wtf is an ethernet cable?
Oh wait I remember those.
11-01-2019 03:55 PM
#6376
| |
wtf is an ethernet cable? | |
| |
11-01-2019 06:32 PM
#6377
| |
11-02-2019 05:42 AM
#6378
| |
Hardened laptops aren't allowed to use wifi, so the cables look standard. Seems there's 2 different networks available, probably for two different security classifications. | |
| |
11-02-2019 08:55 AM
#6379
| |
Nothing says 'hi-tech' more than a bunch of tangled loose cables, everyone knows that. | |
11-02-2019 11:34 AM
#6380
| |
Poop, do you not think cocco's explanation is credible? | |
| |
11-02-2019 11:01 PM
#6381
| |
|
Throw an irregularity or two into a photo and you sometimes get people thinking past the sale. |
11-03-2019 03:29 AM
#6382
| |
11-03-2019 03:30 AM
#6383
| |
11-03-2019 08:02 AM
#6384
| |
| |
11-03-2019 09:00 AM
#6385
| |
Did you see the part where Trump told them to pull the cables out of the trunking so it'd look more 'sophisticated?'. That's what I'm laughing at. | |
11-03-2019 10:11 AM
#6386
| |
| |
| |
11-03-2019 10:53 AM
#6387
| |
Honestly, no one would be going in so hard on the picture if Trump didn't insist on claiming to have one upped Obama. He drew the comparisons, needlessly, and, in turn, being the visual creatures we are, we're shitting on his situation room photo op, because Obama's was objectively so much better. Beyond one just being a better photo, if you chose to read into them, especially when they're side by side, they say a ton about each man, and each man's administration. | |
Last edited by boost; 11-03-2019 at 10:57 AM. | |
11-03-2019 11:44 AM
#6388
| |
Trump's looks like people gathering for a photo op with no-one knowing where they're supposed to look. Obama's looks like people actually doing work and not just trying to look like they might be doing work. | |
11-03-2019 11:52 AM
#6389
| |
| |
11-03-2019 12:02 PM
#6390
| |
|
You're right, they do say a ton about each man. I like Obama's photo much better. Trump's looks very silly. |
Last edited by wufwugy; 11-03-2019 at 12:04 PM. | |
11-03-2019 05:39 PM
#6391
| |
Obama's looks like they're watching Two Girls One Cup. Trump's looks like he's put cardboard cutouts of pretend officials there. The gormless black haired dude looks real, but the others look fake. | |
| |
11-04-2019 12:04 PM
#6392
| |
Trump's doing that squinty-eyes thing that always reminds me of the movie Get Shorty. | |
Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 11-04-2019 at 12:06 PM.
| |
11-04-2019 12:12 PM
#6393
| |
| |
11-04-2019 04:54 PM
#6394
| |
Good analysis. Trump's play here, if intentional, is like a dictator that wears military fatigues with an absurd amount of brass pinned to them-- this always hit me as silly and an illustration of their delusions of grandeur, but you make a good point: there's an audience for everything and they may just be pandering to that audience. And it's not that Obama is immune from this analysis either. To some he probably looks weak and ineffectual off in the corner like that, but to the audience that matters more to him, he comes across as confident and uninterested in self indulgent pomp. | |
Last edited by boost; 11-04-2019 at 04:56 PM. | |
11-04-2019 09:32 PM
#6395
| |
|
You make some great points. |
Last edited by wufwugy; 11-04-2019 at 09:39 PM. | |
11-05-2019 03:47 PM
#6396
| |
So the rules of the impeachment proceedings laid out by Pelosi allow Trump to both testity and ask questions at his own hearings. I know he won't go, but God it's fun to imagine the potenital shitshow that would be. | |
11-05-2019 04:40 PM
#6397
| |
Pelosi's proceedings are laid out basically the same as the Nixon proceedings. Still, the Congressional R's are crying foul play. Turns out they're upset because the Clinton case was blown open as a part of a much wider investigation, so the Clinton impeachment proceedings started with a ton more general knowledge of the facts by both parties. Whereas in the Nixon case and the current case, the closed door investigations have whatever info they have that is not on the public record at this point in the process. | |
Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 11-05-2019 at 04:46 PM.
| |
11-05-2019 06:17 PM
#6398
| |
My understanding is Pelosi's proceedings are more 'generous' in that Nixon wasn't invited to testify/cross-examine at his, which I'm sure he could have done better than Trump had it come to that. | |
11-06-2019 11:31 AM
#6399
| |
I don't think you can directly link those 2 things. While on paper the Clinton scandal was an impeachment proceeding, I don't think it's really the best comparison for what's going on today. The Ukraine scandal is much more like Nixon's watergate than an inconsequential lie under oath. | |
| |
11-12-2019 12:11 PM
#6400
| |
Trump update: | |
| |
11-12-2019 01:58 PM
#6401
| |
That, "... or something," is a weird moment. | |
| |
11-20-2019 03:29 PM
#6402
| |
Damn, maybe Trump does hire the best people. Or at least ones that aren't willing to go to jail for him. | |
11-20-2019 04:22 PM
#6403
| |
He is incomprehensibly stupid. | |
| |
11-20-2019 04:23 PM
#6404
| |
"I want nothing! Just tell them that they'll get the money when they 'investigate corruption.' But no quid pro quo. Do make sure they do the thing and they'll get the money. BUT I don't want that! I want nothing! Just make sure they know if they do the thing they'll get the money, alright. But no quid pro quo. I want nothing!" | |
| |
11-20-2019 04:30 PM
#6405
| |
11-20-2019 04:31 PM
#6406
| |
Let's say this is an accurate representation of a conversation that happened. How amazing would that be! | |
| |
11-20-2019 04:35 PM
#6407
| |
David Zucker and Jim Abrams need to come back to do a movie about the Trump presidency. They're the only ones who can do it! | |
| |
11-20-2019 04:35 PM
#6408
| |
That convo seems plausible. | |
11-20-2019 04:37 PM
#6409
| |
11-20-2019 04:42 PM
#6410
| |
Tim and Eric would be a solid 2nd choice for me. | |
| |
11-21-2019 12:20 PM
#6411
| |
I'm really going to miss him. Are they going to let him tweet from prison I wonder? | |
11-21-2019 01:51 PM
#6412
| |
Mani from Florida with one of the greatest CSPAN calls ever: | |
| |
12-12-2019 10:18 AM
#6413
| |
| |
| |
12-12-2019 11:48 AM
#6414
| |
It's not often Twitter gets a reaction out of me, but that made me laugh. | |
| |
01-03-2020 09:16 AM
#6415
| |
The state of the maga cult right now: | |
Last edited by oskar; 01-03-2020 at 09:19 AM.
| |
01-03-2020 04:12 PM
#6416
| |
Haha, that Trump. You never know what he's going to do next. Good thing he's in charge of the world's most powerful military and has the nuclear launch codes and doesn't feel the need to ask congress if the US can go to war. | |
01-03-2020 04:13 PM
#6417
| |
UN already saying what Trump did was "probably" illegal. | |
01-03-2020 05:53 PM
#6418
| |
I'm surprised how long it took. You don't put John Bolton in your cabinet and get out of the Iran Nuclear Deal in order not to go to war with Iran. I guess he got cold feet at least once that we know of, but it's election year so I guess he has to. | |
| |
01-05-2020 08:55 AM
#6419
| |
That's cause you dont play 3D chess. What looks like dangerous incompetence to us is just Trump disguising how he's like, really smart. I mean who else can see how killing one of a hostile country's top leaders is de-escalating things. | |
01-05-2020 10:04 AM
#6420
| |
| |
| |
01-05-2020 03:33 PM
#6421
| |
I haven't heard of anyone suggesting this was bad because they have intimate feelings about Soleimani. This is bad because at best this ends with an exchange of airstrikes and a couple hundred civilian casualties, and at worst it's all-out war with Iran and hundreds of thousand civilian casualties. | |
| |
01-05-2020 03:38 PM
#6422
| |
Reportedly Iran put an $80M bounty on Trump's head. I said 3 years ago Trump is going to get either impeached or assassinated before his term is over. If it's both, that would be so nice. | |
| |
01-05-2020 04:45 PM
#6423
| |
01-05-2020 04:53 PM
#6424
| |
01-05-2020 07:06 PM
#6425
| |
| |
| |
01-05-2020 07:12 PM
#6426
| |
| |
| |
01-05-2020 09:00 PM
#6427
| |
| |
01-05-2020 09:00 PM
#6428
| |
Video footage of Spoon and Wuf new year's eve 2020: https://twitter.com/Stop_Trump20/sta...854704640?s=20 | |
| |
01-05-2020 09:17 PM
#6429
| |
Imma gonna go out on a limb here and guess that he didn't put the order out to stop droning civilians, has been doing it the whole time and then got bored one day and decided to turn it up to 11 and who knows why the fuck he does anything...pretty sure though the guy who says you should kill terrorists' families wouldn't lose any sleep over some collateral dead brown people. | |
01-05-2020 09:21 PM
#6430
| |
What I wonder about the Trump-assassinating-Iranian-General defenders is how much they would shit their pants if the top US general in Iraq got picked off, and the next day the Ayatollah tweeted an Iranian flag. | |
01-06-2020 12:32 AM
#6431
| |
| |
| |
01-06-2020 11:41 AM
#6432
| |
Can anyone name a war America has won since WWII? | |
01-06-2020 11:52 AM
#6433
| |
War On Christmas | |
| |
01-06-2020 12:35 PM
#6434
| |
| |
| |
01-06-2020 12:36 PM
#6435
| |
| |
| |
01-06-2020 12:41 PM
#6436
| |
| |
| |
01-06-2020 12:45 PM
#6437
| |
Ok I have one suggestions that I think everyone can rally behind: Iran should retaliate by striking Trump properties and Congress needs to halt any military action against Iran. Iran wipes out what is left of his business and he can't use the US military to strike back because emoluments. | |
Last edited by oskar; 01-06-2020 at 12:48 PM.
| |
01-06-2020 12:47 PM
#6438
| |
| |
01-06-2020 04:08 PM
#6439
| |
I'm going with a non-zero sum definition of win. So, you don't "win" by making the other country suffer more death and destruction from the war than you do. By that definition, the US "won" against N. Vietnam. By any other definition though, it lost. You only win if your country is better off after the war than before it, either economically, in terms of prestige, or in terms of security. | |
01-06-2020 05:36 PM
#6440
| |
Well then America won every war it engaged in, because it continues to be the world's dominant economy, and that dominance is underpinned by their military aggression, securing global resources and maintaining the dollar as the prime petrocurrency. | |
| |
01-06-2020 05:38 PM
#6441
| |
Vietnam was a proxy war against the Soviets during the cold war. The soviet union no longer exists and the US does, so in that respect, at least, the US won the cold war. | |
| |
01-06-2020 05:39 PM
#6442
| |
| |
| |
01-06-2020 05:40 PM
#6443
| |
Sorry that was an oskar quote, not poop. I can't even edit/delete posts due to unknown errors. | |
| |
01-06-2020 05:47 PM
#6444
| |
Congress can't really stop POTUS from using the military however he pleases unless they remove him from office. He is the commander in chief of all the armed forces, after all. | |
| |
01-06-2020 06:14 PM
#6445
| |
Are you familiar with the term "guns or butter?" History is full of examples of countries that tried to use guns to acquire more butter when they should have been making butter themselves. | |
01-06-2020 06:30 PM
#6446
| |
| |
| |
01-06-2020 06:41 PM
#6447
| |
You're making it more complicated than it is. A million dollars worth of bombs that are dropped on some foreign countries is not the same as a million dollars worth of road improvements or schools or tech investment. There's no return on the bombs, they don't make your country richer. There's return on the other investments. | |
01-06-2020 06:54 PM
#6448
| |
| |
| |
01-06-2020 07:17 PM
#6449
| |
"Adequate" is not really a worthy standard for a nation leading in innovation, IMO. | |
| |
01-06-2020 08:02 PM
#6450
| |
I think it's pretty common knowledge that contractors and interest groups who make profits selling arms to the government are pulling a lot of the strings here. It's not because the US needs to overspend on military to protect itself. There's no country even within spitting distance of being able to hurt America. What, is Canada going to invade Montana? | |