Page #1
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 ...#94
New Comment Rating: -7 Similar topics: 1.American men? 2.nude 3.Donald Trump 45th President of United States 4.🎆 🇺🇸 HaPpY BiRtHdAy America!! 🇺🇸 🎆 5.The Nobel Peace Prize 🏅 Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
A poll showed that self-identified progressives broke heavily for Becerra, with 39% backing Becerra and only 29% preferring Steyer.
Progressive voters preferred Becerra's decades of institutional experience, specifically his 122 lawsuits defending liberal policies against the first Trump administration, over Steyer's outside corporate outsider platform.
When Swalwell dropped out, tracking polls showed that Becerra was widely viewed as the "least objectionable" second-choice alternative for mainstream Democrats.
A poll (CEPP) also showed that as trailing candidates like Katie Porter lost steam, a higher percentage of their voters strategically migrated to Becerra (37%) rather than Steyer (31%) to prevent a worst-case scenario where two Republicans advanced to November.
Voter trust was the single biggest obstacle Tom Steyer faced, and a widespread skepticism about whether a billionaire hedge fund titan would actually keep his populist, tax-the-rich promises ultimately tanked his campaign.
Current polls show Democrat Xavier Becerra with a commanding, double-digit lead
over Republican Steve Hilton.
As a result, average Americans keep getting poorer, which is also bad for the economy. In New York, the mayor is helping small businesses, which is much better for the incomes of ordinary Americans. Jobs in that sector are also far less vulnerable to the AI transition, than the jobs at Goldman Sachs.
By the way, ChatGPT says it's not true:
The short answer is: no, there is not strong evidence that businesses are leaving New York by the thousands because of Mayor Zohran Mamdani, and Goldman Sachs has not announced that it is leaving New York because of him.
A few important distinctions:
1) Warnings are not the same as departures.
Many business leaders, investors, and CEOs have warned that higher taxes or more regulation could encourage companies or wealthy residents to leave New York. For example, executives such as Jamie Dimon and Ken Griffin have expressed concerns about New York's competitiveness.
2) Goldman Sachs is not leaving New York.
I could not find any credible report that Goldman Sachs has decided to relocate its headquarters or exit New York because of Mamdani. In fact, reports indicate that Goldman CEO David Solomon met with Mamdani as part of an engagement effort rather than announcing a departure.
3) Some finance jobs have been moving to Texas for years.
Banks and financial firms—including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and others—have expanded in places like Dallas and Miami. But that trend began well before Mamdani became mayor and is driven by multiple factors: lower taxes, cheaper real estate, remote work, and business incentives. It would be misleading to attribute all of it to Mamdani.
4) The evidence for a mass exodus is mixed.
Some commentators and business groups claim an exodus is brewing, while others note that predictions of a Wall Street flight have repeatedly failed to materialize and that New York remains the dominant U.S. financial center. Several analyses argue that fears of an immediate business collapse are exaggerated.
New York's 7th Congressional District (Parts of Brooklyn and Queens):
Progressive Winner: Claire Valdez
Endorsed by Zohran Mamdani.
Valdez is a democratic socialist and former United Auto Workers (UAW) labor organizer who campaigned closely alongside Mayor Mamdani.
Defeated Establishment-backed Candidate Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso. Reynoso was the institutional favorite.
New York's 10th Congressional District (Manhattan and Brooklyn):
Progressive Winner: Brad Lander
Endorsed by Zohran Mamdani.
Defeated Establishment-backed two-term incumbent Rep. Dan Goldman. Goldman had strong backing from the Washington establishment, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who actively campaigned against Mamdani’s slate.
New York's 13th Congressional District (Upper Manhattan and the Bronx):
Progressive Winner: Darializa Avila Chevalier
Endorsed by Zohran Mamdani. Chevalier, a democratic socialist community organizer, was Mamdani's most fiercely defended and polarizing pick on the slate.
Defeated AIPAC-backed incumbent, Rep. Adriano Espaillat.
New York's 17th Congressional District:
Combat veteran Cait Conley won the primary to challenge GOP incumbent Mike Lawler. She ran a campaign centered on working-class affordability.
The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) ran their largest-ever coordinated slate on the exact same night for the New York State Legislature. Despite center-left Super PACs spending nearly $10 million to stop them, a wave of progressive challengers won their primaries, including:
- Aber Kawas (State Senate)
- Samantha Kattan (State Assembly)
- David Orkin (State Assembly)
- Eon Huntley (State Assembly)
- Christian Celeste Tate (State Assembly)
- Illapa Sairitupac (State Assembly)
Wanting to stop a genocide and land grabbing is not antisemitic.
(Most) People are not (completely) stupid, people recognize evil when they see it.
They didn't forget 9/11, they just see it done by your side 100x over.
National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir just said: "For every tear shed by an Israeli mother, a thousand Lebanese mothers must weep".
Not even the Nazis had a 1000:1 Retaliation ratio. They had a collective punishment ratio of 100 civilian executions for every German soldier killed by resistance fighters. That means that the Israeli government is TEN TIMES WORSE!!!
If your side didn't want 'that Muslim' coming in, your side could have given citizens
what they are asking for, which is to stop people going desperately poor.
It was Trump's choice to do that. People liked the slogan MAGA, but everyone but you understands now that it was just a stupid fucking lie.
These are Trump's most recent poll ratings:
30% approves
67% disapproves
Trump is stealing from the people and taking it for himself and his wealthy buddies.
He wants to increase the war budget to $ 1.5 TRILLION, after he promised "no more stupid wars!", and then cut their healthcare, education and everything else they need
to survive the modern world. What do you expect? There is a limit to even the stupidity of Americans. Your side has failed them just too fucking much, or they would not be happy to vote for a MUSLIM SOCIALIST!!!
only registered users can see external links
You say you FEEL that you're better off now than you were.
Facts don't care about your feelings. You're duped!
Why do you think that you have more right to rights than other people?
Abortion and reproductive autonomy
• Reinstated policies limiting federal funding for abortion-related services.
• Reversed some Biden-era reproductive health policies.
• Critics argue this reduces women's ability to access abortion, particularly for lower-income patients.
Asylum and immigration protections
• Expanded deportation efforts and narrowed asylum eligibility.
• Critics argue this limits due process and the practical ability to seek refuge in the United States.
Rights of transgender people
• Federal policy has been changed to recognize only male and female biological sex in many contexts.
• Protections and recognition for transgender people have been reduced in areas such as federal documentation, education, and some government programs.
Demonstration and protest rights (particularly on campuses)
• The administration has directed agencies to take stronger action against certain campus protests, especially those connected to allegations of antisemitism, and has supported investigations and immigration consequences for some non-citizen protesters.
• Critics argue these measures chill political expression and assembly protected by the First Amendment, especially when based on political viewpoints. Supporters argue they target unlawful conduct or harassment rather than peaceful protest.
Freedom of the media
• President Trump has continued to publicly attack major news organizations and has pursued policies such as attempting to end federal funding for NPR and PBS, arguing they are politically biased.
• Critics contend these actions, together with lawsuits and regulatory pressure on media organizations, risk undermining press independence and creating a chilling effect, even though no general censorship law has been enacted.
Freedom of lawyers and legal advocacy
• Executive actions have targeted several major law firms by restricting access to government facilities, contracts, or security clearances because of their clients or prior work.
• Many legal scholars and courts have questioned whether these actions infringe First Amendment rights and the independence of the legal profession.
Voting access
• The administration has supported stricter voter eligibility verification measures, including proof-of-citizenship requirements for some registration processes.
• Critics argue these rules could disproportionately burden minority voters, including Black Americans, although they do not explicitly deny voting rights based on race.
Diversity and equal opportunity programs
• Federal DEI initiatives have been dismantled or prohibited in many agencies and grant programs.
• Critics argue this restricts efforts to remedy historical discrimination; supporters argue it removes preferential treatment and restores merit-based decision-making.
Birthright citizenship (attempted)
• The administration sought to limit automatic citizenship for some children born in the United States through executive action.
• The policy faces constitutional challenges and has not been definitively upheld.
Civil service independence
• Reforms have expanded presidential control over parts of the federal bureaucracy and reduced some protections for career officials.
• Critics argue this weakens institutional independence and could discourage dissent within government.
" I see protection of the rights for CITIZENS> and dei is not a right, it's government sponsored racism."
Why do you think that you have more right to rights than other people?
1) Demonstration and protest rights
This directly implicates the First Amendment.
The key debate is whether the administration's actions target unlawful conduct or whether they chill protected speech and assembly.
2) Freedom of the media
Freedom of the press is explicitly protected by the First Amendment.
The disagreement is over whether Trump's actions merely criticize the media or whether government pressure creates a chilling effect.
3) Freedom of lawyers and legal advocacy
This implicates rights of association, petition, due process, and the independence of legal representation.
The legal controversy exists precisely because constitutional rights may be involved.
4) Voting access
Voting is a fundamental right of citizens.
The dispute is not whether voting rights matter, but whether stricter verification requirements are legitimate election-security measures or unjustified barriers.
5) Birthright citizenship (attempted)
Citizenship itself is one of the most fundamental legal statuses in the US.
Trump is trying to turn CITIZENS into immigrants.
You once supported completely unlimited freedom of speech and now you are OK with taking away the rights of media that you consider biased. Previously you were OK with your media verifiably lying, and now you want unbiased media?
I say you're gaslighting; you see that there is someone in power now who can crush the speech of the other side, so you flip from your original position.
You keep saying "for me". You're not the only American CITIZEN.
Women, protesters, everyone using the media, everyone voting
and every American who needs a lawyer is a CITIZEN too.
How many lawyers does your president need?
I'm asking you for the third time:
Why do you think that you have more right to rights than other people?
If 'people' is too broad for you, OK limit it to 'citizens'.
Obviously, you think that non-citizens aren't people who deserve rights.
Your Constitution says otherwise, but we both know you don't care.
At least Republicans have stopped pretending they care about the Constitution.
There is a limit to gaslighting that even your side thinks is too much.
Democrats are citizens too. If you think they should lose their rights, don't cry when they take your rights, when they are in power again.
You're making yourself stupid by doing it, but that's your right.
I don't like either liberal media or right-wing media, I want OBJECTIVE media. There is less of it every day, because you let corporations and wealthy people buy up all the media, which means that they turn into propaganda for the wealthy.
If you are referring to media which has been shut down by algorithms like google, you're talking about the worst misinformation that ever existed. Regular right-wing nonsense gets incredible preferential treatment by Google, YouTube and Facebook. The algorithms actively suppress left-wing ideas, no matter how factual they are.
Anyway, that's not Government censorship, that's corporations deciding what they like to prop up and cut off.
as the objective truth. Being unbiased doesn't mean being neutral,
it means being OBJECTIVE.
There is only one truth, and you recognize it by using rationality;
recognizing facts, based on evidence, then using logical reasoning
to come to correct conclusions.
Your media doesn't do any of it. They just train you to trust them
and then fill your head with ideas that they want you to believe.
Your 'liberal' media is already worse than anything we have,
but your right-wing media is at the level of Russian propaganda.
Biden can be praised for listening to experts and signing the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in 2022, allowing a historic release of oil from the SPR in 2022 to temporarily cool soaring gasoline prices, and allowing the Federal Reserve to aggressively raise interest rates to cool demand. The last was a difficult decision, because it didn't make him popular, but it was necessary according to the experts.
Trump can be criticized for raising inflation, by starting a tariff trade-war, that most experts were warning against. Tariffs can be a legitimate tool against unfair competition. However, Trump turned them into a blunt instrument and starting a trade war that resulted in exploding costs of living for Americans, retaliatory tariffs against U.S. exports, billions in farm bailouts, and increased economic uncertainty.
And when a president repeatedly makes market-moving announcements in an unpredictable way, while unusually well-timed trades appear around some of those announcements, people are inevitably going to ask who knew what and when.
There is no publicly proven insider trading by Trump or his family (yet), but he created
exactly the kind of opaque, volatility-driven environment that invites those suspicions.
You really think you are better off than if Harris had won? If you do you are blind to reality
No new wars? Well gee, the situation in 1979 was never really resolved, and Iran sponsors terror, there has been a literal war on terror since 2001 , oh i know, you have forgot about that. anyway, far as I am concerned the war on terror was already in effect and Trump is trying to stop it at the funding source. I was just in a discussion with a local farmer about cost of fertlyzer and how it was stuck in the strait of hurmuz due to iran. now that maybe it's open again, cost can come down. 1 nation does not need to be in a position to stop the world economy like that.
and he promised to not start wars like that.
You can try to defend it, but he broke that promise.
And he broke several more promises.
Unlike Democrats who break promises, Trump didn't even try to keep his',
he actively did the opposite of what he promised.
In any case, his war with Iran is your worst failure in decades.
He didn't achieve ANYTHING that he presented as goals for it.
Your own words show Trump's utter incompetence.
Trump did NOTHING to prevent Iran from having nukes.
He only showed them that they desperately need them, for self defense.
Are the Iranian people freed of their dictatorship? NO!
Are we sure that Iran doesn't make nukes? LESS SO!
Trump is now negotiating with the very people he taught not to trust him.
Trump killed Iran's pragmatists and strengthened the hardliners who argued
that America could never be trusted.
The very Iranians who dreamed of freedom and looked to America for help, have buried family and friends, watched hope give way to fear, and may emerge from this crisis less free, more fearful, and more distrustful of the United States, than ever.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the criterion is "which arrangement appears better for preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon?", then most nonproliferation experts would currently rate the 2015 JCPOA's published verification regime as stronger and more proven than the publicly known terms of the 2026 framework, because the newer framework's inspection and enforcement details are not yet fully public.
🟩 = Better for Western nuclear security
🟥 = Worse for Western nuclear security
1) Nuclear inspections and verification
🟩 Obama JCPOA (2015):
Extensive monitoring by the IAEA.
Continuous surveillance of key nuclear facilities.
Detailed procedures for investigating suspicious activities.
Verification provisions were written into the agreement.
🟥 Trump Framework (2026):
Publicly known inspection provisions are less detailed.
Many verification mechanisms are still being negotiated or have not been released publicly.
It is not yet clear whether inspections will be as intrusive as under the JCPOA.
2) Limits on uranium enrichment
🟩 Obama JCPOA (2015):
Enrichment capped at low levels suitable for civilian use.
Clear numerical limits on enrichment and stockpiles.
Breakout time (time needed to produce bomb fuel) was significantly extended.
🟥 Trump Framework (2026):
Public descriptions have been inconsistent regarding whether Iran may retain any enrichment capability.
Final enrichment limits are not yet fully defined publicly.
3) Limits on enriched uranium stockpiles
🟩 Obama JCPOA (2015):
Strict caps on how much enriched uranium Iran could possess.
Excess material had to be shipped out or diluted.
🟥 Trump Framework (2026):
Discussions include reducing or removing highly enriched stockpiles.
Publicly available details are less specific and less developed.
4) Confidence that Iran is not secretly building a bomb
🟩 Obama JCPOA (2015):
Relied on a large inspection and monitoring infrastructure.
Created a structured system for detecting violations.
🟥 Trump Framework (2026):
There is currently less publicly available information demonstrating an equivalent monitoring system.
Confidence depends heavily on provisions that have not yet been fully disclosed.
5) Economic concessions to Iran
🟩 Obama JCPOA (2015):
Sanctions relief was phased and linked to verified compliance.
Benefits were tied to specific nuclear obligations.
🟥 Trump Framework (2026):
Potentially larger economic benefits, including discussion of a fund reportedly around $300 billion and broader sanctions relief.
Critics argue this provides more upfront leverage to Iran for fewer publicly known nuclear restrictions.
6) Ballistic missiles
🟨 Obama JCPOA (2015):
Did not eliminate Iran's missile force.
Missile restrictions were mostly handled through separate UN measures.
🟨 Trump Framework (2026):
Does not appear to require immediate dismantlement of Iran's missile arsenal.
Future missile limits may be negotiated.
Result: Roughly a tie from a nuclear-safety perspective.
7) Overall nuclear safeguards
🟩 Obama JCPOA (2015):
Fully negotiated.
Detailed technical annexes.
Years of implementation experience.
Clear verification architecture.
🟥 Trump Framework (2026):
Still evolving.
Many key technical details remain unclear.
Public information does not yet show safeguards that are demonstrably stronger than the JCPOA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall score (nuclear-security perspective only)
Obama JCPOA (2015):
🟩 Inspections
🟩 Enrichment limits
🟩 Stockpile limits
🟩 Verification confidence
🟩 Compliance-linked sanctions relief
🟨 Missiles
Trump Framework (2026):
🟥 Inspections
🟥 Enrichment clarity
🟥 Stockpile controls
🟥 Verification confidence
🟥 Economic concessions
🟨 Missiles
Um, you would think AI would be trained to be unbiased but no,even it leans left, now how is a young person wanting to learn and understand politics going to get a good understanding of both sides when the tool used the most nowadays for answers is left leaning?
The right is completely preoccupied with nonsense and lies.
AI is logical, that is why Elon is struggling so much to turn it right-wing.
Understand that the passive income of a trillion dollars is $137 million per DAY. That means that he can buy 350 average American houses per DAY. He is not doing that, he prefers to buy companies, which increase his influence in the world. Other multi-billionaires are indeed buying houses and farms.
Just six years ago, the wealthiest man in the world was Jeff Bezos. He owned $100 billion in assets. Today, the wealthiest man in the world owns at least TEN TIMES as much.
Did your wealth grow by ten times in the last six years?
In another six years, will the wealthiest man in the world own $ 10 trillion?
And 12 years from now? Will the wealthiest man in the world then own 100 trillion dollars?
The total value of everything in the US is estimated to be around 200 trillion dollars.
When do you think this will be owned by just a few wealthy men?
What will become of you, if everything in your country is owned by a few wealthy men?
Do you understand the power that they will hold over you?
Slaves had plenty of jobs too. Under feudalism, people worked 10-14 hrs/day
and were still starving and dying from the common cold.
People escaped their exploitation by resisting it.
You are doing the opposite.
They are not MAKING that kind of money, they are EXTRACTING IT.
People like you are turning everything into wealth transfer to the 0.1%.
You are defending a guy becoming a trillionaire from electric cars and space,
which are things that you considered completely useless before, and is funded
by tax-dollars for a big chunk.
liberals and lefties would not vote for him.
You voted in the most crooked president ever.
The result is that your president is doing the bidding of Putin and Netanyahu,
because YOU voted in a president who can be blackmailed easily.
It's not America first, it's Russia, Israel and Trump's money first.
America comes dead last in his priorities, and it shows.
-The Globe and Mail
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
This will help Jewish New Yorkers through prevention, victim support, education, community partnerships, and coordination across agencies, rather than primarily through increased policing.
Some examples of what the city's hate-crime prevention offices already do:
- Work with Jewish organizations and other community groups to identify threats and respond to incidents.
- Support victims of antisemitic incidents and improve reporting of hate crimes.
- Fund community projects, interfaith initiatives, and educational programs intended to reduce antisemitism and other forms of bias before they escalate into crimes.
- Coordinate responses among agencies such as the NYPD, Commission on Human Rights, schools, and district attorneys.
- Improve hate-crime data collection, training, and outreach to communities that may underreport incidents.
Mamdani explicitly justified the increase by noting that Jewish New Yorkers suffer a disproportionate share of the city's hate crimes.
You are the one voting in the fascists. Your president is literally quoting Hitler, dining with Nazis, retweeting KKK-propaganda and calling neo-Nazis "fine people". They are little busy with putting immigrants in concentration camps, reinstating Jim Crow laws and planning criminalization of gays, but they will surely get back to killing Jews, as soon as they have created the promised land. They don't believe that the promised land belongs to the Jews, it's intended for Christians, after the Rapture.
New Comment Go to top