US Elections (& Politics) :)

[Parley]

“Updated: 8:07 PM PDT Oct 1, 2025 Editorial Standards ⓘ
Andrea Flores
Anchor/Reporter
The Trump administration has announced it is planning to build new sections of the southern border wall. The new barriers would extend nearly 10 miles along the San Diego-Mexico border.

The new wall system is being funded by the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act. It gives Customs and Border Protection more than $46 billion through 2029 for construction and maintenance costs.”

Trump still working on it.

 

[Sybertiger]

 

[Sybertiger]

 

[Parley]

Could well be, but does that excuse the AG of the US from answering a simple question or discussing a rather big change in US legal policy made in a vacuum?

This is the problem here over and over. Ignore the bigger message/issue, jump on and praise high school theatrics.

Do we a "war" on drugs or not?

 

[bigredfish]

Do we a "war" on drugs or not?

We’ve had a “war on drugs” about as long as I’ve been alive. It ain’t working

But the question I posed in my post you replied to was about the Attorney General refusing to answer or discuss policy , in particular one about a fairly major legal policy change in this country with regard to blowing up people in boats in International waters without due process.

Doesn’t matter if you agree or disagree with the policy, it’s a matter of adults discussing what is clearly a major policy issue Vs ignoring it and instead verbally attacking the person asking the question

 

[johnfitz]

Trump suggests not all furloughed workers will get back pay: ‘It depends’

“But it really depends on who you’re talking about,” he said. “For the most part, we’re going to take care of our people.”

Trump added, “There are some people that really don’t deserve to be taken care of, and we’ll take care of them in a different way.”


View attachment 229418

It's not TACO Tuesday, it's TACO Wednesday:

On Tuesday, the Trump admin said furloughed feds were not guaranteed back pay. On Wednesday, it sent notices saying they were

 

[Oceanslider]

 

[jpc-s4]

I remember a time when this would have been an important issue to discuss like adults ..

LOL at thinking that this dog-and-pony show would be a place to discuss things like adults. This is nothing more than Demoncrat sniping over every thing they can to try to score points.

 

[bigredfish]

We didn’t watch the same hearing. It was the other way around

 

[bigredfish]

Here
YAY GO TRUMP!


Better?

 

[johnfitz]

I really don't know much about this, but he mentioned her heads I win, tails I lose strategy which made some sense to me... so I googled "Candace Owens heads I win" and found this post that seems to explain her inexplicable behavior:

 

[Oceanslider]

I really don't know much about this, but he mentioned her heads I win, tails I lose strategy which made some sense to me... so I googled "Candace Owens heads I win" and found this post that seems to explain her inexplicable behavior:

She is endlessly saying things with zero proof to back her statements up. I was a fan of her conservative views when she first hit the scenes, and it was that Candace that Daily Wire hired. But I feel she has descended into telling unsubstantiated claims. She will post, for instance, a text by Charlie Kirk about Catholicism and claim to interpret its meaning without showing all thext texts prior that led up to Charlie's text and letting me determine what he was meaning or referring to.

 

[Sybertiger]

Since the Congressional hearings became a clown show long ago for the Sinisters to beat up on the person they claim they'd like to hear from but then end up talking over them to score more clown points I'm happy to see Patel and Bondi feeding them a shit sandwich to chew on. Maybe they'll shut the fuck and and get serious about their line of questioning and provide real opportunities to get educated.

 

[bigredfish]

I posted 5 serious straight questions. She avoided all of them.

She came in determined to not answer anything and to be combative. That's not ok when Team Blue does it but IS ok when Team Red does it.
Her theatrics were planned

 

[bigredfish]

 

[Sybertiger]

It's time for the Democraps to reap the whirlwind. When they stop the clown show then maybe we'll get some answers we are all eagar to get. The whimp Republicans for too many years were eating the shit sandwiches and thanking the server. The reason libtards hate Trump so much is he's onto their game and is dishing it right back out. Fight fire with fire and now the Republicans finally don't have a shit eater leading them.

 

[Parley]

Marsha Blackburn, Pam Bondi Call Out Dick Durbin For Not Releasing Epstein Flight Logs

Attorney General Pam Bondi and Republican Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn called out Democratic Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin during a Tuesday hearing for not publishing deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s flight logs.

Blackburn previously said that Durbin had “blocked” her from requesting subpoenas for Epstein’s flight logs, according to a 2023 press release. Bondi made a similar allegation during a Senate Judiciary Committee, which Durbin denied, but Blackburn refuted.

“Senator Durbin, I find it very interesting that you refused repeated Republican requests to release the Epstein flight logs in 2023 and 2024. You fought that,” Bondi said. “Did you take money from Reid Hoffman campaign donations, who was a huge Epstein friend? Why did you fight for years? Why did you fight to not disclose the flight logs, Senator Durbin?”

“I can tell you I did not refuse,” Durbin claimed. “One of the senators here wished to produce those logs, and I asked her to put it in writing, and she never did.”

Bondi retorted that she believed Blackburn would disagree with Durbin’s claim. After Durbin’s questioning time ended, Blackburn requested to “correct the record.”

“Senator Durbin knows I repeatedly asked for those flight logs. I brought up the subpoena,” Blackburn said. “You even shut down the committee because you didn’t want that. And you know I submitted that in writing and you continue to misrepresent that. And I am not going to let that record stand.”

“I just want to make you clear that the reason the committee business ended was that your side invoked the two-hour rule,” Durbin said. “Point number two is I asked you if you wanted any documents like flight logs to put it in writing. You never did.”

Blackburn said she made written requests and that she would distribute...

(Excerpt) Read more at dailycallernewsfoundation.org ...

 

[bigredfish]

 

[Oceanslider]

His text messages were "Very Touching"

 

[Parley]

Even Washington Post Slams Democrats Over Shutdown: 'This Is How Entitlement Programs Work'
When Republicans are quoting a Washington Post editorial, Democrats should be seeing the writing on the wall.

The capital city newspaper has been a Democratic booster for decades, but an editorial published Sunday blasted the party's role in provoking the current government shutdown so badly that Wyoming Republican John Barrasso used the piece as ammunition in a speech on the Senate floor.

The editorial put the blame for the shutdown exactly where it belongs.

“Democrats are losing the Schumer Shutdown," Barrasso, the Senate majority whip, said in the Monday speech, according to a news release from his office.

"Even their media allies are turning on them. Here is an editorial from The Washington Post today. The headline is, ‘The shutdown conversation no one wants.’ The Washington Post Editorial Board wrote this: ‘Democrats have demanded that Republicans agree to extend the covid-era insurance subsidies without proposing any way to pay for it. The Congressional Budget Office estimates this will cost $350 billion over the next decade.’ That’s The Washington Post talking – not Republicans."

After a few paragraphs of obligatory, blame-both-sides background, the editorial settles down to getting to the heart of the Democratic demands: Expanding the bane of Obamacare.

"The real problem is that the Affordable Care Act was never actually affordable," the editorial explained. "President Barack Obama’s signature achievement allowed people to buy insurance on marketplaces with subsidies based on their income. The architects of the program assumed that risk pools would be bigger than they turned out to be. As a result, policies cost more than expected."

(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...