If you're interested, this is the recent letter the Senate sent to this guy, outlining exactly how unconstitutional it is. It's a very good read, you don't have to be a lawyer to understand it, and it's and not too long:

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/260623_USPS_Absentee_EO_Letter.pdf

And before the "strongly worded letter" crowd jumps on, pre-litigation letters are part of how the Senate conducts business. They're NOT writing this because they think a strongly worded letter will help this hopped-up Trump toadie to find his lost love for democracy, they're writing it in the form of a brief to create the paper trail and set the stage for the individual states to sue the USPS, because constitutionally in the United States the states control elections, not the federal government. The orange chancre is literally trying to override the Constitution with an executive order (again).

The USPS is part of the executive, the Senate is part of the legislative, and the battle between will be in the judicial: because the underlying issue is an election, powers already clearly assigned by the Constitution, much of this particular battle against extreme federal overreach will likely fall to the states to fight in court, or not.

Note the Free Angela shirt. Legend.

If they veto it, or pocket veto it by ignoring it, it takes a larger majority to pass it. I think you are mistaken here.

No, they're right. Trump can't stonewall because that exact clause in the Constitution takes the "ignores it" option off the table.

Read OP's quote again:

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

"They" don't veto anything. The president vetoes. Only him. And even then he either signs it and it is approved, or he returns it to Congress and it is rejected (vetoed), one or the other, within ten days.

That's it. There are no other options, because the clause quoted takes any other option away.

If the president simply does nothing it becomes law, "in like Manner as if he had signed it."

A pocket veto is when the president does not sign it within the ten-day period AND cannot return the bill to Congress because Congress is no longer in session or adjourns within that ten day period.

So how a pocket veto works depends entirely on Congress being in session or not. "They" don't do anything else. The bill now either gets signed or it fails, just like any other bill.

If a bill fails because it is successfully pocket vetoed by Congress' absence during its attempted return, they just leave it as failed and it dies, or they reintroduce it as a normal bill, requiring a normal number of signatures, and again the executive will simply sign it or return it.

So I have no idea where you're getting that more than a simple majority is required to pass a reintroduced bill after a pocket veto, or why this bill would require anything different than usual. If a new bill is reintroduced because this one fails, it will be voted on in the same manner that this one was.

Yeah, that's why I worded it the way I did. For myself, I don't know what to believe; I just figured if I didn't at least nod to the allegations someone would assume a position for me anyway.

And whenever the subject comes up, I can't help but reflect that there is an absolute fuckton of cash involved no matter which direction the truth travels, and the legal burden of proof for historic child abuse claims varies wildly from state to state.

In MJ's case, there are a small number of potential litigants, a massive amount of cash, people who stand to benefit no matter which way the wind blows, not a lot of objective proof for or against, and all of that in a situation already made murky just by the way survivor memory works. In a situation where an offender is very rich, the legal situation can get insane. And I think we've all seen some of that with MJ, with accusations and retractions and family members and settlements.

So I just don't know, but if I had to give a verdict I'd say not guilty. Not just for that but also for what @Art3mis said as well.

There's another reason too. IMO, the one characteristic that never changes in sexual abusers, especially pedos, is the extreme arrogance of entitlement. If you've ever had to deal with one, underneath all the tears and excuses and manufactured outrage they literally believe they have the right to that kid's body.

But Jackson didn't seem self-aggrandizing or entitled at all, especially not about children. Rather, as Art3mis pointed out, MJ was legitimately protective of the children around him.

And given everything he had to say about his own upbringing, he knew for himself what abuse was, and lived the hell of a survivor himself in a number of ways. It just seems more unlikely than not to me that he'd visit any kind of that same survivor hell on the children around him. As you said, MJ locked up his porn: a predator is far more likely to leave it laying around in the open deliberately, to passively normalize the idea of sexuality through the environment for any passing child. That doesn't mean MJ couldn't have done it in other ways, but it's definitely not the typical "I need to find a way to coax this kid into this unwanted activity" predatory behavior.

But either way, for better or worse, I grew up with him. In the first half of the 70s in the US, you literally couldn't turn on a tv and not see him. This is not an exaggeration. He was on every variety show, every performance show, even talk shows, and specials. Oh god so many tv specials, lol. But he had an incredibly sad life in so many ways, they all did.

I see it too. It is impossible to describe how popular he was in this period: he and his brothers were on tv constantly, plus making records and doing Vegas and international tours and promos and whatever else anyone wanted them to do. In the US in the early to mid 70s you literally could not go a week without hearing or seeing a reference to the Jackson 5 and especially Michael.

But what we didn't see at the time is that he and his brothers were effectively slaves, with their dad signing them up wherever he could make a dime out of it while the kids just worked and worked and worked, plus they had to be nice to everyone, could never let their guard down, could never just be kids, could never really personally enjoy any of the money everyone else was making off them at the time. They weren't even allowed any creative say in their earlier records: it was a shut up and sing situation.

So in this picture, Michael was exhausted and his father was still running his life, a relationship he always called physically and emotionally abusive in later years, as did his sister LaToya.

It doesn't excuse whatever he did later in life, but he looks a bit sad and tired probably because he was.

Yeah, OP's dad has probably already gotten instructions to hide anything problematic.

"You know I wouldn't ask you to hide anything from your kids, but don't tell them about this one thing. It'll just upset them and they won't understand how it is for us"

Yep. When the mark turns the tables and becomes the one with the "broken wing" it changes everything.

It's a great way to smoke out people in your life who take up a great deal of your own time and resources, like this scammer, but do not actually give a shit about you: when you are unable to do for them as usual because now it's your own wing that's broken, and could they step up and carry their own weight right now, they clear out entirely and wait to come back when they think you're ready to give again.

The report, produced by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI)

Just one more reason why Bill Pulte has been pushed into this position as "acting" DNI by Trump past unusually strong bipartisan opposition, to the point of canceling the nomination hearing for the real candidate.

This office is really what people should be paying attention to in the coming months, because it's all about the midterms.

For those who are unaware, Bill Pulte is a MAGA loyalist that goes after Trump opponents, and has ZERO knowledge of or experience in national security. As the head of Federal Housing Finance Agency, he is the guy who has been accusing those legitimately investigating Trump (Letitia James, Adam Schiff, etc) of unsubstantiated mortgage fraud.

Expect him to do the same with the ODNI.

When Tulsi Gabbard resigned (or was fired, who knows) another candidate to replace her as DNI was put forward, the Rs and the Ds agreed on him for the most part, and that confirmation hearing was supposed to have happened on Wednesday. It did not. It was canceled at the last second by Trump, allowing Pulte to become "acting" DNI.

While an "acting" DNI has time limits on how long they can "act" without confirmation, that legal end to the "acting" role of DNI comes after the midterms, so this essentially puts Trump's personal bully in the office for the duration of the election season.

Even the Republicans don't want Pulte, and with the Dems they also refused to renew a part of FISA in objection, because the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has access to all the surveillance tools and output this country ever got its hands on.

The consensus is that Bill Pulte is being chosen as DNI for the sole reason of being able to leverage that surveillance against non-favored candidates in the midterms.

Think about that for a hot second. All the surveillance powers of the Five Eyes leveraged against US political candidates that the orange administration doesn't like.

And now we see there's actually a second reason for Pulte's installation: to suppress facts gathered about our voting machines.

EDITED for clarity

Yeah, the Tates, among others, are now in the business of selling training videos on how to become "OnlyFans managers" and trick women into producing content for them. In other words, they're digital pimps. The Guardian just did a big article on it.

That's why the Tates have women on their property to beat up the other women they have there, some imprisoned apparently, who refuse to continue producing content for them. They are literal pimps, but for OF content.

Oh, it's worse than you think. The article doesn't really say much, but if you look for it, it does say this (emphases mine):

Mark Milk, 51, also of Sioux Falls, now faces five counts related to her death. Milk was almost three decades into a life term on a manslaughter conviction when Noem commuted his sentence in 2023.

Milk faces five counts including possession with intent to deliver cocaine that caused Wendel’s death. He is also charged with transportation of a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, according to court documents.

She was fourteen.

https://archive.is/ki4vM

I'm here to talk about the the candidates we have, not the candidates that aren't running.

I read the article but was not really understanding WHY anyone would be opposed to ending it, so I went looking for more information. Turns out the group sponsoring the legislation, Unchained At Last, has its own site, and much more information than is in the article, as well as maps showing how many states have outlawed child marriage altogether, as well as the handful of states where you can be married at 18 but not be legally adult until 21, which is still a form of legal underage marriage.

I had my eyes opened. There is much more information on each of these in the website, but the four reasons they state for needing to end underage marriage are:

Child marriage can easily be forced marriage. The age of majority, when children become legal adults and get the rights of adulthood, is 18 or higher in every U.S. state. Children who have not yet reached the age of majority have limited legal rights and therefore can easily be forced into marriage or forced to stay in a marriage. They face overwhelming legal and practical barriers if they try to leave home to escape a forced marriage, get help from an advocate, enter a domestic violence shelter or retain an attorney. Perhaps most shockingly, children typically are not allowed to initiate a legal proceeding – such as seeking a protective order or even filing for divorce – unless they act through a guardian or other representative. The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights categorizes all child marriage as forced marriage.

Child marriage destroys nearly every aspect of American children’s lives, including their health, education and economic opportunities. It even undermines their physical safety: Individuals in the U.S. who were married before age 18 report high rates of physical, sexual, financial or emotional abuse during their marriage as well as unwanted or unplanned pregnancies.

Child marriage undermines statutory rape laws. In most states and under federal law, sex with a child that would otherwise be considered rape – in some cases, felony rape – becomes legal within marriage. In those situations, the marriage license becomes a “get out of jail free” card for a child rapist.

Child marriage can also be a form of human trafficking. Due to loopholes in immigration laws, thousands of American girls are being trafficked legally for their citizenship, forced to marry adult men from overseas so the men can get a U.S. visa. Similarly, American men are legally importing child brides from overseas.

So now the question becomes one of understanding what's in it for the Republicans in Ohio to leave the situation as-is, and I think that pretty much answers itself. Case closed.

No, that's great. It's the difference between actual policy initiative, which will get real tax dollars and resources thrown behind it, and just something the average MAGA christofascists want, which was never a big secret. This is a relief. Thank you for looking, I really appreciate you taking the time to answer.

project 2025 plans to undo child marriage laws.

I'm pretty familiar with Project 2025, but I don't recall that. The actual Project 2025 manifesto, 🤢 Mandate for Leadership 🤮 mentions marriage in a number of ways, including same-sex and even interracial marriage, but there's nothing in it about child marriage at all that I know of or can find, just a lot of self-righteous hyperbole about cis-het marriage and the family unit being the root of all good, blah blah blah.

I just checked it again to be sure, and yeah, marriage is not ever mentioned adjacent to anything regarding the age of the participants.

I'm not trying to challenge you, they're guilty of almost everything they've ever been accused of and far more that's even worse, but can you tell me where you got that from? Because if they're going to start this too I'd like to know more about it.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator