[–] 2 points 3 days ago*

CHANG: Well, let me just ask you, Congressman Aguilar, are there serious plans if you retake the House as Democrats to try to impeach President Trump again?

AGUILAR: No. We are focused on delivering on the affordability agenda. Now, that doesn't mean that we are opposed to accountability and oversight. This administration needs that clearly. They are reckless and irresponsible at just about every level, including the most, you know, corrupt and inept Cabinet ever assembled. But I think we can start there. Keep in mind, it was a Republican who filed articles of impeachment on Pete Hegseth, and Speaker Johnson, who you just talked...

Fucking hell, IMPEACH IMMEDIATELY YOU SPINELESS FUCKS. You know for a fact it will immediately pass and you can move on to the affordability agenda in five minutes.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 3 days ago*
    • Nose picking
    • Ass scratching
    • Insider trading (taking part in; not prohibiting)
    • Whataboutism
    • Strongly worded letters
    • Statements of being out of ideas after having tried nothing
  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

    The Times also noted that the White House announcement described her as general counsel for Fix California,… A person familiar with her tenure told the Journal that she directed and served as the organization's point of contact for outside lawyers

    This is a way way bigger deal than her calling herself a lawyer casually IMO. If someone studied law then in some technicality they can say theyre a “lawyer” without claiming to be an attorney.

    But the phrase “General Counsel” is a title that specifically means someone is the head in-house attorney employed by a company. There is no ambiguity. That is absolutely false representation. She was basically a receptionist or coordinator for actual attorneys

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_counsel

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    A Costa Mesa woman who registered her dog to vote, and cast ballots in the animal’s name in 2021 and 2022, has been sentenced to pay for anti-voter-fraud billboards, prosecutors said Thursday.

    Laura Lee Yourex, 64, was charged in September 2025 with five felonies after posting a photo to social media showing her dog posing with a ballot while wearing an “I voted sticker,” Kimberly Edds, a spokesperson for the Orange County district attorney’s office, wrote in a statement.

    The dog’s vote was counted in the 2021 recall election against Gov. Gavin Newsom and then rejected in the 2022 primary election. In October 2024, the Orange County registrar of voters office flagged the case to the district attorney.

    “Following an investigation by the Orange County District Attorney’s Office Bureau of Investigation, sufficient evidence was discovered to file criminal charges against Yourex for illegally registering her dog to vote and then casting mail-in ballots issued to her dog based on the fraudulent voter registration,” the statement read.

    Yourex’s January 2022 post might have slipped past authorities, but in October 2024, she posted another photo showing the pet ID tag of Maya, her dog, and a vote-by-mail ballot. The photo was captioned, “Maya is still getting her ballot,” though the dog had died, prosecutors said.

    In April 2026, Yourex signed a plea agreement. She was required to pay $1,500 for four billboards along the 55 and 22 freeways in Orange County through the Nov. 3 midterm election. The billboards feature Yourex’s photo of her dog with a ballot, and reads: “Don’t be a dog. Voter Fraud is a Crime. If you can’t legally vote, don’t vote. The Orange County District Attorney’s Office will prosecute.”

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    President Trump only has the most failed people in his cabinet. Never been a bigger or more failed group of peoples under one roof in the history of America

    Now a part of that big beautiful roof is missing because of a ball-gag room he’s building for himself and his very many pedophile republican friends and donors.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    "But after facing opposition from the American Civil Liberties Union, the Children’s Law Center and Planned Parenthood, legislators watered down the measure, citing concerns over how a ban could restrict a child’s reproductive freedom and ability to make healthcare decisions. "

    It sounds like perhaps prior versions of the draft legislation could have been used against a pregnant young woman (at age 17) removing the newly pregnant young woman her own reproductive choices. That would seem to stand in opposition to the Planned Parenthood mission.

    "Planned Parenthood, an influential group in California politics and a longtime opponent to child marriage bans, stopped fighting the proposal for the first time this year."

    So it sounds like the draft legislation was modified and Planned Parenthood put their support behind it and now its signed into law.

  • source
  • parent
  • context