Kamala's new latest bizarre line of attack: Donnie will ban your porn

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, reason10 said:

Homework: READ PROJECT  2025.

Here it is.

https://www.project2025.org/policy/

Each heading is a PDF download. They have different authors.

The PDFs are very long, and almost Masters Degree dense, so you might not get very far with your blue state second grade edumacation.

I guarantee you LEGALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT TRUMP has not read it. He just doesn't have the time.

Anyway, do your homework and QUIT LYING ABOUT THINGS YOUR UNEDUCATED ASS KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT.

You'll understand when those people are re-hired to work in Trump's WH IF he's re-elected.

Until then, it is perfectly logical to hang Project 2025 on Trump AND his CRONIES.

Trump doesn't need to read it when he'll have the authors on the WH payroll. Duh

[SkyHigh]

1 hour ago, West said:

Who's that? 

Really?

[West]

5 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Really?

Be specific 

[SkyHigh]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

There's many. Usually i only provide cites when the info is going to be hard to find but in the spirit of cooperation i'll provide a few this time

Kamala Harris's husband had affair with children's nanny - The Jerusalem Post (jpost.com)

and for the girl beating

Everything We Know About The Allegations Against Kamala Harris' Husband Doug Emhoff (thelist.com)

Now, as I said I really don't think this kind of thing is relevant to the presidential race. This is hardly the first case of someone cheating on a spouse. Kamala herself was the other woman for a number of years and got massive benefits from it so how is this worse? I just don't think this should be part of the dialogue.

But I think I would say the same thing about a lot of the stuff that has been brought up about trump where someone that worked for him had an affair or is accused of something sexual and somehow that makes him a bad person and it's reported in every major media source. There's a number of examples including the one in this thread.

So my question is why is it front page news if it involves trump, but it's radio silence when it involves harris?

As far as the accusations themselves, they are from the Daily Mail and even Fox News says they can't confirm them(he also denied hitting that girl and an affair between consenting adults, I don't think either of us care), but for the sake of argument I'll grant it 

My post was addressing the double standard in using the bad people on the other side (whichever side that may be) without admitting that their side has just as many bad people. The same people that would call Trump a fascist or Harris a Marxist 

So, yes if proved credible, it just most certainly should be front page news. 

True journalism should be as unbiased as humanly possible.

As well, Trump is partially responsible The man is all style no substance, all form no function. If he focused more on actual policies he wouldn't be such a target for the irrelevant stuff. I do think his die hard supporters secretly like that, so they don't have to look at the glaring professional deficiencies he has, that break the idea of Trump he has crafted. The man is a brilliant self promoter, shameless but brilliant 

[SkyHigh]

27 minutes ago, West said:

Be specific 

Robert Morris 

[gatomontes99]

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

False. That's why you gave us a naked link instead of quoting some relevant passage. Nice try.🙄

A private sale simply means between parties who are not FFLs or participating in a gun show. 

If you want to throw your whole collection on Craigslist and conduct an undocumented sale in the parking lot of the local dive bar, that's fine and dandy in Texas.

But the state forces you to show your papers to consume free speech media. Freedumb!

 

It can't be a private sale if it is for profit or for more than a small amount of guns. You example presumed for profit and a large amount of guns. Stop acting like a little brat when you get proven wrong. Man up for once in your life.

[Hodad]

Just now, gatomontes99 said:

It can't be a private sale if it is for profit or for more than a small amount of guns. You example presumed for profit and a large amount of guns. Stop acting like a little brat when you get proven wrong. Man up for once in your life.

Again, false. You are just lying to our faces. Brazenly.

Cite the law or just STFU and slink away.

[gatomontes99]

4 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Again, false. You are just lying to our faces. Brazenly.

Cite the law or just STFU and slink away.

I gave you the information. Why do you waste my time like this? It was all in that link.

18 USC 922

Quote

Q: What does it mean to be “engaged in the business of dealing in firearms”?
A: Under federal law at 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(C), a person engaged in the
business of dealing in firearms is a person who “devotes time, attention
and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business to
predominantly earn a profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of
firearms.” In 2022, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) revised
this intent language to replace “with the principal objective of livelihood and
profit” with “to predominately earn a profit.”
Section 921, as amended by BSCA, defines the term “to predominantly earn
a profit” to mean “the intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is
predominantly one of obtaining pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents,
such as improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection.” 18 U.S.C. §
921(a)(22). Section 921 explicitly provides, however, that the term “engaged in
the business,” as it applies to a dealer of firearms, does not include a person
who only “makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for
the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or
part of his personal collection of firearms.” 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(C).
 

: What if I only sell firearms at flea markets, gun shows, or over the
Internet?
A: A person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms regardless
of the location in which firearms transactions are conducted, including
where the person conducts firearms transactions only from a location other
than a traditional brick-and-mortar store.
Many licensed gun dealers conduct business at temporary locations
such as qualified gun shows or events and utilize the Internet to facilitate
firearms transactions. The question under federal law is not where firearms
transactions are conducted, but rather, whether— under a totality of the
circumstances— the person conducting those transactions is engaged
in the business of dealing in firearms. The factors listed in the Guidance
section below apply to that determination regardless of where the firearms
transactions occur.

 

[Hodad]

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

I gave you the information. Why do you waste my time like this? It was all in that link.

18 USC 922

 

Yep, as expected, you can't cite a law to back up your claim. Instead you cite some sort of FAQ, which also confirms that I am correct. Try reading what you post.

There is no limit to the number of guns in a transaction that would make one a dealer. Nor are there bright lines for frequency of transaction. 

Indeed, a private seller could sell a pile of guns from the trunk of his car without so much as asking to see ID. 

Indeed, a buyer could buy a pile of guns from the trunk of a car without so much as showing ID. 

And no laws would have been broken. 

 

This is the same information I gave you several posts ago. If you are concerned about wasting time while trying to support your bogus claims, then maybe just zip your lips when you don't know what you're talking about. It would be dramatically "quieter" around here. 

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, West said:

A good book for you to pick up would be this one

https://www.amazon.ca/Shepherds-Sale-Evangelical-Leaders-Leftist/dp/0063413442

Evangelicals make up roughly 30% of the voter block in the United States. There's big money involved in targeting that group from leftists whether that be to infiltrate the Southern Baptist Convention, seminarian, National Association of Evangelicals, paying off influencers like Billy Graham's grandkids at Christianity Today, and the use of "astroturf campaigns" (which are groups meant to seem grassroots for leftists causes in the churches but are really heavily funded by outside influence). 

The American Evangelical church is being run through by the Marxists much the same way that the media or academia has been. 

It's really eye opening when you see how much cash is floating in all aspects of society to brainwash the masses. 

There is one thing that the leftists are considerably better at than the rightists and that would be organizing. It makes sense, the fundamental nature of a socialistic person is to gather together in order to inflict their will. The fundamental nature of a right winger is for government and everyone else to leave them the hell alone and let them get on with their life.

It's against our fundamental nature to want to go to other groups and take them over. It requires a very conscious effort on our part to do so and we don't like it and that's true in Canada or America.

Where is the left can't help itself. Organizing to oppress their enemies is like breakfast cereal to them.

[gatomontes99]

9 hours ago, Hodad said:

Yep, as expected, you can't cite a law to back up your claim. Instead you cite some sort of FAQ, which also confirms that I am correct. Try reading what you post.

There is no limit to the number of guns in a transaction that would make one a dealer. Nor are there bright lines for frequency of transaction. 

Indeed, a private seller could sell a pile of guns from the trunk of his car without so much as asking to see ID. 

Indeed, a buyer could buy a pile of guns from the trunk of a car without so much as showing ID. 

And no laws would have been broken. 

 

This is the same information I gave you several posts ago. If you are concerned about wasting time while trying to support your bogus claims, then maybe just zip your lips when you don't know what you're talking about. It would be dramatically "quieter" around here. 

I literally posted the code. The FAQ was to put it in language you can understand.

[Hodad]

1 minute ago, gatomontes99 said:

I literally posted the code. The FAQ was to put it in language you can understand.

Neither of which say what you wish and pretend they say. lol   -- I'm not the one with an "understanding" problem here. But you have a very vivid imagination.

You cannot point to any law (or any FAQ) that supports your claim. 

Again, it's totally legal in Texas to buy a pile of guns out of the trunk of a car without even showing ID. 

[CdnFox]

16 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

 

My post was addressing the double standard in using the bad people on the other side (whichever side that may be) without admitting that their side has just as many bad people. The same people that would call Trump a fascist or Harris a Marxist 

So, yes if proved credible, it just most certainly should be front page news. 

True journalism should be as unbiased as humanly possible.

 

Should it though? Obviously you and i  both agree that it should be balanced. Either both sides should be front page when this kind of thing happens or neither side, we agree that it should be balanced. But I would argue that this is nothing more than a distraction.

Why do we care what Kamala Harris's husband did in the past? He's not running for pres.  Why do we care what a former trump advisor did unless he did it at the direction of trump\? 

Seriously, when was the last time you went into a job interview and they said " Well you seem really qualified but we need to know whether you're former plumber has any wrongdoings" Or " Your experience is excellent but we need to know how reliable your wife is"

The united states is looking at hiring Donald Trump or Kamala Harris. God knows both of them have enough wrongdoings between them to keep the media interested and there shouldn't be any need for digging up whether their second cousin twice removes former roommate cheated on their taxes or made an inappropriate social media post.

In Canada you don't tend to see that as much. It's kind of an unwritten rule that we're not talking about the candidates family or the like. On the rare occasions when the media does bring it up it tends to get shot down pretty quick and the media basically gets told to ignore it. The only case I can even think of anytime recently was rob ford's daughter making comments, or possibly Justin Trudeau's wife leaving him and shacking up with another guy but even then it was barely talked about and then Gone

I don't know, maybe you have a different perspective and feel it is relevant to the political conversation but I really feel like it absolutely is not and just distracts from the real issues. I swear to god these days it feels like the point of an election isn't to determine who the best person is for the job and discuss the issues but rather to do everything other than that

Edited October 15, 2024 by CdnFox

[gatomontes99]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Neither of which say what you wish and pretend they say. lol   -- I'm not the one with an "understanding" problem here. But you have a very vivid imagination.

You cannot point to any law (or any FAQ) that supports your claim. 

Again, it's totally legal in Texas to buy a pile of guns out of the trunk of a car without even showing ID. 

Everything younneeded was and is there. You just choose to ignore it. That's on you.

[User]

On 10/14/2024 at 6:54 AM, Hodad said:

In ass-backward Texas the bible thumpers will force citizens to show verifiable (and therefore trackable) ID to look at naked people online.

But you can buy a pile of guns out of the trunk of some guy's car without so much as a library card. 

What a stupid comparison. 

The purpose of the ID law is to prevent minors from accessing porn online as an online website has no possible way to filter out content being given to minors without it and they certainly are not enforcing it on themselves. 

It is unlawful to sell firearms to a minor in Texas. This applies to individual sales. A person making the sale is interacting with someone and can more easily see if they are a minor or not. 

 

[SkyHigh]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Should it though? Obviously you and i  both agree that it should be balanced. Either both sides should be front page when this kind of thing happens or neither side, we agree that it should be balanced. But I would argue that this is nothing more than a distraction.

Why do we care what Kamala Harris's husband did in the past? He's not running for pres.  Why do we care what a former trump advisor did unless he did it at the direction of trump\? 

Seriously, when was the last time you went into a job interview and they said " Well you seem really qualified but we need to know whether you're former plumber has any wrongdoings" Or " Your experience is excellent but we need to know how reliable your wife is"

The united states is looking at hiring Donald Trump or Kamala Harris. God knows both of them have enough wrongdoings between them to keep the media interested and there shouldn't be any need for digging up whether their second cousin twice removes former roommate cheated on their taxes or made an inappropriate social media post.

In Canada you don't tend to see that as much. It's kind of an unwritten rule that we're not talking about the candidates family or the like. On the rare occasions when the media does bring it up it tends to get shot down pretty quick and the media basically gets told to ignore it. The only case I can even think of anytime recently was rob ford's daughter making comments, or possibly Justin Trudeau's wife leaving him and shacking up with another guy but even then it was barely talked about and then Gone

I don't know, maybe you have a different perspective and feel it is relevant to the political conversation but I really feel like it absolutely is not and just distracts from the real issues. I swear to god these days it feels like the point of an election isn't to determine who the best person is for the job and discuss the issues but rather to do everything other than that

I agree 100%, well 99, or 100 with a small caveat.

When aspiring to be "leader of the free world" who one chooses to surround themselves with should be in some very small way (like way down on the priority list) considered in the balance 

Also, I very much enjoyed the Spaceballs shout out, but please don't mention my plumber, I'm not legally permitted to speak about it. Hahahaha 

[CdnFox]

39 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

I agree 100%, well 99, or 100 with a small caveat.

When aspiring to be "leader of the free world" who one chooses to surround themselves with should be in some very small way (like way down on the priority list) considered in the balance 

 

Well I can see the argument that if you know with certainty that somebody is a pedophile or the like and you choose to work with them anyway without acknowledging that or taking it into consideration but it may reflect on you a little bit. But I still come back to the idea that I've never asked my doctor if her husband ever cheated on her or hit anyone. And while I can see why people would consider it interesting and therefore news agencies would want to report on it for the clicks I just feel it's something that distracts from the actual political discourse. And let's face it we already have a problem there, how much of all of the stuff that's going on in this election actually involved genuine discussions of the policies or platforms? Like maybe 2%

Quote

Also, I very much enjoyed the Spaceballs shout out, but please don't mention my plumber, I'm not legally permitted to speak about it. Hahahaha 

LOL  

[SkyHigh]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well I can see the argument that if you know with certainty that somebody is a pedophile or the like and you choose to work with them anyway without acknowledging that or taking it into consideration but it may reflect on you a little bit. But I still come back to the idea that I've never asked my doctor if her husband ever cheated on her or hit anyone. And while I can see why people would consider it interesting and therefore news agencies would want to report on it for the clicks I just feel it's something that distracts from the actual political discourse. And let's face it we already have a problem there, how much of all of the stuff that's going on in this election actually involved genuine discussions of the policies or platforms? Like maybe 2%

LOL  

You'll get no argument from.

I will reiterate for the purposes of clarity, I was just saying that the standard we apply to those seeking that high of an office should be higher 

[Hodad]

4 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Everything younneeded was and is there. You just choose to ignore it. That's on you.

Indeed, everything I needed is there. 

Everything YOU needed is not. In fact, it directly contradicts your bogus claim. You can stop digging any time. 

Edited October 15, 2024 by Hodad

[User]

19 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Indeed, everything I needed is indeed there. 

Everything YOU needed is not. In fact, it directly contradicts your bogus claim. You can stop digging any time. 

Let's get to the point here. Do you want Children looking at porn online and oppose efforts like this to prevent them from doing so?

It sure seems like you want children looking at porn.