Polls: Society & Politics

Wouldn’t that be the ultimate states rights? Let the states pay for it. Let the states decide to go to war, etc.

Warmonger John Bolton supports it, so it must be a good idea, right?

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4086281-bolton-hails-biden-decision-to-send-cluster-bombs-to-ukraine/

The best law enforcement personnel and equipment will be used to determine who it was that brought illegal drugs into the White House. They will go to great lengths to bring that person to justice because that's what the Dept of Justice is all about. Their motto is "Get the truth no matter what." I know that I sleep more soundly at night just knowing that they are working hard to keep our nation safe.

Hunters? Dads? Secret service? Those agents did have some crazy scandals during Obama’s years.

Ukraine is seeking cluster munitions, which are known to cause grievous injuries to civilians, as its ammunition supply runs low.

The White House has cameras everywhere and a visitor log. They know exactly who left the cocaine.

Hopefully Congress can call for a release of the tapes or at least have it shown to a select group of bi-partisan leaders in Congress.

THIS IS A COMPLETELY HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION !!!

Your entire family has been kidnapped and the kidnappers are demanding not a ransom, but for you to commit a crime for them. If you don't your family will die.

If the kidnappers asked you to commit a crime for them, would you be willing to commit any of these crimes in order to save your family?

Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot…all targeted and murdered millions of college professors, doctors, and professionals. Their supporters were factory workers and rural, agrarian farmers.

Pol Pot’s general famously said, “Eyeglasses are our Star of David.”

https://www.axios.com/2023/06/30/supreme-court-lgbtq-wedding-website
Supreme Court rules businesses can refuse service to LGBTQ+ customers

Businesses can refuse to serve same-sex couples if doing so would violate the owners' religious beliefs, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday.

Why it matters: The court has significantly expanded LGBTQ rights over the past several years, but is now carving out some exceptions.

Driving the news: The case concerns Lorie Smith, a Colorado web designer who wanted to create and sell wedding websites, but not to same-sex couples.

Colorado's civil rights law prohibited her, or any business that serves the general public, from turning away customers because of their sexual orientation. She said complying with that law would force her to espouse views she does not agree with.
"The artwork that I create is speech," Smith told Colorado Public Radio in December, adding that, "those messages must be consistent with my convictions."
The big picture: The conservative-majority Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Smith, saying she has a First Amendment right to refuse to design custom wedding websites for same-sex couples.

"The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Colorado cannot deny that promise consistent with the First Amendment," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion.

It's all about them monnies, Lamborghinis and sleeping with 20 year old avaricious female supermodels.

Reference article: https://ballotpedia.org/Partisan_affiliations_of_registered_voters

Note 1: THIS QUESTION IS ONLY FOR 18+ (VOTING AGE) ADULTS and opinions from people under-18 will be deleted.

Note 2: Choose the answer-option in the poll that most closely matches your response to this question.

Note 3: Please state in your comments WHICH ANSWER-OPTION LETTER you selected in the poll.