US Politics: Bike tricks

Status
Not open for further replies.
quovadis said:
Pretty sure there were consequences. They faced the music, were re-elected and sent back. Representative democracy in action.
Click to expand...
They didn't face any consequences, they just grifted off of it.
Just proves that those that elect them either don't care or don't know.
But yes, it's indeed democracy in action.
 
Kieppie said:
They didn't face any consequences, they just grifted off of it.
Just proves that those that elect them either don't care or don't know.
But yes, it's indeed democracy in action.
Click to expand...
They were expelled. That's the constitutional consequence.
 
Kieppie said:
Unfortunately those adult children grifters were allowed right back in.

Throw your toys out of the cot and get your way.
That is the way.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately due to a loophole, but pretty sure they'd be re-elected even if an election was called 'cause I suspect if you are a Dem legislator in Tennessee, you probably are in one of the black areas in Nashville which vote like 90% Dem.
 
apnews.com

Supreme Court preserves access to abortion pill for now

The Supreme Court preserved access to a drug used in the most common method of abortion, rejecting lower-court restrictions while a lawsuit challenging its FDA approval continues.
apnews.com apnews.com

Supreme Court preserves access to abortion pill for now

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday preserved women’s access to a drug used in the most common method of abortion, rejecting lower-court restrictions while a lawsuit continues.

The justices granted emergency requests from the Biden administration and New York-based Danco Laboratories, maker of the drug mifepristone. They are appealing a lower court ruling that would roll back Food and Drug Administration approval of mifepristone.
 
buchanan8 said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1649538334660743168
Click to expand...
Read the WP article and look at the timeline. The excerpt which is being ignored :

But the letter appears to have omitted key context, including whether Blinken actually pushed for such a statement.
On Friday afternoon, House Democrats released an excerpt from Morell’s interview in which Morell actually addressed that. Asked whether Blinken had directed, suggested or insinuated that he should write such a statement, Morell said, “My memory is that he did not.”
“Mr. Morell testified that Mr. Blinken did not hint that the Biden campaign ‘could use some help on this’ or suggest that Mr. Morell should ‘cook up something’ that the campaign should use,” the House Judiciary Democrats said.
The Republicans’ claim of suppression also doesn’t really comport with the timeline, insofar as this is about social media suppression.
In fact, the Oct. 19 statement came five days after the initial New York Post story on Hunter Biden’s laptop. Twitter and Facebook had begun restricting the story shortly after it was published, citing concerns about the provenance of the information and whether it was hacked. This had been an issue late in the 2016 campaign, when Russia interfered on Donald Trump’s behalf.
But Twitter actually apologized for its decision and said it had stopped blocking links to the story and documents by Oct. 16. In testimony to Jordan’s committee in February, former Twitter chief legal officer Vijaya Gadde said, “Twitter changed its policy within 24 hours and admitted its initial action was wrong. This policy revision immediately allowed people to tweet the original articles with the embedded source materials.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X