat, it's impossible. The only reason he's there right now is because Senate terms are so long - in the House he'd have been replaced swiftly in 2020 and WV has trended more red since then. He can't possibly vote broadly Democratic because he risks disenfranchising literally everybody in the State.
 
Keef
Agree on all points.

As for Manchin and Sinema, I can't really explain Sinema's dilemma but I think Manchin's is pretty obvious. He's a Republican. Many ships have sailed in the past several years and one of those was full of West Virginia Democrats which basically don't exist anymore. Manchin will not get reelected as a Democrat, it's impossible. The only reason he's there right now is because Senate terms are so long - in the House he'd have been replaced swiftly in 2020 and WV has trended more red since then. He can't possibly vote broadly Democratic because he risks disenfranchising literally everybody in the State.
Click to expand...
Let's pretend for a moment that the debt ceiling does get eliminated by carving it out of the filibuster. Either with a unanimous democrat vote, or a republican crossing party lines to prevent a default (hey, that seems reasonable to me). So, for example, they can't get 10 republicans to sign up to raise the debt ceiling, but they can get 1 to sign up to bypass the filibuster.

So the democrats end up carving out the filibuster to remove the debt ceiling. What does this do? It leaves the republicans having voted for the US to default. The party of extremism, being ready to burn down the country over partisanship, will have voted for the US to default on its debts purely out of spite and partisanship. This is not a good look. This is stupid politics.

The republican party is already the party that doesn't give a rats ass about the country, or the well being of people, and is pure nihilism. This only implicates more of them and creates a more complete referendum that yes, indeed, that has not changed. I don't know what these people think they're doing, but the debt ceiling showdown looks like a backfire to me.

Edit:

If the US were to actually default, it would backfire the other way.
 
Last edited:
Danoff
It leaves the republicans having voted for the US to default. The party of extremism, being ready to burn down the country over partisanship, will have voted for the US to default on its debts purely out of spite and partisanship. This is not a good look. This is stupid politics.
Click to expand...
I know. But you don't have to tell me lol. I'm not the one who needs to hear it. The people who need to hear it are mentally inaccessible. They've shut themselves out, they won't listen, they don't want to hear it, and at this point those people do appear to be the plurality of Republican voters.

I know it's dumb but it's exactly what those people want and it'll get spun beyond recognition. Even if they actually care about the consequences they won't admit it because it's not a cultural value of these people to concede when they're wrong. They raised me, I seent it. They're good for potlucks, pool parties, and borrowing circular saws and that's about it. You remember when you were a kid and it wasn't cool to be smart? That cultural value stuck around with them. Being corrected or proven wrong is taken as disrespect.

Edit: I probably sound very dismissive when I say things like this but it's literally been years and we keep wondering why certain groups of people keep doing obviously dumb things.
 
Last edited:
The Democratic Party needs teeth and claws; they're still pretending, at least on paper, to be doing things the "right way". Doing this against a party, in the words of @Keef, that has spend decades rigging the system in its favour faster than anyone can catch, just won't work.

And it is a damning, damning indictment that you're basically needing someone to give in and openly play dirty to make things fair.
 
Liquid
The Democratic Party needs teeth and claws; they're still pretending, at least on paper, to be doing things the "right way". Doing this against a party, in the words of @Keef, that has spend decades rigging the system in its favour faster than anyone can catch, just won't work.

And it is a damning, damning indictment that you're basically needing someone to give in and openly play dirty to make things fair.
Click to expand...
I don't know, if neither party can agree on the debt ceiling, all of those gains in the economy will probably fall of a cliff in a matter of weeks and there will be another recession. At that point, we will have the usual finger pointing. We can barely get consensus inside the parties these days. Asking for non-partisan approval seems impossible unless something comes up like "doctors should be licensed" or "would support going to war if the United States were invaded".
 
Dotini
I see no way under any circumstances that a default on the national debt can be permitted.
Click to expand...
...and yet... the Republicans are using the filibuster to stop the ceiling from being raised...

Basically, on a purely bipartisan, silly issue, that they all agree on, republicans want concessions.

Edit:

Even the mere appearance of cooperation on an issue all agree on is something they're struggling hard to avoid.
 
Last edited:
So with the debt ceiling fight being postponed briefly, there have been a lot of scathing criticisms of McConnell for "caving". In an email to news reporters, Trump said:

"Looks like Mitch McConnell is folding to the Democrats, again. He's got all of the cards with the debt ceiling, it's time to play the hand,"... "Don't let them destroy our Country!"

A surprising number of Republicans seem to just want to watch the world burn. Obviously the debt ceiling is something that passed regularly under Trump, and obviously, not even a year into the Biden administration, the debt is not the making of Biden (who has yet to pass infrastructure, and the rest of it), and it's not even entirely the making of Trump, or Obama for that matter. This idea that raising the debt ceiling is allowing democrats to destroy the country is pure asshattery. The US defaulting on the debt would be monstrous, as would shutting down the entire government. Those are the options Donald! He knows that, of course, as do all of the republicans. But they want to sell a deeply toxic lie to their supporters in hopes of garnering enough outrage to win elections. We've already seen what happens when people believe those lies.

It's hard to even tally up how many ways this comment from Trump is evil. There are a lot.
  • it's super hypocritical, republicans acknowledged that the debt ceiling has to be raised in 2019
  • democrats helped them do it, because of course the country has honor its debts
  • honoring your debts is not destroying the country, it's the opposite
  • playing the the debt ceiling, even without defaulting, is problematic for the US credit rating, and bad for economics
  • continuing the filibuster the debt ceiling, even past the point where reconciliation is viable, with no demands, is just outright trying to tear apart the US economy, and it's using minority rule to accomplish it.

No surprise, Trump's instincts here are to insist on bad faith action in hopes of achieving minority rule.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
I feel like the price of bail should have an inverse relationship to the wealth of the defendant and immediate family. If that's "unfair" then bail should simply be eliminated. But in current practice, having a flat rate bail system is absolutely unfair because poor people who can't afford it have to sit in jail while wealthy people who can get to enjoy their lives while awaiting trial, or simply flee, resulting in many of them never actually facing consequences for their actions. What would be fair would either be eliminating bail altogether and holding everybody for the entire period, or not holding anybody at all, or pricing bail relative to available wealth. For example, maybe DUI bail should be $100 for a poor person but $100,000 for a wealthy person. The trend of underprivileged people serving disproportionate penalties and very privileged people serving inadequate penalties, if any at all, is getting extremely tiring and is absolutely biased and predatory.
 
Keef
I feel like the price of bail should have an inverse relationship to the wealth of the defendant and immediate family.
Click to expand...
I believe it is. It's based on what's likely to keep you from skipping your court date.
 
Keef
That is interesting. Doesn't seem to work all that well so far. :lol:
Click to expand...
www.bailagentnetwork.com

11 Highest Bail Amounts in US History

Bail amounts are set based on the crime, criminal history of the defendant, history of showing up to prior court dates or bond jumping, flight risk, and more. T
www.bailagentnetwork.com www.bailagentnetwork.com

The highest bail ever set was apparently $3B. The person it was set for had been arrested after skipping bail at $1B. So $1B just wasn't high enough!
 
Danoff
www.bailagentnetwork.com

11 Highest Bail Amounts in US History

Bail amounts are set based on the crime, criminal history of the defendant, history of showing up to prior court dates or bond jumping, flight risk, and more. T
www.bailagentnetwork.com www.bailagentnetwork.com

The highest bail ever set was apparently $3B. The person it was set for had been arrested after skipping bail at $1B. So $1B just wasn't high enough!
Click to expand...
I would say that it's mind blowing that someone could just willingly forfeit that much money, but I see that it was real estate heir and known scumbag Robert Durst that said bail was set for, so I guess it's not surprising that he didn't place any value on money (or human life for that matter).
 
www.nbcwashington.com

Trump's D.C. Hotel Hid Losses With ‘Misleading' Disclosures, House Panel Says

Former President Donald Trump “grossly exaggerated the financial health” of his Washington, D.C., hotel, which incurred more than $70 million in losses during his time in office, according to a House committee probing his business.
www.nbcwashington.com www.nbcwashington.com

Former President Donald Trump's hotel in Washington, D.C., incurred more than $70 million in operating losses during his time in office, forcing him at one point to get a reprieve from a major bank on payments on a loan, according to documents released Friday by a House committee investigating his business.


The House Committee on Oversight and Reform said Trump reported the hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue generated more than $150 million in profits during his presidency. Trump "grossly exaggerated the financial health" of the hotel, according to the panel, noting documents show the Trump Organization had to inject $27 million from other parts of its business to help the hotel.


The committee said financial statements it obtained show the losses came despite an estimated $3.7 million in payments from foreign governments, business that government ethics experts say Trump should have refused because it posed conflicts of interest with his role as president and raises “concerns about possible violations of the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause.”


“By filing these misleading public disclosures, President Trump grossly exaggerated the financial health of the Trump Hotel,” the committee said in a news release. “He also appears to have concealed potential conflicts of interest stemming not just from his ownership of this failing business but also from his roles as the hotel’s lender and the guarantor of its third-party loans.”

The Trump Organization said in a statement that the findings of the Democrat-led committee were misleading and false, and it did not receive any special treatment from a lender.
..............
Click to expand...

Yeesh...he was only joking about that profit part.
 
Danoff
75K bail... the article is all about him being picked on for being rich, having a nice car and expensive clothes... this kid and his family are a 100% flight risk.
Click to expand...
Yup, wouldn't be surprised if they have already left the country.
 
As has often been said, fines as they are now are simply the retail price for breaking the law.

Slightly different from bail but the sentiment rings true.
 
Liquid
Slightly different from bail
Click to expand...
For a number of reasons of course. You get your bail money back if you show up to your court date, and you're presumed innocent until conviction. I just don't see how bail is really appropriate for someone who (allegedly) opened fire at a school.
 
Last edited:
I was so happy to see that yesterday President Biden reversed another one of Trump's horrible decisions. This one was Trump's gutting of the protected lands. It's a wonder Trump and his conservative cronies didn't make a move to fill in and develop The Grand Canyon.

apnews.com

Biden restores Bears Ears, other monuments cut by Trump

President Joe Biden has restored two sprawling national monuments in Utah, reversing a decision by President Donald Trump that had opened some lands for mining and development.
apnews.com apnews.com
 

Latest Posts

Back