You guys are just awful pieces of shit, aren't you?

Most victims deserved it?

really?

Are you fucking serious?

As for the witness in the Rittenhouse trial - did you actually READ the charges against him? Clearly not!

He has a history of being antagonistic to the local police: his "prowling" charges are for videotaping off-duty cops. His defense in some of these other charges is that he's being targeted by the cops because he's constantly revealing their abuses of power and "blue privilege"...

So, if I can summarize @raphjd: it's GREAT if you go out onto some obscure, dark-web, porn site and RAIL against the cops... but go out and actually REVEAL their bad behavior ... well, then you're a bad-guy?

Talk about (and apparently, that's all you will do) having your cake and eating it too!

Is he some angel? no! But the judge in the Rittenhouse case has a reputation for being a hard-ass, by the book jurist, and both sides (prosecution and defense) have suggested that he has shown that in this case.

The question in Rittenhouse isn't really WHETHER he's guilty of something, but rather WHAT he's guilty of - how LONG will he spend in jail. His claims of self-defense were demolished by his own testimony: he knew the one guy was unarmed, they threatened each other, and out of fear that the other guy would take HIS gun, he killed him? No. Sorry, it's not self-defense when you goad the other guy into being aggressive with you and YOU are the only one with the gun to start with! Things might be different if there had been an actual (non-verbal) struggle... but this wasn't that...

"Honest officer, it was self defense... I poked my gun into his back and told him "Hands up" - but he turned around after he put his hands up, and he had a real threatening look in his eye - I was afraid, HONESTLY afraid - so I shot him right then and there before he could hurt me."

@raphjd said in Facebook bans the truth, yet again:

@bi4smooth

You are in total lockstep with the CCP/DNC when it comes to hating the rights of people, except to riot and loot.

You are a communist! You want the State to enforce your vision of fairness.

Facebook has just as many rights as you - no more, no less. You want to post your stuff, post it! Just not on Facebook!

I don't know what their issue with that story would be - but that's not the point! The issue isn't whether the censorship of that post is MORALLY right or wrong, it's whether it is LEGAL... which it is, and you just get your panties in a wad every time they "decide" against you...

And to that end, I have no problems... you can be a whiny little bitch all day every day... (holding my tongue... physically LOL)

But when you take the NEXT STEP, and propose that they should be FORCED to allow your content - BY LAW.... well, that's communism (the State making decisions about who can do what, where, and when - in the name of the "common good"), and I want no part of it!

@raphjd said in Facebook bans the truth, yet again:

@bi4smooth

Such a dumb ass. A business isn't a person.

And, you don't believe humans have rights. You believe, like your masters, that the unvaccinated should be welded into their homes.

Businesses aren't people (well, in some ways they are - but we'll leave the US Supreme Court to work that one out - THEY opened THAT can of worms!), but they aren't the Government either!

Typical of your Trumpist/Russian ways - you can only see black and white...

I'm sorry your butt aches every time Facebook deletes one of your posts, or Starbucks refuses to make your coffee with deer shit (the way they do it in Mother Russia)... but grow some balls and deal with it! Stop complaining about perfectly legal actions taken by companies.

@raphjd said in Facebook bans the truth, yet again:

@bi4smooth

You are the communist since you don't believe that people have rights.

people have all kinds of rights - mostly equal rights to all of them...

YOU don't get special rights... not because you're white, not because you're male, not because you're queer, not because you're in the UK, not because... well, not because of anything - you are NOT special (unless we're talking special needs here)...

@raphjd said in Facebook bans the truth, yet again:

@bi4smooth

Ok, Feng Feng, whatever you say.

According to the FB auto-ban on the article, it says the moderation staff found it to be a "privacy concern" and "abusive".

I do love how, as a self-proclaimed "libertarian" you don't believe that humans have rights, but businesses do. Whatever, you do you or do the CCP/DNC.

You are butt hurt and screechy about Kyle, but you try to hide Bicep Bitch's crimes. Why is that? It reminds me of how you desperately tried to downplay the summer of love.

You continue to have a problem with the difference:

• Facebook has the right (legal) to delete anything they want - it's their platform
• Facebook is not right (moral) when they choose to delete content for political or other non-safety issues.

In other words: they are wrong to do it (moral), but it is their right (legal) to do wrong (moral) things on their own services!

You have NO right (legal) to use their platform! It is a privilege that they give to you (and they clearly give to a wide swath of people!), and they have the right (legal) to rescind that privilege at a whim!

Look: @raphjd is the Administrator here - on GT.ru. He's the OLNY person I've ever seen with that label, so let's assume he's the ONLY Administrator.

As such, @raphjd has the RIGHT (legal) to censor me, or even ban my account! But exercising that right (legal) - and I am thankful that he does NOT choose to exercise that right (legal) - would be wrong (moral).

Facebook (or Meta) is a little bigger than GT.ru (just a little, tho!) - and so there are LOTS of "administrators" at Meta... EACH OF WHOM have the shared right (legal) to censor (or censure!) content on their site! That doesn't mean it is right (moral) for them to do so - and I've repeatedly said I do NOT agree with their inconsistent and overly partisan application of their own wishy-washy rules.

If understanding the difference between a legal right and a moral one makes me a "liberal elite", then I accept that... just the same as being a supporter of "Law and Order" apparently does too...

If your definition of Conservative is dumb and blindly following Donald Trump, then count me out. But I'm keeping my Republican Party membership (voter registration)...

@raphjd said in Facebook bans the truth, yet again:

@bi4smooth

Umm, why the fuck are you attacking me?

All I said was that Facebook has banned news about Bicep Bitch.

Nice to see you once again siding with the liberal crowd, though. Go back to snortching Pelosi's gin-soaked pussy farts.

If it's a liberal idea to "just say no" to 17 y/o vigilante "justice", then count me in!

But since when were the Libs the "Law and Order" party?

I don't have any idea on what basis Facebook would have denied your story - it's a legit story... the guy is a police antagonist with a long list of "interactions" with the cops. That's (apparently) a fact.

Facebook (or, should i say "Meta") has been a crazy place for a LONG time - I'm not no it, and don't think I ever will be. I'm also not on Instagram, SnapChat, or most of the other social media outlets...

You haven't seen me supporting Facebook's actions - what you've seen me do is say they have the RIGHT to be idiots and assholes on their own platforms! It's a private company, not a Gov't!

@raphjd said in BLM threatens riots if Mayor-elect Adams reinstitutes NYPD anti-crime units:

@bi4smooth

Ok Feng Feng, whatever you say.

Just curious: when I reply to your post, agreeing with much of the story it relays, while also decrying the unnecessary hyperbole, why do you even feel the need to reply to me? Esp. in such a useless way?

You know, one of my daughters - when she was 12 and got her first cell phone - absolutely HAD to be the last-to-text.. "OK", "fine", "Yes", "No" - whatever, she HAD to be the last to text -- if you replied to her "OK" with "Great!", she would reply something else... her older brother tried to see if there was a limit (he could be a douche at that age) - 30+ worthless texts later, he gave up!

Is this you?

@manhandler said in 99.7% Survive, so why a vaccine when TB kills x1000:

Why the hell are we worried about Covid when Tuberculosis is the number one killer? It's ridiculous.

Where do you get your data? Tuberculosis is not even ON THE LIST of major killers in the world... it's a disease caused by a bacteria (not a virus) that is generally treatable by antibiotics. While also highly communicable, TB is seldom deadly in this century - except in parts of the world without access to quality medical care.

Stick that jab right up your ass, big pharma making a killing, literally.

As it was widely publicized during the Trump Administration, 'Bit Pharma' made their profits on the front end here! That is, the US Government paid (handsomely) for the research that resulted in the vaccines, and the companies get to keep the new technologies that resulted. **BUT the COVID-19 vaccine itself has to be sold/given to the US Government - AT COST.

Put more simply: Pfizer made their profits from COVID-19 vaccine in 2020. They are required (by contract - and Trump knows contracts!) to sell their vaccines (whether 1 does, or 100 billion doses) at NO PROFIT. That was the trade-off for taking the Government money up-front!

Such morons... No word about Tuberculosis. No word about heart disease. Nothing about the actual things that are killing people... No... just take this vaccine so pharmaceutical companies can make billions in profits. You guys are dumb.

COVID-19 has killed more than 4 million people world-wide - and the numbers continue to rise, EVEN in countries like the US that have easy (and free) access to vaccines... vaccines that are over 90% effective at preventing hospitalization from the disease.

If you think its bad now - with the DELTA variant so much more virulent (and affecting kids) - just wait a few more months. Mother Nature altered COVID-19 to create the DELTA variant so that the virus could survive better.... there's already a LAMBDA variant that we don't know much about.... but there's BOUND to be a new variant soon - what with the virus spreading so widely already - and it could (one eventually will) make the DELTA variant look like a walk-in-the-park.

Mother Nature never sleeps, and she does what she can to help ALL species evolve and proliferate on Her planet! She will, given the opportunity, improve on the COVID-19 virus yet again!

How do we stop it? Vaccines and masks.... DOH!

@raphjd said in Pfizer Confirms COVID-Vaccinated People Can ‘Shed’ Spike Proteins And Harm The Unvaccinated:

https://www.nationaltimesaustralia.com/health/pfizer-confirms-covid-vaccinated-people-can-shed-spike-proteins-and-harm-the-unvaccinated/

What a piece of shit "reporting"... this is a right-wing Australian publication who is twisting a report of "all claims" as somehow a "confirmation" from Pfizer...

Once again, just a little "critical thinking" debunks some of these baseless claims:

• Your body is bombarded with billions of random "spike proteins" (and with certainty: deadly bacteria & active viruses themselves!) every minute of every day. But you have a natural protection barrier: your skin (though I suspect your's is so thin as to offer little, if any protection IRL!).
• For the COVID-19 spike proteins to cause a reaction in your body, they have to be INSIDE the body - where they themselves are completely harmless!
• The way the vaccine works is that these spike proteins trigger an immune response - that's the inflammation people report.
• You could literally drink a QUART of the vaccines and it wouldn't harm you... your digestive system is well accustomed to killing off bacteria and viruses, and digesting proteins - which is why this isn't an ORAL vaccine!
• The vaccine doesn't "course through your body" - it pretty much stays put in your arm muscle (where its been injected), which is why the inflammation and soreness typically linger there - at ther injection site.
• IF the vaccine NEEDED to "course through your body" to work, it would be injected into your blood stream, not a muscle - the way most antibiotics and drugs (not vaccines) are administered in hospitals. (IV drug users know the difference!).

Vaccines are not DRUGS - they are "cheat sheets" for your immune system. YOUR IMMUNE SYSTEM HAS TO DO THE WORK - which is why the vaccines don't work well (in some cases, at all) for immuno-compromised people.

Really people: take - just a little - time to learn HOW these things work, and the fucking magic disappears - and with it, the booga booga attempts to scare you!

@raphjd said in Is FOX even "news" anymore?:

@eobox91103

Hillary had more Russian collusion than Trump did.

It was the FBI that repeatedly lied to the FISA court. One FBI agent even illegally altered an official email to further the anti-Trump agenda.

Hillary Clinton was an awful candidate for President - I voted against her, and would again (gleefully!). That said, she didn't have any ties to Russians - or any other Foreign Governments - in the 2016 election cycle. And neither did her campaign.

Why? Because they were "old school" politicians who knew and understood the rules-of-engagement.

Trump and the Trump campaign did not - so when the Russians came a knockin' they didn't report it to the FBI (the way they were supposed to), they jumped at the chance! It was wrong of them, and it nearly got Trump impeached! (That is not what the first impeachment trial was about - the Dems never did get any evidence that Trump himself colluded - or even met with or talked to - actual Russians himself - so there were never any actual charges raised... and the "Special Prosecutor" admitted that he didn't file any charges against Trump - not because he was guilt-free, but because as the sitting President, he was untouchable.

But why let FACTS get in the way of your argument - you never have before! Hell, you've made them up before! I'm sure you'll make up some more now!

Even Derek Jeter admitted after he cheated and successfully claimed that a foul ball actually hit him on the hands... the real fault was, after all, the umpires, no? (that's an open question for Sports Fans to argue about for decades to come!)... the point is, mistakes happen... the real question (in my mind) isn't so much whether the amateurish Jared Kushner actually MET with the Russians (he did)... the real questions are:

• Did he know it was illegal when he did it?
• When did he learn/discover that it was illegal?
• Did he do it again after this discovery?
• How much and when was Trump himself involved.

Some of that may have been uncovered in the special prosecutor's investigations, but it hasn't been made public.

But this "our hands are clean" act - after SO MANY have been charged and convicted - is not fooling anyone!

To be perfectly clear: Kyle Rittenhouse absolutely DID kill 3 black men.

What he did NOT do, according to the jury, was murder them.

Facts and word choice matters!

@raphjd said in Waukesha Christmas Parade SUV Attack:

...
He only killed 2 people, lawfully.

Re-read your own post... he didn't kill... he only killed...
Why... you're Humpty Dumpty!

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
- Lewis Carroll: Through the Looking-Glass, ca. 1871

YES! He (Rittenhouse) most certainly DID kill those men. But, YES, he was justified in doing so - according to the jury! Thus, it was not murder (nor manslaughter)... in legal terms, it was "justifiable homicide."

And in our legal system, THEIRS (the jury's, not yours, and not mine) is the decision/opinion that matters!

That he (Rittenhouse) killed them was never in doubt! There was plenty of evidence of that. The trial was about whether it was justified, not whether it ever happened!

If you believe in the jury system (and I do), then you have faith that the Rittenhouse jury got it right, and you equally must have faith that the Arbery jury did so as well!

Proof positive that the Republicans (Q-Anon & Trumpites) DO NOT have a lock on insane extremism! Dems have them too!

@raphjd said in Waukesha Christmas Parade SUV Attack:

@bi4smooth said in Waukesha Christmas Parade SUV Attack:

To be perfectly clear: Kyle Rittenhouse absolutely DID kill 3 black men.

What he did NOT do, according to the jury, was murder them.

Facts and word choice matters!

I'm quoting this for posterity, in case you try to edit your post claiming you never said this.

Kyle, despite what your liberal "news" outlets want everyone to believe even after the trial, DID NOT kill 3 black men.

He lawfully killed 2 white men and shot another white man.

Either you are a blatant liar, or you are just a tool who listens to liberal "news" and repeats the bullshit lies they spew.

Dude... you've done it again... He did not kill... followed by he did kill -- unless your issue is with 3 vs 2... so he killed 2 and nearly killed the 3rd... again, tho. the point of the trial was NEVER whether he shot at and killed anyone - he did.. the question at trial was: was it legal for him to have done so.

In Illinois, it was perfectly legal for him to do so (and in the same breath, you want to blame the Chicago (IL) mayor for all the homicides in her city! You kill me (jokingly) with the situational ethics!)

@raphjd said in Liberals are child and animal rapists:

@bi4smooth

Blah Blah Bloviated Blah...

So, you are saying it's the conservatives that are the ones that are once again pushing for pedo and animal rapists to become mainstream.

Define again - and show me a single mainstream politician (national) that is proposing to legalize pedo- or zoo-ophilia... EITHER PARTY!

That's as stupid as you claiming that Kyle Rittenhouse killed 3 black men in Illinois.

Sigh - that discussion was about using the word KILL vs MURDER, not about the race of the victims... leave it to you to focus on something non-salient to distract from your idiocy...

As for that book, you would have seen the video of the mother reading from the said book at the school board meeting and understood how pornographic it actually is.

I DO NOT CARE how "pornographic" you (or the mother) thought it was... that's not the point. Again, you never let facts get in the way of your moral outrage!

I do love how you play the victim. Even when I make a normal post that doesn't mention you, you have to get your panties in a bunch and attack me, then play the victim. Even if I do mention you, but just about how long I remember you posting here, you go all spastic and lose your rag. But you're the victim. Typical liberal.

ROFL - I am the one complaining (and even starting separate threads) to complain about being called names? I don't think so! Me thinks the lady (and I use the term VERY loosely) doth protest too much!

Just to summarize about 30% of your posts in the past year:

• You, being a white man, are constantly being persecuted by the liberal society

My own personal stance on that is:

• Me, being a white man, have continuously benefited from White Privilege - even when I didn't know it at the time. This fact was made especially clear to me once I became engaged to a Black man - and was exposed to the "same world" from his viewpoint.

Of course, the "liberal" media (like CNN?) would NEVER report on Biden's gaffe... would they?

Look, some media IS highly liberal - but how is that any different than the highly conservative media? The point it, there are FEW (if any) non-partisan news sources out there today - if that's even possible in today's world - for reason's I've discussed in other threads

Truth be told, the "mainstream media" pays a lot more attention to Democrat gaffes these days than to Republican ones (tho MTG is definitely trying!) - and for a simple reason: they're the ones in power!

They (Democrats) ARE the ones to blame for Gov't problems (and there continue to be a LOT of those!)... and @raphjd's favorite news whipping boy, CNN, didn't fail to catch Biden's mistakes - being harsher on is "memory" than even I was!

(The link to the CNN story is in the CNN name above).

Again:

• Did Biden make his FIRST overseas trip as a Senator to Israel? YES, among other places too!
• Did Biden meet with Israeli leaders during this trip, including PM Golda Meir? YES - though that isn't surprising! They would have treated ANY US Senator the same way!
• Was Biden shown Israeli war plans for the 6-days-war? NO! It was the Yom Kippur War - but he did discuss those plans with Meir.
• Did Biden fancy himself a potential liason (nay, even Ambassador) to potential Israeli / Arab / Palestinian peace talks? Yes his writings of the time clearly show that HE THOUGHT he would be an excellent candidate for that job, and was CERTAIN that he might be asked to do so... BUT, he was (almost laughably) mistaken... the idea that the re-elected (by a WIDE margin) Republican President Richard Nixon would tap a freshman Democrat Senator for such a highly important role is laughable - But Biden was only 30 at the time, and just elected Senator of Delaware... he can be given a little slack for thinking himself somewhat more important than he was at the time... it's called HUBRIS, and in my personal experience, it's far from RARE in 30 y/o men! Much less those who are Senators!
• WAS Biden used as ANY kind of liaison or ambassador in the Israeli conflicts of the 1970's - at all? NO! and, in part, because the Israelis wouldn't have him! You may have read the Israeli Times article quoted above? The Israelis weren't too keen on him THEN, and they really aren't so keen on him TODAY, either!
• Did the Israeli PM (Meir) invite Biden to Israel in 1973? YES, but it wasn't to be any kind of liaison - it was because Biden was also visiting Egypt on that visit, and they didn't want the Egyptians to be the only "input" the freshman Senator received.
• And finally: did Biden get some of his facts wrong about what he did (and why) FIFTY YEARS AGO? YES You betcha! Agreed! Totally!

But let me ask you: if you described your first date, would your memory of that even be the same as your date's? OK, go go with me here... does that mean that either of you is telling a LIE, just because your memory of how good the kiss (or the sex, for that matter!) was, or what they were wearing, is wrong?

Look - I teach my children this dictionary lesson all the time - because, like @raphjd, they know that the term LIE (and LYING) are incendiary - explosive, even!

To be a lie, the person has to know (or, at least believe) that what they are saying is untrue! If they didn't know (or believe) it was untrue, then they were just wrong, and not (generally) LYING.

Granted, we hold politicians - ESPECIALLY Presidents - to a higher standard... but I, again, think the facts speak for themselves: Biden got it wrong, but he wasn't LYING!

Oh, and the "liberal" CNN media completely overlooked the whole incident, because they let sitting Presidents "off the hook" *if they're Democrats!

DOH!

That's totally untrue! Was it a LIE, or just sarcasm...
You figure it out! Gotta love the English Language! LOL

@kekkaishi said in Once again, Biden can't stop lying:

I'm sorry to intervene again, it's just that I follow @raphjd so it's inevitable
Can each of you two share your age to put things into perspective a little? (you don't have to)

I'm 36

I'll be 58 later this month...

Lie:

1. to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2. something that intentionally misleads or deceives

So, a guy who truly believes that his wife - the mother of his children, and the love of his life - was killed by a drunk driver, and because the police didn't charge them as-such (indeed, never even tested the other driver), they're lying...

And in the same breath, you'll tout all the greatness (and infallibility) of He Who Must Be Named, His Orange-ship, Donald Trump... HIS record of telling the truth is better?

Dude! They're both old men - quickly approaching 80 - who get things WRONG. Don't we all? But (and even my 10-year-old kids get this): Being WRONG isn't the same thing as LYING!

When you FIRST claim that your inauguration was "the largest crowd in history" it's just being wrong. When you're shown photographic evidence, backed up by testimony of your own followers - that you were wrong, but you continue to make that claim, you cross over from just being wrong to lying.

But there's more to that analogy:

• Trump has much to gain by claiming to have had the largest crowd in history. There is an intent to deceive there!
• Just exactly what is the benefit to Biden when he claims he was in Israel just before the 6-days-war, when it was really the Yom-Kippur-war? What's the deception?

Biden has a well-established history of gaffes - and he still struggles with stuttering! Oh the inhumanity! GOD save us!

Actually - God (only one cap) is going to have to save us from the inflation these Gov't give-aways are going to cause for years to come! To call a Spade a Spade, the policies that incited this inflation started under Trump, but Biden has exacerbated them!

To be clear tho: Gov't spending (paying for actual things, or actual labor) isn't necessarily inflationary... Gov't giving away money - pumping cash into the economy with no purchase, no "benefit", just giving it away - is completely inflationary!

Under Trump, the "stimulus" was reasonable - inflationary, but inflation was historically low, and the economy had just taken a gut-punch. The 2nd Trump "stimulus" was purely political, and totally an inflationary event - causing people to not only spend unwisely, but also to expect to routinely collect money from the Gov't for free!.

Then, along came Biden - who wanted to show that HE TOO could give away trillions of dollars to people, in exchange for nothing - just free cash! Which piled on the inflationary pressures, and super-heated the economic demands - beyond the ability of the damaged infrastructure to keep up with - which accelerated the inflation even more.

In case you missed it: Jobless claims have dropped to their lowest levels in 52 years! (There are multiple underlying reasons for this - some good, some bad. But facts are facts).

@geobear40 said in Facebook uses 1st Amendment in lawsuit:

@bi4smooth
You are quite right to a point. Users of Facebook and other social media platforms are not their employees. It is also the governments responsibility to protect the 1st Amendment rights of the citizens from being infringed.

Please - PLEASE - listen to some of the lectures I posted above.

The Government DOES NOT protect your First Amendment Rights from others!

The First Amendment protects YOU from the Government!

The restrictions described in the First Amendment apply SOLELY to the Government! It is the Government who CANNOT infringe your right to free speech! Other people, other organizations, other groups of people, ABSOLUTELY can limit your free speech! It's a free country!

IT IS ONLY THE GOVERNMENT WHO CANNOT - under the First Amendment. There are other limitations placed on PEOPLE's (and organizations') free speech rights. Copyright laws & libel laws are easy examples.

NOTE: when I libel you, I will face CIVIL charges, not criminal ones! Likewise, if I infringe your copyright, I am CIVILLY charged, not criminally! The Government does not charge me with libel or copyright infringement, some other person (or people) do! And, it's not a First Amendment case!

There have been tons of court cases:

• Can the Government sue me for libel because I called the President a fascist (or claimed he impregnated a communist spy)? NO This is a First Amendment issue - I can say anything I want about the Government - even libelous things!
• Can the President him/herself sue me for libel? NO This is also a First Amendment issue: although, if the complaint didn't have a governmental component - e.g. I claimed Mr. Trump fixed the Ms Universe pageants in the 1990s in exchange for sexual favors), he could sue AFTER his term as President ended (and he was no longer President), but not while he was President (as President, he IS the Executive Branch of the US Government!)
• Can I sue the Government for libel? YES the First Amendment protections ONLY apply to the Government!
• Can the Government sue a newspaper to prevent them from publishing stolen plans for invading another country? NO They are protected by the First Amendment!
• Can the filmmakers of the new Harry Potter flick sue a newspaper to prevent them from publishing stolen scripts and revealing the plot of the movie? YES The movie company is NOT the Government! There is no First Amendment protection for the paper against suits, or even censorship of copyrighted material, from individuals!

@raphjd said in NYC Dem councilwoman is racist against latinos:

https://notthebee.com/article/a-new-york-city-councilwoman-voted-against-allowing-noncitizens-to-vote-because-she-was-worried-that-latino-voters-might-use-the-law-to-vote-republican

I guess liberal media will call this "white supremacy" because everything is white supremacy no matter the races involved.

Oddly, a liberal black woman doesn't want brown people to vote, in the guise of equality.

Of course, there's the whole non-citizens being able to vote in NYC elections.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that only those in the country legally can vote in NYC elections, unlike in San Francisco which allows illegals to vote as well.

So.... let this be your correction: NYC just voted to let ANYONE vote in City elections - regardless of citizenship.

This NYC councilwoman - a black woman - voted to keep the status-quo (wherein you have to be a citizen, and registered to vote) - and now she's getting it from both sides!

• Liberals are hating on her for not allowing illegals to vote
• Conservatives are hating on her for the same thing (because she defied expectations, and because of some of her stated reasons WHY)

Black Woman vilified ... does there NEED to be a reason in the US in today's political climate?
I mean, really, doesn't it really come down to: she didn't vote liberal enough for the liberals and she wasn't conservative enough for the conservatives... and there is no middle anymore, so she's just an awful person for not meeting the expectations of others...

It's ridiculous that NYC wants to let non-citizens vote, but it's their city! They can choose to allow cats to vote too! (But not dogs! Dogs are too dumb! LOL)