I wonder that too. In actually a little surprised they weren’t mobilized against the protesters. Though, in some ways this also protects ICE from protestors.

Truthout is on the more liberal side of the scale I think. The more socialist and communist publications use words like ‘stolen’.

Who is “we” in this sentence?

Hmm, yeah this is an odd post. I’ll remove it.

They do: https://news.abolish.capital/comment/2838

Democrats can never fail, they can only be failed.

Funny that you leave the Israel bit out of your post:

• Line 8110‑8122: “© Israel.–Of the funds appropriated by this Act under the heading ‘Foreign Military Financing Program’, not less than $3,300,000,000 shall be available for grants only for Israel: … grants made available for Israel under this heading shall, as agreed by the United States and Israel, be available for advanced weapons systems, of which not less than $250,300,000 shall be available for the procurement in Israel of defense articles and defense services, including research and development.”
• The $3.3 billion is part of the Foreign Military Financing Program.
• The bill explicitly states funds are for “advanced weapons systems.”
• Disbursement must occur within 30 days of enactment.

Absolutely no justification to state it “opposes Palestinian statehood”. This is just to make phoney fucking progressives feel better about abandoning Palestinians to “stick to it the man” and let Trump win. No, you’re still fucking monsters. Again, it funds the State Department, it does not specify policy.

• Line 7777‑7782: “Sec. 7037. (a) Limitation on Assistance.–None of the funds appropriated under titles III through VI of this Act may be provided to support a Palestinian state unless the Secretary of State determines and certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that…”
• Line 8234‑8250: “None of the funds appropriated under the heading ‘National Security Investment Programs’ in this Act may be made available for assistance for the Palestinian Authority, if after the date of enactment of this Act-- (I) the Palestinians obtain the same standing as member states or full membership as a state in the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof outside an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians…”
• The restriction applies only to specific funding headings (titles III‑VI and ‘National Security Investment Programs’), not all U.S. assistance.
• A waiver is available if the Secretary of State certifies that a waiver is in the national security interest.
• The bill also includes a separate limitation on supporting a Palestinian state absent certification of conditions.
• See also Section 7037 (lines 7777‑7810) for additional statehood conditions.

Funny you don’t mention China in your post:

• Line 8588‑8598: “Countering prc influence fund.–Of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act under the headings ‘National Security Investment Programs’, ‘International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement’, ‘Nonproliferation, Anti‑terrorism, Demining and Related Programs’, and ‘Foreign Military Financing Program’, not less than $400,000,000 shall be made available for a Countering PRC Influence Fund to counter the influence of the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party and entities acting on their behalf globally…”
• The fund is explicitly named “Countering PRC Influence Fund.”
• Up to 10% may be held in reserve for unanticipated opportunities.
• Funds may be transferred among specified headings.

Cutting or restricting money to the UN, specifically Peacekeeping:

• Line 4411‑4415: Appropriates $1,389,152,000 for “Contributions to International Organizations” (includes UN regular budget).
• Line 4439‑4442: Appropriates $1,230,667,000 for “Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities.”
• Line 4423‑4425: Requires notification and offsetting decrease for any UN action to increase funding for any UN program.
• Line 4430‑4433: Prohibits funds for U.S. share of interest costs on loans incurred after 1984.
• Additional peacekeeping conditions in lines 4443‑4465.

Funny you don’t mention the Pro-Life protections either:

• Line 2830‑2835: Hyde Amendment restrictions: No funds shall be used to pay for an abortion, except where the life of the mother is endangered, or pregnancy results from rape or incest.
• Line 3410: Prohibition on requiring coverage of abortion or abortion‑related services.
• Line 4041‑4042: Exception for life of mother or rape/incest.
• Line 4834‑4847: Restrictions on funding for coercive abortion, prohibition against abortion as a method of family planning.
• Line 4891: Requirement to provide information about all pregnancy options.
• Line 6412‑6431: Prohibition on funding for abortions and involuntary sterilization.
• Line 6770: Preservation of existing statutory prohibitions against abortion.
• Line 9770: UNFPA does not fund abortions.
• These provisions are standard riders in annual appropriations bills.
• They restrict the use of U.S. funds for abortion‑related activities both domestically and internationally.
• Multiple sections throughout the bill reinforce abortion funding restrictions.

The “Christian Nationalism” section is likely related to this. Do you really think these fucking shitheads would write “Christian Nationalism” in a budget appropriations document?

• Line 7241‑7244: “not less than $40,000,000 shall be made available for international religious freedom programs” under headings ‘National Security Investment Programs’ and ‘Democracy Fund’.
• Line 9198‑9199: “$15,000,000 shall be made available for democracy and religious freedom programs for Nicaragua.”
• Line 4707‑4713: Funding for United States Commission on International Religious Freedom.
• Line 7254‑7259: Humanitarian assistance for persecuted religious minorities. -Section 7033 (lines 7234‑7260) outlines the International Religious Freedom Office and programs.

This might be a generous interpretation, but considering Christian Nationalists currently run the government, what could religious freedom mean?

“eliminating DEI” is the only unverified claim, but these others are pretty damning already.

But go ahead, keep voting blue no matter who.

Yes, you are making my point for me. People who say things like “we just have to over turn citizens united” are either ignorant of the magnitude of the task they’re invoking, or simply echoing a sentiment they heard else where and moving on.

We’re going to have the current supreme court for a good 30 years going forward (baring every one of them walking in front of a bus). That’s 30 more years of iron clad support for citizens united. Since citizens united, the entire landscape of politics has changed. Both parties receive unfathomable amounts of money every year, and these are the people who ultimately select the members of the supreme court.

So how exactly does one “over turn” citizens united, when the entire political system is built around citizens united? How do you “get money out of politics” when it is the engine that drives politics?

Tell me more.

Ranked choice voting would be a modification of the current system.

I don’t think so. Who is going to over turn it, the Democrats? The Republicans?

I’m so fucking ready to vote. I’d vote right now if I could!

And who will enforce these laws I wonder?

But don’t you see, they’re just under trained. When they throw a tear gas canaster into a car with a baby in it, they need to do it with professionalism.

You forgot one critical step: All his fans own all the guns, and all his enemies think guns are disgusting. Going to take a lot more to make him a traitor in the eyes of his fans.

You’ve heard of the Italian Years of Lead, welcome to the American Decades of Lead (ingestion)!

4 critics stand on a street corner.

America: Get my gun!

THIS Donald Duck?

Jinping is his given name, by the way. You meant to say Xi.

Imagine if we called the president, President Donald.