Shows how many are then ignorant due to the liberal dem major/legacy media, as the Republicans have brought up the vote 13 times and it is the dems/dims who have failed to vote to reopen the government.
#16 | Posted by MSgt

JFC you cultists are such suckers! HAHAHA!!!

A Navy sailor accused of driving drunk and killing two people on a California freeway was granted $1 million bail. In Tennessee, a man who posted a meme quoting Donald Trump spent five weeks in jail on $2 million bail before charges were dropped.

Navy master at arms, Antonio Alcantar, allegedly twice the legal alcohol limit, slammed into 19-year-old De'Veonte Morris, stranded with car trouble, and La Mesa Police Officer Lauren Craven, who had stopped to help.

Craven had been on the force for less than two years. She joined law enforcement after surviving a two-day assault by Hollywood producer David Pearce, who drugged her, kept her sedated on an IV, and raped her. Pearce was sentenced last week to 146 years for assaulting and killing multiple women. Craven turned trauma into service only to die helping someone in need.

Larry Bushart from Tennessee posted a meme of Trump saying "We have to get over it," referencing an Iowa school shooting. Bushart added, "This seems relevant today," in a Facebook group discussing a vigil for Charlie Kirk's assassination.

Local authorities misread it as a school threat and jailed him on $2 million bail, which was twice that of Alcantar, despite no violence or weapons. Charges quietly vanished right before he was released from jail five weeks later.

Two deaths, $1 million bail.

One meme, $2 million bail.

Make it make sense.

The "workaround" undocumented immigrants utilize to NOT DIE is the emergency room, just like regular citizens.

HOT DOG! The cult is on to something here!

it wouldn't have matter what Trump negotiated, the Left would have been against it
#13 | Posted by Maverick

Spoken like a true cultist! You sound so defeated! TACO TACO TACO, cultist!!! HAHAHAHA!

Just a reminder: the Democrats are the real racists.

Sure, it's mostly Republicans flying Confederate flags, defending Confederate statues, and screaming about "heritage, not hate" ... but that's history appreciation, not racism.

See, back in the 1860s, Democrats were the party of slavery. Then, after the Civil Rights Act, all those racist Southern Democrats mysteriously joined ... the Republican Party.

Which obviously means those same Democrats are still responsible for everything bad Republicans do now. That's how accountability works.

So when we protect Confederate monuments, that's actually a progressive act. We're just preserving the history of how racist Democrats used to be, while flying their flag proudly from our trucks.

Anyway, Democrats are the real racists. Please ignore the giant Confederate flag behind me while I say this into a microphone shaped like a bald eagle.

the cities in California started their spiral.
#78 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

You cultists are such suckers! HAHAHAHA!!!

#55 | Posted by snoofy

Food access should be basic, not radical. The fact that "feeding people" still counts as a political statement kinda proves Mamdani's point, doesn't it?

#56 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS

You just quoted my SIL!

But hey, handouts to people needing food, who does this Snoofy guy think he is, Jesus?

#55 | Posted by snoofy

Ummmm....yes?

That's the biggest issue with all this, the average person doesnt have time to navigate this crap. They have to work to pay for it all

#50 | Posted by oneironaut

That's one of the best arguments for single payer healthcare that I've ever heard.

#58 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

The bears are repeating...

Good idea! I went for Dogfish Head. Not sure how available that is on the Left Coast.
#52 | Posted by snoofy

Sierra Nevada Torpedo for me this evening.

#51 | Posted by snoofy

That's a good pull, and you're right! A few cities have opened small, publicly run grocery stores, usually in food deserts where private chains have pulled out. Baldwin, Florida, and St. Paul, Kansas are clearly prime examples.

What makes Mamdani's proposal different is scale and intent. Those cases were isolated stopgaps, IMO. He's talking about a citywide network of publicly operated stores serving everyone! Not one-off responses to local crises.

So yeah, the idea's been tested in miniature, but never as a core part of an urban economic model. That's a distinction with a difference, right?

What am I supposed to be catching on to with that comment?
#49 | Posted by snoofy

PXs aren't open to the general public, only to service members and their families. So while they're technically government-run, they don't qualify as civilian grocery stores.

Mamdani's proposal would be the first time a U.S. city operates that kind of store for everyone.

You drinking IPAs tonight by chance?

Ever been in one? It's closer to a Costco or a Super Wal-Mart. A lot more than just groceries.
#45 | Posted by snoofy

I've never been to one because I am a Regular (*unaffiliated to military) citizen.

You catching on now?

Military wives are civilians, I thought I was kinda driving that point home earlier.
#39 | Posted by snoofy

Regular (*unaffiliated to military) citizens...

Is that good enough for you? If so, maybe opine upon the actual context.

Well, except all those PX's...
#40 | Posted by snoofy

You refer to them as PXs, not grocery stores. Thanks for proving my point.

#36 | Posted by eberly

Yeah, you're right. The ideas themselves already poll well. I meant "popular" in the after-the-fact sense: if he actually made them work, they'd go from being popular talking points to proven policy. That's what scares his critics! Success turns slogans into precedent.

Military housewives seem pretty regular to me. Actually so do enlistees. So I'm not sure what you're getting at.
#35 | Posted by snoofy

The only Americans with access to government-run grocery stores right now are in the military and those affiliated. Extending that model to civilians would be a first in U.S. history. We've subsidized food before, but we've never actually run the grocery stores ourselves.

Everyone in the military gets a government run grocery store called the PX.
#30 | Posted by snoofy

Yet regular citizens don't have access to this. Now you get the point?

Is that how you would describe the opposition to Trump?
#25 | Posted by eberly

The reaction to Mamdani does echo how people responded to Trump in 2016. But the context is totally different.

In 2016, Trump had never held office, and most of the opposition came from people who saw him as corrupt, power-hungry, and obsessed with notoriety (not because they feared his ideas might work). They thought he'd use the presidency to enrich himself and after seeing how things played out, they weren't wrong.

Mamdani's opposition, on the other hand, isn't about personal ethics or corruption. It's ideological. He's pushing for a level of socialism (e.g., rent freezes, city-run groceries, and free public transit, etc.) that's never really been implemented at this scale in the U.S. The fear isn't that he'll fail; it's that he might actually succeed and prove those ideas popular.

That's the key difference. With Trump, people feared the man and his proven corruption. With Mamdani, they fear a movement that could spread if proven to be impactful and popular.

Republicans are terrified by what Mamdanis represents.
#22 | Posted by Alexandrite

They're terrified that he'll get elected and actually improve life for New Yorkers, that his policies might work, making him and his ideas popular.

If they truly believed socialism would fail, they'd be cheering him on. They'd want him to win, to implement those policies, and to watch them backfire, proving once and for all that "socialism" can't work in a city like New York, let alone in America.

But they're not doing that. They're doing the exact opposite and that speaks volumes.

Both Israel and Hamas have accused each other of violating the latest ceasefire agreement as of late October 2025. Israel claims Hamas breached the truce by launching an attack on Israeli forces and by returning remains of a hostage that did not match the agreed terms, which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called a "clear violation" of the agreement. In response, Israel ordered military strikes in Gaza.

Conversely, Hamas asserts that Israel violated the ceasefire, particularly by conducting strikes and other actions they say contravened the agreement's terms. Hamas cited these alleged Israeli violations as the reason for delaying a planned handover of a hostage's remains. As a result, both sides continue to blame each other for undermining the ceasefire, with hostilities and accusations ongoing.

Swallow it, BOAZ.