Predsedniška debata Trump vs Biden

Ne, jih je Zuckerberg .

Tako Robert Kennedy Jr kakor Tulsi Gabbard sta bivša demokrata.

Kakšen odstotek bosta nedvomno doprinesla Trumpu.

Pred časom sem napisal, da je Trumpu uspelo najti najslabšega možnega kandidata za podpredsednika, Vancea. No, zdaj so se menda začele širiti govorice, da razmišlja o zamenjavi. Ker je našel enega še slabšega, Kennedyja.

Tulsi Gabbard bo imela kar velik vpliv na kampanijo.
Pomembna podpora po mojem.

Trump prvič je itk najbolj pameten, ne more njega baba kovčat, kot drugo pa itak ma oranžni pozornost zlate ribice in bi blo brezveze. Bi blo bolj produktivno, če b pršla mene kovčat, jaz bi ji lahko tud ene par trikov pokazal, samo mam pa tud že do novembra zapolnjene vse termine z 20-letnimi manekenkami, tk da ne bo šlo. Mogoče ma mtosev kaj cajta za njo.

Miki N je 27. avg 2024 ob 20:43 izjavil:

Tulsi je podprla Orangemana - to bejba je še mtosevu bila všeč! To postaja komplicirano. Jebe lud zbunjenog scena.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgm7n...

Naj bi Tulsi Trumpa že en čas trenirala za spopad s Kamalo, ker jo je sama enkrat na debati za demokratsko nominacijo hudo porazila.

Mogoče zato, ker tako piše v zakonu? Mal čudno, ampak ...

Ne boš verjel, ampak ko 50 zveznih držav kroji svoje zakone, se najde marsikaj smiselnega, in nesmiselnega. Tako pač v Michiganu in Wisconsinu določeni kandidati ne morejo umaknit vložene kandidature.

"The statute literally says, 'Any person who files nomination papers and qualifies to appear on the ballot may not decline nomination. The name of that person shall appear upon the ballot except in case of death of the person,'"

Je pa neskončno ironično, ko fake news trumptardi demokrate označite za mafijo.

@lynxslo: zdaj pa še bistveno vprašanje zate: tisti trumptard, ki te je tokrat napizdil na X-u... Ti je omenil ta podatek, da imajo določene države pač takšne zakone? Se je kasneje opravičil? Objavil popravek? Ga je Elon fact-checkal?

arnecan1 je 28. avg 2024 ob 08:18 izjavil:

lynxslo5 je 27. avg 2024 ob 23:15 izjavil:

https://x.com/_johnnymaga/status/182848...

This is Michigan's Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson
She's refusing to remove RFK Jr. from the ballot after he suspended his campaign and endorsed Trump
She's also the woman that sought to remove Cornel West -- who hurts Kamala -- from the ballot
She is a complete partisan hack

Demokrati so najbolje organizirana mafija v ZDA.

Saj to je noro, zakaj ga ne bi hotela umakniti. Kako je to sploh zakonito, kako se to lahko naredi?

Zadeva nima veze s tem, kaj Jocelyn Benson hoče ali noče. Po zakonu Michigana, Wisconsina in Nevade (verjetno še katere zvezne države) kandidat, ki vloži kandidaturo po nominaciji svoje stranke, pa kako mala le-ta bila, kandidature no more umakniti. Seveda pa nastane dodaten "problem", ker so to vijolične zvezne države in potem se vsako takčnole upoštevanje zakonov prikaže kot mafijska posla...

CoolBits je 28. avg 2024 ob 09:56 izjavil:

Tako ko komunisti niste verjeli...

Pa kaj je res že toliko vode preteklo, da bomo po zgledu amerjev tudi v rodni grüdi začeli etiketirati drugače misleče s komunistim nacistim... Sam še to čakam, da se začne nekdo na tromostovju dret, naj ukinemo socializem v državi...

DarwiN je 28. avg 2024 ob 09:29 izjavil:

Mogoče zato, ker tako piše v zakonu? Mal čudno, ampak ...

Ne boš verjel, ampak ko 50 zveznih držav kroji svoje zakone, se najde marsikaj smiselnega, in nesmiselnega. Tako pač v Michiganu in Wisconsinu določeni kandidati ne morejo umaknit vložene kandidature.

"The statute literally says, 'Any person who files nomination papers and qualifies to appear on the ballot may not decline nomination. The name of that person shall appear upon the ballot except in case of death of the person,'"

Je pa neskončno ironično, ko fake news trumptardi demokrate označite za mafijo.

@lynxslo: zdaj pa še bistveno vprašanje zate: tisti trumptard, ki te je tokrat napizdil na X-u... Ti je omenil ta podatek, da imajo določene države pač takšne zakone? Se je kasneje opravičil? Objavil popravek? Ga je Elon fact-checkal?

Neskončno ironično je, da so demokrati pokazali, kako se gredo zakulisne igrice pri Bernie Sandersu.



Karkoli si mislimo o Sandersu, bil je anti-establišment pri demokratski stranki, kakor Trump pri republikanski.

Zato pa ju je potrebno onemogočiti z vsemi možnimi sredstvi. V skrajni sili z atentatom.

How Trump Supporters Conspired to Help Him Influence Georgia Election
Pro-Trump election officials in Georgia changed the state's election rules in the Republican nominee's favor.
https://newrepublic.com/post/185384/don...

To samo komunisti spet spinajo in lažejo. Demokrati vplivajo na pravila in zakone okrog volitev že od nekdaj, poleg tega so do sedaj povsod bili samo njihovi ljudje.
Ko pa Trumpovi začnejo to delat je seveda panika

CoolBits je 29. avg 2024 ob 08:06 izjavil:

Zakaj so pa Bidna brez problema umaknili povsod? Ena pravila za ene, druga za druge al kako?

Demokrati so uradno nominirali svojega kandidata šele nekaj tednov nazaj. Biden uradno sploh še ni postal njihov kandidat. Odstopil je še pred uradno nominacijo.

A obstajajo kakšne zanesljive sondaže kakšen je razpon podpore Kamali in Trumpu v tem trenutku?
Ker imamo bolj špekulacije z obeh strani in neke nabore anket ki kažejo nek dvig trenda podpore bodisi enemu bodisi drugemu.

CoolBits je 29. avg 2024 ob 08:24 izjavil:

Ne bo držalo. Bidna so ljudje izbirali na primarnih izborih, takrat je v vsaki državi tudi prišel na volilnico.
Pol so pa kar Kamalo izbrali brez enega glasu ljudstva. Tako imamo ko so komunisti na oblasti.

Nehaj s temi komunisti, o komunizmu in komunistih veš glih približno toliko, kot povprečen trailer park snotface iz Tenneseeja.
Bo pa kar držalo. Biden je zmagal na primarnih izborih, a je svojo kandidaturo za nominacijo (razlogi so za vsakega sofa-poznavalce drugačni) umaknil pred DNC, kjer se uradno razglasi kandidata za na predsedniški ballot.. In to je bilo 23.8., pred 6 dnevi.
Ker je RFK jr kandidiral kot neodvisni kandidat, je svojo kandidaturo neposredno vložil pri FEC že aprila lani.

CoolBits je 28. avg 2024 ob 13:22 izjavil:

Kar bi moralo bit pa definitivno jasno je, da so cenzuro zgodovinsko vedno podpirali le komunisti/marksisti in sedaj ni nič drugače.

Cenzura, zgodovinsko:

CoolBits je 29. avg 2024 ob 08:45 izjavil:

Po mojem mnenju so zaenkrat najbolj realne ankete na X (twitter). Res da lahko samo uporabniki glasujejo ampak so pa iz vseh vetrov gor.

"Vsi vetrovi" ne glasujejo, imajo pa lahko "vsi vetrovi" svoje interese, kako prikazati volilne ankete, sploh na site-ih tipa X... Se da takele vetrove tudi najeti:

CoolBits je 29. avg 2024 ob 09:11 izjavil:

Tako je, to velja za obe strani. Kdo se bolj poslužuje take propagande pa je kar jasno iz twitter files.

Hočeš povedat, da je to, da je Trompeta dobil na X-ovi "neodvisni" anketi 80%+... demokratka rabota?

CoolBits je 29. avg 2024 ob 09:11 izjavil:

Cenzurira samo tisti, ki nemara resnice, ker resnica podira propagando.

Aha... ja mo veter drugače popihal, jele?

Dej povej, glede na to, da je tema o ameriških volitvah... skozi zgodovino Amerike, koliko "book burning" eventov so organizirali komunisti/marksisti...in primerjej s tistimi, ki so jih organizirali far right politični agitatorji?
Povej, koliko knjig je iz javnih in šolskih knjižnic bilo bannano zaradi pobude demokratov... in koliko zaradi right wingerjev?

CoolBits je 29. avg 2024 ob 09:36 izjavil:

Vse. "Far right agitatorji" so plačani od komunistov..

Yup... you're weird...
Enough internet for today...

da ljudje po naravi nismo nasilni in nasilja ne izvajamo

Tale forum pa res prenese "več kot papir". Pa pravijo, da papir prenese vse (tudi največje neumnosti in laži)...

Ti si malo zablodil. Sovereign citizen je spet en psyop, da resnica ne pride ven.
Sovereign citizen ne obstaja, ker čim si citizen ali državljan si oseba in ne človek.
Obstaja pa suveren človek (man), ki je pri nas tudi v ustavi, v zakonih imaš pa samo osebe.
In ja dejansko deluje, ker je v ameriki suverenih že čez milijon ljudi, nekateri so tudi že prišli do svojega kolateralnega računa.
Če misliš, da si prišel na zemljo slučajno in da smo nastali iz opice si pač dobro opran od rojstva naprej.

Jep, lajkamo kamalo, ker desnica ni sposobna enega normalnega kandidata sproducirat. Shocker, vem. Da mate pa magavci meltdown, ker je zdej trump star, dementen kandidat pa kaj čmo. Osebno bom preživel.
MImgrede, kak komentar na trumpov 'thumbs up' na (mislim da vojaškem?) pokopališču?

Nisem magovec, ti pa si očitno omejen, če misliš, da nekdo ne more biti proti obema stranema.

Boš zdaj rekel, da si le za manjše zlo, sem ti prihranil nepotrebni post.

Kamela in Bidon, isto sranje, jasno je, da noben od teh dveh ni sposoben voditi ničesar in niti ne vodi. Pri Trumpu je pa bolj problem njegove arogance in samovolje.

to

https://x.com/dceiver/status/1828967973...

Trump is getting a substantial in-kind donation from the media in the form of coherence bias. This Truth Social post is a really good example, look at all the sheer fucking crazy nonsense CNN just cleans up on the Trump campaign's behalf!

in to

https://x.com/svdate/status/18289912467...

This is 100 pct dead on. Trump will ramble gibberish for 90 minutes, barely making sense, and reporters will pull four or five quotes or partial quotes that make him seem somewhat rational.

Kresnik je 29. avg 2024 ob 14:19 izjavil:

CoolBits je 29. avg 2024 ob 13:53 izjavil:

Ti si malo zablodil. Sovereign citizen je spet en psyop, da resnica ne pride ven.
Sovereign citizen ne obstaja, ker čim si citizen ali državljan si oseba in ne človek.

Fizicna oseba = Clovek

CoolBits je 29. avg 2024 ob 13:53 izjavil:

Obstaja pa suveren človek (man), ki je pri nas tudi v ustavi, v zakonih imaš pa samo osebe.

Ne obstaja. Kar je pa se bolj hudo pa je to, da ce bi res bil "suverena oseba" potem bi te lahko sredi Copove ustrelil, pa mi ne bi bilo nic, ker ti Slovenija (ali kaka druga drzava) ne dolguje nicesar.

CoolBits je 29. avg 2024 ob 13:53 izjavil:

In ja dejansko deluje, ker je v ameriki suverenih že čez milijon ljudi, nekateri so tudi že prišli do svojega kolateralnega računa.

Dokler jih ne spokajo v zapor. Ce pa je ti je kdo rekel, da je prisel do kolateralnega racuna potem te pa lahko samo vprasamo "In ti si to dejansko verjel?". Ker ce bi bilo to res, potem bi 'strici iz ozadja' hitro poskrbeli, da bi imel kako tragicno nesreco.

CoolBits je 29. avg 2024 ob 13:53 izjavil:

Če misliš, da si prišel na zemljo slučajno in da smo nastali iz opice si pač dobro opran od rojstva naprej.

Na tehnicnem forumu si, tako da prosim da te kreacionisticne zablode spakiras kam drugam.

Dokaži, da nisi ravno nepismen in preberi si odločitve vrhovnih sodišč ZDA, da potovanje brez registracije in vozniške popolnoma normalno.

YHVH.name 1 1 U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135

"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business." -Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784

"… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right" -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979)

“citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.” Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009

“The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .” Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963).

“The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.” Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966).

“A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.” Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41.

“The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.” Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236.

"The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts." People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971)

“The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.” House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166.

“The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles. Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666.

“The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.” Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468.

“A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159; Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670

“There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456

"The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways." -American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions:"

(6) Motor vehicle. - The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…"

10) The term "used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. "A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received." -International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120

The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’" -City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232

"Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled" - Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20

"The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.

" Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). "...a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon...

" State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982; Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 "The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163 "the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all." - Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. "No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways... transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances." Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. "Traffic infractions are not a crime." People v. Battle "Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right... may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right." Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 "The word 'operator' shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation." Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 "Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen." Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT -- A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.” City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.” Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.” Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.” - Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). "With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority." Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O'Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. "The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution." (Paul v. Virginia). "[T]he right to travel freely from State to State ... is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." (U.S. Supreme Court, Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. ..'Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.' Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. “Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197. Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14. “The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. “a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”Justice White, Hiibel “Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.” Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. “Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.” Swift v City of Topeka, 43 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4 Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a "statute." A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle. Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185. Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages. Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29. …automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354. Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591. A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen. Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246; Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158. "A soldier's personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods[.]’ U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235" 19A Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. "[I]t is a jury question whether ... an automobile ... is a motor vehicle[.]" United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). Other right to use an automobile cases: - EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 - TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 - WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 - CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 - THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 - U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) - GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) - CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 - SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) - CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978)

Če se hočete pa več naučit o tem odprite namensko temo.

Donald Trump shared more than a dozen posts on his social media network Wednesday that call for the trial or jailing of House lawmakers who investigated the attack on the U.S. Capitol, special counsel Jack Smith and others, along with images that reference the QAnon conspiracy theory.

The former president began posting a string of messages Tuesday evening after Smith filed a new indictment against him over his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 presidential election. The new indictment keeps the same criminal charges but narrows the allegations against Trump following a Supreme Court opinion last month that extended broad immunity to former presidents.

Trump reposted a doctored image that was made to look like President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in orange prison jumpsuits, among other political figures, and a lewd post about Harris and Clinton that referenced a sex act. One post seemed to suggest former President Barack Obama should be tried in a military court.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-social...

Ko pogledam, je to postala tema na nivoju zbirateljev Ukrajinskih in Palestinskih tem.
A bo Kamela uspela obdavčiti top 10%, ki si lastijo več kot 90% premoženja.... ?

Sej nočem biti patetičen, kot nekateri ki se informirate preko Google Ads oglaševanja, kot to delajo židje za deskriditacije , da veste kaj so pravi iskani zadetki...

No vprašanje...
Amerika im 218 T$ dolarjev že obljubljenih obveznosti (državne pokojnine, socialna varnost medicare itd.). Ima pa samo 212 T$ osebnih in podjetniških sredstev. To pomeni da če bi vsi dali vse Ameriški vladi vključujoč zadnje cunice, ne bi pokrili to kar je država dolžna do državljanov...
Torej lahko sklepam da mora gospodinjskega premoženja leteti v luft s cenami nepremičnin in deleža participacije na borzah.

No nebom preveč pisal, da ne boste imeli težave razumevanja, grčijo je rešila EU, kdo bo pa Ameriko. Bo bila to Kamela ? Ali mislite da ko Američani plačajo za iste storitev park krat več, da bodo uspeli sami sebe bankrotirat, no bogati bodo že ustvarili svoj državo :-)

Nekaj linkov :
Debt and Unfunded Liabilities


Your Pension Is a Lie: There's $210 Trillion Of Liabilities Our Government Can't Fulfill


281T$ Unfundet Liabilities vs total US National Asset.

Če pogledamo še kontekst :
$315 Trillion in Global Debt Broken Down by Sector