Win uses cookies necessary for site functionality, as well as for personalization. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies as described in our Privacy Policy.
I think Trump likes to hit 2 fold. I think he said SUPER predators because that's what clinton said. POTUS wants everyone to see more than just the surface.
If you search for a super predator quote your bound to find hillary. Which will make ppl stop and think. Well, rational ppl.
To be fair she was referring to gang members. There is plenty of in context stuff to produce about her. Wasn’t there a black chef who came out and talked about her berating the staff and calling them all kinds of horrible stuff?
Plus the whole Epstein Island thing. And the server in the bathroom thing.
And the Benghazi thing.
The biggest gripe the black community has with her “super predators” remark was the second part, “We have to bring them to heel.” You know, like a dog. They found that particularly dehumanizing.
Sort of like the Stalin Era KGB: show me the man and I show you the crime.
Look at how Trump and his brother turned out having had an alcoholic father, one become an alcoholic and the other does not touch it and became Prez. Just because you are born into sh*tty circumstances does not make you bad. It would help if someone, like a father, is there to guide them.
Exactly right. He also said Hunter was making $183,000/month in Ukraine. I think the actual number is only $83k but I'd love to see the fact checkers dance around that one.
Trump may have made this error on purpose to get 'corrected'
A few dolts that know it was only "83,000" are going to open up their mouth. "It was 83, not 183". It's like telling the officer you were doing 75 in a 35, not 90 or AntiFA is only an idea.
Obama opposed it when he ran in 2008. He only supported it in 2012 because Biden went off script and said so before he was supposed to (not until after the 2012 election)
Edit: Trump is the 1st President to support gay marriage AS A CANDIDATE. Tell that to your dipshit liberal friends and watch their heads explode.
Yea, the term "liberal" has a derogatory connotation now from being associated with leftists for so long that the two are basically interchangeable, much to the chagrin of so-called "classical liberals" who are something else entirely than leftists are. But the way the left demonizes anyone who isn't 100 percent on-board with all of their bullshit, as opposed to merely most of it, its basically impossible to be a classical liberal and find a home anywhere. Hence I'm fine to concede the point but keep using liberal to refer to leftists.
He is effectively canceled today as well. He is a demented senile puppet who doesn't know where the fuck he is. He's just being dragged around and drugged up for an occasional appearance, as his heart can tolerate the meds.
It's remarkable watching the difference between his speech patterns back then and now. You can't watch this old footage, look at him now, and tell me he's mentally sound in 2020. It's just too blatant.
He could actually speak back then and appears more passionate since he’s expressing his own thoughts instead of the current low battery brain stuttering out what it’s been programmed to say.
It really seems like he's just regurgitating talking points from his handlers now. He barely understands the words he's saying. He certainly doesn't remember anything from thirty years ago.
Not gonna lie... he is not wrong... because broken homes are the source of super predators.... but then he went on to write a law that busted college kids for fucking weed with minimal sentencing of several years.
How hard is it for these kids to just not smoke shit.
I never understood when I was that age, I thought my peers were the bottom of the barrel stupid, turns out, they are, 30 years old and still working as a line cook at McDonald's.
Don't wanna be busted with weed, then don't have weed. It's really that simple. And kids don't need it for medical purposes.
Now grandpa going through chemo? He needs the stuff for sure.
No, booze is the same category for me. I don't understand why anyone wants to drink that nasty shit, and why they want to consume mind altering liquids that make them stupid. I guess they are stupid in the first place for putting such crap in their bodies, so now they are just extra stupid.
I'd support outlawing booze too, but we know how that went... Although I'm sure we have better tracking technology these days to fight it.
I would even extend this to caffeine. It's a stim that prevents people from even being normal without having a daily cup of joe.
Also add corn syrup to the list, it's causing americans to be fat and crave and be addicted to high doses of sugar. We would all be better off if at least sugar was regulated in quantity and only real sugar was allowed and corn syrups outlawed.
I could go on but you get the drift. Mind altering substances outside of medical reasons should be outlawed or extremely regulated more than they already are.
If we outlaw one substance, we should outlaw them all, or we should allow them all. It's this grey area where some drugs are okay but others aren't that is the issue.
Dude humans have been brewing and consuming beer going back literally to the dawn of civilization, with the development of agriculture. It's as old as bread. It's never going away.
Obviously I know that. I never said it was going away, I realize it won't go away, I said I would like it to go away.
I also said the flip side, we shouldn't regulate anything at all and allow all substances and let people make their own free choices on what they want to put into their body, its their body after all. There are already plenty of laws to protect other people and punish them if those said substances cause them to harm other people.
I agree that sugar is horrendous and it's causing massive obesity problems.
However, people should have their own freedom to consume whatever they want IMO. The government should not be involved in that. The problem as it relates then to sugar is the power of the food industry and its marketing. Food at this point should be treated how tobacco was in the past 30-40 years or so. Also, I do not fully agree with covering pre-existing conditions related to obesity. You cannot expect to be a fat fuck, get type 2 diabetes, and then modern medicine will save you!
BTW, for context I rarely drink (prob 3 glasses of wine in past year) and eat very clean. I still feel people should have their own choice though. As you can see from prohibition, making anything illegal doesn't work, it just creates more crime.
Yep. I think the best thing may be to just make everything legal.
If a substance causes a person to require either medical attention or to harm others, then they can have the privs revoked, either via incarceration or something else.
If someone wants to shoot up heroin I guess let em.. but if they go to the hospital for it and they can't pay ( like a homeless druggie or something ), then they get taken out of society.
Or if they smoke crack and start raping children because the drugs mess with their mind, they get taken out of society.
The problem here is we already have this with drinking booze and driving, and that doesn't work either. People still drink and drive and kill innocents, and DAs let them off the hook.
What it comes down to is realizing people are flawed and there's no simple, one size fits all, solution. Problem is idiots want it all, zero accountability and maximum assistance.
Keep it in your house. Do it on the streets? Off to jail.
Lots of libertariantard idealists (and that's all libertarianism is - right wing idealism fantasy) have clearly never lived in a fully decriminalized area. You cannot witness the effects, wish to replicate them via voting for the same policy and call yourself sane.
If we outlaw one substance, we should outlaw them all, or we should allow them all. It's this grey area where some drugs are okay but others aren't that is the issue.
I lean toward the other side of the spectrum (allowing all substances for consenting adults). That said, I really respect your thought process. At least you are consistent. It is amusing that people are upvoting the "don't smoke weed" comment while downvoting this comment at the same time.
Food for thought: Tacitus, a Roman senator, once said "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." I personally think that if a law cannot be consistently enforced, it opens up the door for others to selectively enforce power over their opponents. In such a system, the willingly corrupt are more likely to make it to the top.
It should be handled the same as alcohol or any other drug...set a strict age limit and tax the hell out of it. Half the people who smoke weed were kids who thought they were doing something cool and "rebellious" (even though almost everyone tried it - funny how these days "rebellious" means you go with the hivemind.)
Then they got hooked.
If weed is just another one of those things like cigarettes that gross old people buy at the gas station...well, a lot less people are going to smoke it.
I agree! But don't drink either. Don't smoke. Don't have extramarital sex. Don't overeat. Don't gamble. Don't do a lot of things... but why do I get to decide how you live?
If you want to smoke weed in your home with your friends and bother nobody why shouldn't you be able to? Now you get in a car and you're going to fucking jail. But there is nothing in it for me to outlaw the mere use of a drug.
Keep your vice in your home. Do it in public? Off to jail.
Do you have extramarital sex out in public for everyone to watch? Yeah, I am going to tell you how to live and say you can't do that.
If you believe in the concept of criminal law, you adhere to the concept of telling people how to live on some level. Therefore you cannot defer to what you consider moral as a shield from criticism.
So the question is really where we draw moral lines. Lots of people view drugs as immoral, lots don't.
So a drink in front of your home or in your yard is not punishable but if you step on the sidewalk you get 20 years?
Not very logical is it?
Drugs are immoral. There is no question about it. Drugs, smoking, alcohol, it's all immoral. But people are allowed to engage in it's consumption granted they pose no danger to others.
Which is why you can drink a beer walking down the road but if you get drunk you get in trouble. Cause now you are a public nuisance.
Lol no you can basically do it anywhere the law doesn't say otherwise. See again we come to arbitrary legal standards impossed on behavior that could be disruptive in excess.
If law and its application concerning private and public property is arbitrary, then so is every opinion you have ever or will ever have.
Either you agree that it is Constitutional to criminalize certain behavior or you do not. If you agree, then there must be valid cases where behavior can be criminalized. If you say that behavior cannot be criminalized, then you implicitly don't agree that criminal law is Constitutional.
Assuming you do agree that criminality can be legislated, and I fucking hope you do, that then becomes the responsibility of our elected legislators to define the line that separates criminal from non-criminal.
You do not get to say that you can't criminalize this one specific behavior because you happen to like it, unless you wanted to be treated like a child.
Why is it illegal? We aren't talking about what is but about what should. Why is drinking yourself into a fucking liver transplant allowed but not tugging on a blunt?
You don't get to use your AR in criminal ways just because you have a right to own it. Same thing with drugs. Keep them exclusive to your home and there's no issue. Do it in public? Off to jail.
His law created more predators by making more minor crimes heavily punished/felony crimes and once you have a prison record it fucks with your career mightily
It’s not black fathers in prison that was the problem, it was black fathers that didn’t want anything to do with their kids.
Prison was not the only denominator.
As anthony cumia said long ago - You can't blame an absentee for a problem.
Young black men didn't learn violence from a person who was never there. They learn it from their mothers. The female household young black males are raised in is where they learn all of these behaviors.
Black women have very serious anger problems and for decades nobody is allowed to call them out. Even when their own kids kill other people, these women are given a pass.
at least they're killing one another. the only saving grace.
Not only that, but sending young people (who would otherwise be law-abiding outside of drug use) to prison to intermingle with actual, fucked-in-the-head criminals where they're able to learn the "tricks of the trade" so to speak --not a good idea.
I agree. He identified the problem and instead of solving it by refusing to give divorced women and men child benefits to encourage the formation of stable families he focused on locking up people with weed for a decade.
Not wrong about the predators, but wrong to write off so many human beings. There's got to be a better way than locking them in a hellhole for 40 years. Only a true racist can talk like that.
Since when is "breaking the law" a function of race? There's nothing 'racist' about arresting people who break the law. The only racist here is you, for assuming that black people are inherently somehow more criminal.
What I love about these old videos is that we see two things about Joe Biden from them. First it confirms my memory that Joe was an overrated bloviator of the worst kind back in the day. Second and most interesting is you can compare, contrast and see just how severe his cognitive decline is. Today he is a shell of the liar he was then.
Any rate, I’ve made my -- I hate to acknowledge this, gentlemen, but I made my first trip to China as a young man, meeting with Deng Xiaoping in 1979, in April of ’79. I was privileged to be with what I guess I’m now part of, a group of very senior senators at that time. I think we were the first delegation to meet after normalization -- with senators like Jacob Javits of New York, and Frank Church, and a number of other very prominent members.
And on that trip when we met with then Vice Premier Deng and witnessed the changes that were being initiated, beginning to spark China’s remarkable -- absolutely remarkable transformation, even back then it was clear that there was -- that great things were happening. And there was also a debate -- there was a debate here in the United States and quite frankly throughout most of the West as whether a rising China was in the interest of the United States and the wider world. As a young member of a Foreign Relations Committee, I wrote and I said and I believed then what I believe now: That a rising China is a positive, positive development, not only for China but for America and the world writ large.
I came from a broken home and went on to be very successful in my career. My other siblings did not, and did fail miserably, but they never resorted to crime.
This is the major difference.
I came from a broken home. Went to juvy with boys from some actually fucked up homes. I grew up and got my shit together. Many just continued into adulthood. Life is what you make it but some people will never get their shit together.
The President pro tempore of the United States Senate. Or in this specific case, the person standing in for the President pro tempore of the United States Senate at that moment. The person sitting in the big chair, recognizes people to speak, occasionally bangs the gavel. They let randoms do it when they go off to do something else (bathroom breaks, etc...).
Wiki: "Article One, Section Three of the United States Constitution provides that the vice president of the United States is the president of the Senate (despite not being a senator), and mandates that the Senate must choose a president pro tempore to act in the vice president's absence."
I don't know if it's 100%, but generally when Senators speak, they address that person - they generally direct their speech to the President (pro tempore).
I figured the present one was McConnell, but turns out it's Grassley.
So the best part here is Biden is not wrong in what he said...
.... and when the Dems were forced to pass this bill the CRIME RATES IN BIG CITIES were off the charts... go look at 1990 Violent Crime Stats in NYC... THAT is why the Dems reacted with 'super predator' etc..
but now he has to suffer the attacks... for that....
He wasn't wrong back then, but he is now. This is a good example of the Democrat's devolution, loss of common sense that's been replaced with radical ideology, and propagandized mindset that has left them unfit to govern and manage.
We know the KEY common denominator among most violent criminals is that they lack(ed) family structure, supervision, and parental guidance. Of course, BLM wants to dissolve, deconstruct, and dismember the "nuclear family", furthering the strife that guarantees their racket continues in perpetuity.
We need to create incentives for young people to settle into stable families. This is easier said than done. We've done so much the past two generations to push father out of homes or women to see the state as the primary provider. Throw in kids schooled into training centers and countless more things.
Hunter was Sick of Joe getting a big cut of the deals so he said F this I'll expose him by "forgetting my laptop" at the repair shop. This was the only way he could expose his dad without getting a bullet in the head. Hunter is a Trump supporter.
It’s politically expedient to attack Biden for this so I don’t mind, but what he said was correct and if only some Republicand had enough balls to say those things.
The problem is he's saying the complete opposite now because he only cares about stroking Xi's cock for kickbacks and finding some "scientists" who will end social distancing so he can sniff other peoples' children again.
Biden used to be incredibly based. We should bring back 3 strikes, resume the shaming these ghetto baby factories, and build prisons next to high schools. Many of these young men are mentally incapable of a future so just put the prison next to school and make this process effective.
I've watched the urban black community do nothing but cause problems for 40 years. Nothing has changed with them. All the talk and programs and money spent on them was waste.
I think Trump likes to hit 2 fold. I think he said SUPER predators because that's what clinton said. POTUS wants everyone to see more than just the surface.
If you search for a super predator quote your bound to find hillary. Which will make ppl stop and think. Well, rational ppl.
Exactomundo!!! Fact checkers: Biden didn’t call then super predators , that was Hillary ...Joe just called them predators!!! Reeeee
"mostly false" >.>
Deepfake!!!
still weird seeing biden in a sufficent mental state in this clip... like a different person
You give him too much credit.
To be fair she was referring to gang members. There is plenty of in context stuff to produce about her. Wasn’t there a black chef who came out and talked about her berating the staff and calling them all kinds of horrible stuff?
Plus the whole Epstein Island thing. And the server in the bathroom thing. And the Benghazi thing.
The biggest gripe the black community has with her “super predators” remark was the second part, “We have to bring them to heel.” You know, like a dog. They found that particularly dehumanizing.
And now, for a relevant musical interlude: https://youtu.be/wQ4PYVATBac?list=PLcIELBCo3aGfRYGFO5WUrTMvdxwyzjfSF
And then you research this and hear we gotta take them (blacks) out of society which is even worse....
Cancel culture: you’re being paged...
Imagine if trump had said this
https://hooktube.com/watch?v=J5mqIUXppVY
To be fair, he was reading what someone else wrote.
That's true but the media wouldn't be fair about it if Trump read it.
Also true.
Sort of like the Stalin Era KGB: show me the man and I show you the crime.
Look at how Trump and his brother turned out having had an alcoholic father, one become an alcoholic and the other does not touch it and became Prez. Just because you are born into sh*tty circumstances does not make you bad. It would help if someone, like a father, is there to guide them.
Surprised he didn't tell Hans to activate the gas chambers.
Exactly right. He also said Hunter was making $183,000/month in Ukraine. I think the actual number is only $83k but I'd love to see the fact checkers dance around that one.
Trump may have made this error on purpose to get 'corrected'
A few dolts that know it was only "83,000" are going to open up their mouth. "It was 83, not 183". It's like telling the officer you were doing 75 in a 35, not 90 or AntiFA is only an idea.
I'm enjoying watching their optics crumble in front of them.
I can see the Snopes headline now...
That's what I thought last night.
Purposely misquoting Biden with something Hillary or Obama said.
There's no search engine in the world that will link Trump with those words - but Hillary is renowned for saying it.
two birds with one stone
1990s Joe Biden would be cancelled by today's Left.
Just imagine if they realized that even Democrats opposed gay marriage back in the 90's. Whew.
Obama opposed it when he ran in 2008. He only supported it in 2012 because Biden went off script and said so before he was supposed to (not until after the 2012 election)
Edit: Trump is the 1st President to support gay marriage AS A CANDIDATE. Tell that to your dipshit liberal friends and watch their heads explode.
Yea, the term "liberal" has a derogatory connotation now from being associated with leftists for so long that the two are basically interchangeable, much to the chagrin of so-called "classical liberals" who are something else entirely than leftists are. But the way the left demonizes anyone who isn't 100 percent on-board with all of their bullshit, as opposed to merely most of it, its basically impossible to be a classical liberal and find a home anywhere. Hence I'm fine to concede the point but keep using liberal to refer to leftists.
There are many classical liberals here on the Trump Train
Hell, I'm not even sure if i'm a classical liberal or an alt-right bigot at this point
That home is here...
More so than the modern Democrat party for sure
Which I don't understand because Michelle Obama is a man.
I have both of the Pride hats. Wear them when I know I will be hanging out around gay people. Starts discussions.
This is correct. However the first as a candidate AND WIN. Because Hillary other 3rd parties have also supported but lost.
Right, the first PRESIDENT to support as a candidate. The other candidates were never President so they don't count (sorry Hillary! Sucks to suck!)
1980s joe got cancelled for being a plagiarizer.
He is effectively canceled today as well. He is a demented senile puppet who doesn't know where the fuck he is. He's just being dragged around and drugged up for an occasional appearance, as his heart can tolerate the meds.
It's remarkable watching the difference between his speech patterns back then and now. You can't watch this old footage, look at him now, and tell me he's mentally sound in 2020. It's just too blatant.
He could actually speak back then and appears more passionate since he’s expressing his own thoughts instead of the current low battery brain stuttering out what it’s been programmed to say.
own thoughts? not so much.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP0RRhCO0T0
1990's Joe got Slick Willy into his second term resoundedly, because they were supporting the same policies.
Yeah, I don’t disagree with anything 1990’s Joe Biden said in that video.
HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!!! DOUBT THE MESSIAH OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY>>>>
^^^^ This ^^^^^^^
You forget, he IS the Democrat party
It's almost as if he forgot about video and was thinking there was no way someone could have captured everything on a record player..
It really seems like he's just regurgitating talking points from his handlers now. He barely understands the words he's saying. He certainly doesn't remember anything from thirty years ago.
He remembers he’s running for Senate.
It was regurgitation then too... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP0RRhCO0T0
He doesn't seem to remember anything from 30 minutes ago.
A+++++ comment
Doesn't matter, the media won't show people this.
Not gonna lie... he is not wrong... because broken homes are the source of super predators.... but then he went on to write a law that busted college kids for fucking weed with minimal sentencing of several years.
Easy, don't smoke weed.
This.
How hard is it for these kids to just not smoke shit.
I never understood when I was that age, I thought my peers were the bottom of the barrel stupid, turns out, they are, 30 years old and still working as a line cook at McDonald's.
Don't wanna be busted with weed, then don't have weed. It's really that simple. And kids don't need it for medical purposes.
Now grandpa going through chemo? He needs the stuff for sure.
But booze is totally fine? lol
No, booze is the same category for me. I don't understand why anyone wants to drink that nasty shit, and why they want to consume mind altering liquids that make them stupid. I guess they are stupid in the first place for putting such crap in their bodies, so now they are just extra stupid.
I'd support outlawing booze too, but we know how that went... Although I'm sure we have better tracking technology these days to fight it.
I would even extend this to caffeine. It's a stim that prevents people from even being normal without having a daily cup of joe.
Also add corn syrup to the list, it's causing americans to be fat and crave and be addicted to high doses of sugar. We would all be better off if at least sugar was regulated in quantity and only real sugar was allowed and corn syrups outlawed.
I could go on but you get the drift. Mind altering substances outside of medical reasons should be outlawed or extremely regulated more than they already are.
If we outlaw one substance, we should outlaw them all, or we should allow them all. It's this grey area where some drugs are okay but others aren't that is the issue.
Dude humans have been brewing and consuming beer going back literally to the dawn of civilization, with the development of agriculture. It's as old as bread. It's never going away.
Obviously I know that. I never said it was going away, I realize it won't go away, I said I would like it to go away.
I also said the flip side, we shouldn't regulate anything at all and allow all substances and let people make their own free choices on what they want to put into their body, its their body after all. There are already plenty of laws to protect other people and punish them if those said substances cause them to harm other people.
Still, it’s not for everyone. Like pot...
Sounds like you like the government telling you what to do and not do. Fuck that.
You must have missed the part where I said that we should allow everything too. Nice reading comprehension there bro.
It's hard to get through the preaching
I agree that sugar is horrendous and it's causing massive obesity problems.
However, people should have their own freedom to consume whatever they want IMO. The government should not be involved in that. The problem as it relates then to sugar is the power of the food industry and its marketing. Food at this point should be treated how tobacco was in the past 30-40 years or so. Also, I do not fully agree with covering pre-existing conditions related to obesity. You cannot expect to be a fat fuck, get type 2 diabetes, and then modern medicine will save you!
BTW, for context I rarely drink (prob 3 glasses of wine in past year) and eat very clean. I still feel people should have their own choice though. As you can see from prohibition, making anything illegal doesn't work, it just creates more crime.
Yep. I think the best thing may be to just make everything legal.
If a substance causes a person to require either medical attention or to harm others, then they can have the privs revoked, either via incarceration or something else.
If someone wants to shoot up heroin I guess let em.. but if they go to the hospital for it and they can't pay ( like a homeless druggie or something ), then they get taken out of society.
Or if they smoke crack and start raping children because the drugs mess with their mind, they get taken out of society.
The problem here is we already have this with drinking booze and driving, and that doesn't work either. People still drink and drive and kill innocents, and DAs let them off the hook.
What it comes down to is realizing people are flawed and there's no simple, one size fits all, solution. Problem is idiots want it all, zero accountability and maximum assistance.
Keep it in your house. Do it on the streets? Off to jail.
Lots of libertariantard idealists (and that's all libertarianism is - right wing idealism fantasy) have clearly never lived in a fully decriminalized area. You cannot witness the effects, wish to replicate them via voting for the same policy and call yourself sane.
I lean toward the other side of the spectrum (allowing all substances for consenting adults). That said, I really respect your thought process. At least you are consistent. It is amusing that people are upvoting the "don't smoke weed" comment while downvoting this comment at the same time.
Food for thought: Tacitus, a Roman senator, once said "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." I personally think that if a law cannot be consistently enforced, it opens up the door for others to selectively enforce power over their opponents. In such a system, the willingly corrupt are more likely to make it to the top.
Exactly.
It should be handled the same as alcohol or any other drug...set a strict age limit and tax the hell out of it. Half the people who smoke weed were kids who thought they were doing something cool and "rebellious" (even though almost everyone tried it - funny how these days "rebellious" means you go with the hivemind.)
Then they got hooked.
If weed is just another one of those things like cigarettes that gross old people buy at the gas station...well, a lot less people are going to smoke it.
I agree! But don't drink either. Don't smoke. Don't have extramarital sex. Don't overeat. Don't gamble. Don't do a lot of things... but why do I get to decide how you live?
If you want to smoke weed in your home with your friends and bother nobody why shouldn't you be able to? Now you get in a car and you're going to fucking jail. But there is nothing in it for me to outlaw the mere use of a drug.
Keep your vice in your home. Do it in public? Off to jail.
Do you have extramarital sex out in public for everyone to watch? Yeah, I am going to tell you how to live and say you can't do that.
If you believe in the concept of criminal law, you adhere to the concept of telling people how to live on some level. Therefore you cannot defer to what you consider moral as a shield from criticism.
So the question is really where we draw moral lines. Lots of people view drugs as immoral, lots don't.
So a drink in front of your home or in your yard is not punishable but if you step on the sidewalk you get 20 years?
Not very logical is it?
Drugs are immoral. There is no question about it. Drugs, smoking, alcohol, it's all immoral. But people are allowed to engage in it's consumption granted they pose no danger to others.
Which is why you can drink a beer walking down the road but if you get drunk you get in trouble. Cause now you are a public nuisance.
Yes. There is a categorical difference between what you do on your private property and what you do in public. It's not a hard concept.
Only in Vegas can you walk down the road drinking a beer. What are you talking about?
Lol no you can basically do it anywhere the law doesn't say otherwise. See again we come to arbitrary legal standards impossed on behavior that could be disruptive in excess.
If law and its application concerning private and public property is arbitrary, then so is every opinion you have ever or will ever have.
Either you agree that it is Constitutional to criminalize certain behavior or you do not. If you agree, then there must be valid cases where behavior can be criminalized. If you say that behavior cannot be criminalized, then you implicitly don't agree that criminal law is Constitutional.
Assuming you do agree that criminality can be legislated, and I fucking hope you do, that then becomes the responsibility of our elected legislators to define the line that separates criminal from non-criminal.
You do not get to say that you can't criminalize this one specific behavior because you happen to like it, unless you wanted to be treated like a child.
I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't and I don't.
Do you sometimes watch TV instead of working hard? Use the internet in a non-productive way?
None of those are illegal. Smoking dope is, at least in my state.
Why is it illegal? We aren't talking about what is but about what should. Why is drinking yourself into a fucking liver transplant allowed but not tugging on a blunt?
Making something illegal - with life-shattering consequences - doesn't make it bad.
"Easy, don't build an AR" strike you the same way?
You don't get to use your AR in criminal ways just because you have a right to own it. Same thing with drugs. Keep them exclusive to your home and there's no issue. Do it in public? Off to jail.
But if the simple act of owning an AR is criminalized, are you giving it up?
"You don't get to use it in criminal ways" right?
I don't understand your question or the point you're trying to make.
The act of criminalizing ownership of an AR is un-Constitutional. It is not un-Constitutional to criminalize murder.
His law created more predators by making more minor crimes heavily punished/felony crimes and once you have a prison record it fucks with your career mightily
It’s not black fathers in prison that was the problem, it was black fathers that didn’t want anything to do with their kids. Prison was not the only denominator.
As anthony cumia said long ago - You can't blame an absentee for a problem.
Young black men didn't learn violence from a person who was never there. They learn it from their mothers. The female household young black males are raised in is where they learn all of these behaviors.
Black women have very serious anger problems and for decades nobody is allowed to call them out. Even when their own kids kill other people, these women are given a pass.
at least they're killing one another. the only saving grace.
Not only that, but sending young people (who would otherwise be law-abiding outside of drug use) to prison to intermingle with actual, fucked-in-the-head criminals where they're able to learn the "tricks of the trade" so to speak --not a good idea.
I agree. He identified the problem and instead of solving it by refusing to give divorced women and men child benefits to encourage the formation of stable families he focused on locking up people with weed for a decade.
Not wrong about the predators, but wrong to write off so many human beings. There's got to be a better way than locking them in a hellhole for 40 years. Only a true racist can talk like that.
Since when is "breaking the law" a function of race? There's nothing 'racist' about arresting people who break the law. The only racist here is you, for assuming that black people are inherently somehow more criminal.
Their own actions landed them in the position. Nobody scooped up a pack of blacks and said "these ones are going to prison".
something something systemic racism
much lulz
Same with our school systems. I miss the days when a politician would call a spade a spade.
HUNTER IS A TRUMP SUPPORTER AND TURNED THE LAPTOP IN ON PURPOSE CHANGE MY MIND
“WHO’S THE LOSER NOW, DAD!”
Betrayed for 30 pieces of crack
Speaking of Judas... Do we not get a red dinner due to covid?
Biden: I heard this other guy wants to raise my taxes. Cmon man, I'm gettin on the trump trolley..
Kek
Amazing for two reasons:
Really puts things in perspective.
kek
You know he still feels this way but has to pander for votes.
"I am The Democratic Party." -Man who is not The Democratic Party
Wow. It's worse than I remember
They are beyond the pale, many of Joe’s comments.
What I love about these old videos is that we see two things about Joe Biden from them. First it confirms my memory that Joe was an overrated bloviator of the worst kind back in the day. Second and most interesting is you can compare, contrast and see just how severe his cognitive decline is. Today he is a shell of the liar he was then.
Meanwhile, Trump hasn't changed in over 40 years.
The young Biden has the same facial expressions as corey booker.
...sociopath facial expressions.
Beyond the 'pale'? Dog whistle fog horn.
"Cmon man, lighten up"
"It's going to be a dark winter"
Hes right though.
He was right about a lot of things.
I know. As usual they completely over played their hand and created a false reality
This is when the left/right were much closer. They were also tough on illegal aliens crossing our southern border.
Biden got into bed with China in 1979.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/09/remarks-vice-president-joe-biden-opening-session-us-china-strategic-econ
IT'S A LIE, MAN!
I NEVER SAID THAT
Is he wrong tho? Its not like he is talking about locking up innocent people...
No he isn't wrong. But he has flipped and is now actively using that cadre as foot soldiers to turn this country into a hell hole.
Snopes or CNN probably:
FALSE: Joe did not say SUPER predators, only predators.
I think that was Hilldawgs
Snopes and politifact:
False, he didn't use the word super.
When Joe Biden was actually right about something...
Yeah but is he wrong though?
There's plenty of reasons to criticize him. It's not exactly esoteric knowledge that boys from broken homes often become criminals.
I came from a broken home and went on to be very successful in my career. My other siblings did not, and did fail miserably, but they never resorted to crime. This is the major difference.
I came from a broken home. Went to juvy with boys from some actually fucked up homes. I grew up and got my shit together. Many just continued into adulthood. Life is what you make it but some people will never get their shit together.
Who is he talking to when he says madame president?
The President pro tempore of the United States Senate. Or in this specific case, the person standing in for the President pro tempore of the United States Senate at that moment. The person sitting in the big chair, recognizes people to speak, occasionally bangs the gavel. They let randoms do it when they go off to do something else (bathroom breaks, etc...).
Wiki: "Article One, Section Three of the United States Constitution provides that the vice president of the United States is the president of the Senate (despite not being a senator), and mandates that the Senate must choose a president pro tempore to act in the vice president's absence."
I don't know if it's 100%, but generally when Senators speak, they address that person - they generally direct their speech to the President (pro tempore).
I figured the present one was McConnell, but turns out it's Grassley.
Thanks!
That's a good question.
Wow, I hope trump tweets this one as well.
So the best part here is Biden is not wrong in what he said...
.... and when the Dems were forced to pass this bill the CRIME RATES IN BIG CITIES were off the charts... go look at 1990 Violent Crime Stats in NYC... THAT is why the Dems reacted with 'super predator' etc..
but now he has to suffer the attacks... for that....
I love it.
TBH I agree with him.
The dissolution of families, the abandonment of responsibility, and of conscious, has let to the ruin of many your men (and women)
"beyond the pale" now THAT is a dog whistle....
Probably the only thing Biden was ever right about.
He wasn't wrong back then, but he is now. This is a good example of the Democrat's devolution, loss of common sense that's been replaced with radical ideology, and propagandized mindset that has left them unfit to govern and manage.
We know the KEY common denominator among most violent criminals is that they lack(ed) family structure, supervision, and parental guidance. Of course, BLM wants to dissolve, deconstruct, and dismember the "nuclear family", furthering the strife that guarantees their racket continues in perpetuity.
We need to create incentives for young people to settle into stable families. This is easier said than done. We've done so much the past two generations to push father out of homes or women to see the state as the primary provider. Throw in kids schooled into training centers and countless more things.
He needs to Tweet another “here you go Joe”
But they weren't SUPER predators. They were just beyond the pale predators.
CHECK YOUR FACTS
He seemed potent back in the day. When did he lose his brain? Was that just recent? I bet he was a menacing corrupt politician in his hey day.
i actually agree with him
Corn Pop was a super-predator
Hunter was Sick of Joe getting a big cut of the deals so he said F this I'll expose him by "forgetting my laptop" at the repair shop. This was the only way he could expose his dad without getting a bullet in the head. Hunter is a Trump supporter.
Lol, nah drug addicts get really sloppy with covering their tracks. Plus he’s used to being protected.
Yeah he was probably gone of 2 xanny bars and totally forgot
OMG, if no one told me it's creepy, I wouldn't have recognized it. That's what his real eyes look like, before he transitioned to becoming chinese
Joe is right in this case. Most of you are too young to remember the spike in crime in the 80s to the early 90s.
Well...... he isn’t wrong. But it definitely goes against the Democrat narrative these days
Now imagine being the fact checker and arguing that this is mostly false because he only called them predators...
What you want me to like Joe Biden?
Consider how long this person has been in politics.
And only NOW is he going to do something......
It’s politically expedient to attack Biden for this so I don’t mind, but what he said was correct and if only some Republicand had enough balls to say those things.
Absolutely based. Whats the problem?
The problem is he's saying the complete opposite now because he only cares about stroking Xi's cock for kickbacks and finding some "scientists" who will end social distancing so he can sniff other peoples' children again.
Man, I would have voted for him then, what an awesome take.
He’s actually right but even a blind squirrel will eventually find a nut. He’s always sniffed children and peoples wives tho.
He's not wrong
Young joe biden is right
Biden used to be incredibly based. We should bring back 3 strikes, resume the shaming these ghetto baby factories, and build prisons next to high schools. Many of these young men are mentally incapable of a future so just put the prison next to school and make this process effective.
I've watched the urban black community do nothing but cause problems for 40 years. Nothing has changed with them. All the talk and programs and money spent on them was waste.
I kinda like young Joe Biden.
Well, he wasn't wrong. The problem is, they never evenly enforced it.