CayceG

15 minutes ago, MarSolo said:

 

Even with the country at stake?

They're politicians. Never expect them to do the right thing. Always expect the most politically expedient thing. 

3 minutes ago, MarSolo said:

Okay, so all these people think he's an idiot and unfit to serve and if he testifies before Mueller he's going to go to jail...

 

...so what's stopping them from, oh I don't know, invoking the 25th Amendment and getting him out of there? Are people that terrified of Pence?

He's doing what they want, and invoking the 25th would be admitting a mistake. Why would they admit a mistake?

On 8/30/2018 at 5:46 PM, Brick said:

Reading through this guy's Twitter thread about the video really does not make me want to watch it. 

 

 

I refuse to watch Plinkett videos, but this tweet thread will absolutely get my attention. 

I'm not buying the gas story. But I fully believe they were robbed very stealthily. 

9 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

No.  He's qualified.

So is Barack Obama. But you know he wouldn't get a hearing. 

Jesus Christ. 

So let's go down the list. 

1. Threatening China

2. Publicly feuding with his SECDEF

3. "good and warm"

4. China's great President

5. Only I Can Fix It (with see #4)

26 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Guaranteed way to get sweeping gun control:

I'd rather see this than a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. 

DSA and African American community groups getting together and exercising their rights in public to scare whitey should affect some amount of change. 

This is the same amount of crazy as a guy I know, just on the other end of the spectrum. 

He's been on a meat-only diet for about a year, and four months ago switched to a completely RAW meat diet. No carbs, no sugars, no veggies. Just raw meat. That's all he eats. 

He will die of colon cancer at 37. 

But what's he going to get? Because he ain't getting 80 years. 

Oh my god, give me this. HOOK IT TO MY VEINS. 

3 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Oh, and to make things more "interesting", the new currency is pegged to the national cryptocurrency (the "petro") which is itself pegged to the price of oil.

I thought that was the problem in the first place.

13 hours ago, MarSolo said:

I was going to say he didn't write that, but then he can't spell shit. 

What if McGahn can't spell...

25 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

I agree with this for this case, but I do see how it could be a first-amendment issue for the government to take any reprisal against you, even if it doesn't prevent you (technically) from speaking. but instead suppresses/cools your desire to speak because of the threat.

Does it?

I'm asking why it's a practical violation of free speech. How is this keeping him from speaking? Retaliation for speech isn't a violation of that freedom. 

Shut up, Greenwald. 

Anyway, I have a question. 

Obviously Trump did this as retribution/punishment for Brennan being such an outspoken critic...

But how exactly is it a violation of free speech?

Please don't post updates every time the jury has a question.

My favorite part of that is "He's on the Down Syndrome spectrum FOR SURE."

All of these people are trash in their own unique way.

Jesus...

32 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Well, I'll preface this by saying I totally get what you or Wade are saying, but "qualified" doesn't really mean anything to me. Ex: McCain had decades of experience, and he was a neo-conservative who mocked Obama's proposal to go into Pakistan if there was actionable intelligence that Osama was there. That experience would have produced worse results than Obama.

 

One of the most infamous examples is the 1860 election. Lincoln had far less experience than Breckinridge, the latter later being a Confederate Secretary of War. I mean... eh, if someone agrees with me more, they're automatically more qualified because I don't see Trump's ideas leading to prosperity. 

 

That doesn't mean Avenatti is anywhere near my top choice, either. But I'd say yeah, Trump is less qualified.

 

Yeah, I understand you. 

You're just using "qualified" wrong. :P

I think we're saying different things with the same words. 

Being qualified is an objective thing. You have a list of qualities, or you don't. 

Supporting certain policies or not supporting policies is not a definition of "qualification" and is a subjective thing. You're using the term wrong, but I understand what you mean. 

I'm speaking in the objective sense though. 

Just now, SaysWho? said:

Being an intelligent lawyer and pushing progressive policies makes someone more qualified than a guy who pushes bad economic policies such as Trump. Trump ran a business yet is significantly more scatterbrained and less organized than any president in decades.

 

If Trump has proven anything, it's that someone becomes qualified if you get (or think you're getting) what you want, and most with shortcomings about him will line up behind him if that happens, just as we are seeing nearly complete support by Republicans behind Trump.

I wouldn't say intelligence and progressive = qualified. I'm more in favor of it in general. 

Republicans are a cult of personality and Dems are way more divided in their loyalties. Dems aren't going to rally around one politician, no matter who they are. 

Is anyone aside from Governors really qualified to hold the office of President? And even then, the Governor of Wyoming is a different sort of prepared to the Governor of California or NY. And add on to that the crushing weight of foreign responsibility that POTUS holds, and there's still little that counts as qualification in that realm.

Trump's not qualified. He is less qualified than a normal CEO because the normal CEO chooses subordinates and works within frameworks of a board as opposed to Trump's kids and whatever rules he makes up. Avenatti isn't qualified either, even though his mind is sharp in the legal realm. 

Avenatti may have said all the right things in Iowa, but he's still a fame seeker and a loudmouth. And I can't believe we're seriously entertaining this. Just because Trump won doesn't mean we have to accept this as legitimate. 

3 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

What would a land value tax do to property values in metropolitan areas, suburbs etc.

Force people like me to move.

1 hour ago, CitizenVectron said:

Yes, he is a very sane and stable leader:

 

 

I might be paranoid, but this seems like something that Trump would tell someone to do to punish Canada for not giving in to US trade demands.

 

If this is the case, then Trump is certainly getting better at utilizing diplomatic soft power!