02-22-2018 03:25 PM
#76
| |
| |
02-22-2018 03:26 PM
#77
| |
Golfing doesn't count as work. | |
02-22-2018 03:27 PM
#78
| |
| |
02-22-2018 03:28 PM
#79
| |
02-22-2018 03:30 PM
#80
| |
| |
02-22-2018 03:33 PM
#81
| |
OK | |
02-22-2018 03:42 PM
#82
| |
| |
02-22-2018 03:48 PM
#83
| |
02-22-2018 03:49 PM
#84
| |
And we don't want him having a heart attack while banging porn stars, do we? | |
| |
02-22-2018 03:51 PM
#85
| |
Whether he's "fit for office" is an interesting question. I propose we put this question to public debate, perhaps in the form of an election? | |
| |
02-22-2018 03:53 PM
#86
| |
02-22-2018 03:57 PM
#87
| |
Ok yeah let's go down that rabbit hole. | |
| |
02-22-2018 04:12 PM
#88
| |
| |
02-22-2018 04:32 PM
#89
| |
I said the electoral college is not the American voters. Nothing more. | |
02-22-2018 04:33 PM
#90
| |
| |
02-22-2018 04:36 PM
#91
| |
02-22-2018 04:40 PM
#92
| |
| |
02-22-2018 04:43 PM
#93
| |
Why does saying incorrect things undermine an argument? | |
02-22-2018 04:44 PM
#94
| |
You guys should just start your own thread where you can insult each other and the rest of us don't have to watch. | |
02-22-2018 04:51 PM
#95
| |
| |
02-22-2018 05:27 PM
#96
| |
That's the bishop, not the queen. And you're in check, so you can't even move your bishop. Jeez it's like playing chess with a cat. | |
| |
02-22-2018 05:45 PM
#97
| |
The cat is outplaying you ainec. | |
02-22-2018 05:50 PM
#98
| |
Yeah well "fit for office" is not a legal phrase that I'm aware of, so if it doesn't mean "in my opinion" then it can only mean "in the public's opinion". | |
| |
02-22-2018 05:51 PM
#99
| |
02-22-2018 06:03 PM
#100
| |
I didn't say you were wrong, I just took issue with your "fit for office" comment. | |
| |
02-22-2018 06:16 PM
#101
| |
02-22-2018 06:19 PM
#102
| |
You said it. | |
| |
02-22-2018 06:25 PM
#103
| |
That's because I'm not screeching, I'm simply pointing out the man's numerous flaws. And it's got nothing to do with what part of the political spectrum I identify with. I would hardly say I'm a fan of most republican politicians, but I do at least find most of them tolerable. | |
02-22-2018 06:27 PM
#104
| |
No you don't screech, I'll give you that. Your noise isn't intolerable. | |
| |
02-22-2018 06:29 PM
#105
| |
The right has it's share of nuts too. That doesn't make you one. | |
02-22-2018 06:38 PM
#106
| |
The right has a lot of nuts. But they're not making incessant noise. If they were, I'd probably shy away from them. | |
| |
02-22-2018 06:52 PM
#107
| |
Of course they are. You're just choosing to tune into the nuts who you abhor listening to for some reason. You could easily avoid having to listen to any screeching banshees just as easily as I can avoid listening to right wing nuts. I don't watch Alex Jones (except for the occasional comedic value), so why do you watch blue-haired transwhatevers? | |
02-22-2018 07:42 PM
#108
| |
| |
02-22-2018 07:44 PM
#109
| |
Banana touched on this, and now you. It's a very good point. Where it breaks down is that you guys are lumping two things together. There is the public understanding of Trumps wealth (whether it is accurate or not, he benefits from appearing to be rich) and there is the facts of what his tax returns say, which dictate how much he pays in taxes. Unfortunately we only have the former, and so we are left to speculate. | |
02-22-2018 07:59 PM
#110
| |
This is part of what I'm saying. But it's important to note that this applies to many scenarios. So, his run good could be in business, it could be in influence, it could be legal, etc. Of course there is overlap here, but the point in making the distinctions is that where his run good is should be expected to paint a very different picture with regards to who he is and how we can expect him to act. | |
02-22-2018 08:01 PM
#111
| |
02-22-2018 08:16 PM
#112
| |
I actually think sustained run good is more likely in business than poker. The difference in business is that at a certain point you have a self replenishing bankroll through diversification into passive income streams. Compounding passive income streams is the fact that if you are really big enough, you actually can become too big to fail for your creditors. | |
02-22-2018 08:24 PM
#113
| |
*I feel like it's important to keep saying that I'm not claiming what is true, but offering plausible scenarios that leave doubt* | |
02-22-2018 08:28 PM
#114
| |
|
Actually we aren't. All it takes is a cursory understanding of bookkeeping to realize that you can't fake the long term prosperity that Trump has enjoyed. Insolvency is a bitch. |
02-22-2018 09:42 PM
#115
| |
Forbes is not the floor of Trump net worth estimates, nor are their net worth estimations thought to be particularly accurate. But let's pretend that first sentence doesn't exist-- you're not concerned with discrepancies like this? You're basing a large part of your assessment of who Trump is on this figure, and you don't think it's important that there is no reasonable consensus on what it actually is? | |
02-23-2018 04:37 AM
#116
| |
^You're a better man than I boost, tremendous amounts of restrain, patience and coherent thought demonstrated ITT. | |
| |
02-23-2018 04:46 AM
#117
| |
One's a boring fat fuck. The other is a funny fat fuck. | |
| |
02-23-2018 04:57 AM
#118
| |
| |
| |
02-23-2018 05:04 AM
#119
| |
Would you not expect to improve? If I fired up £1m of funds and started playing the big boys, losing slowly enough to appear skilled enough to play at these stakes, do you suppose I stay at the same slightly losing level for my career? Or is it more likely that I'm actually going to learn something by playing at this level? I've already proved I'm not completely out of my depth. | |
| |
02-23-2018 05:50 AM
#120
| |
So your argument is that I can avoid AJ but not blue-haired transwhatevers. Bullshit. I avoid both. It's not like every time I turn on the BBC it's showing the latter group marching and screeching. And even if it is, I can just change the channel. | |
02-23-2018 09:26 AM
#121
| |
|
OMFG. Here you are shouting from the rooftops about how we need more data points. Then you get one and you're like "naaah" |
02-23-2018 10:24 AM
#122
| |
|
btw, what does 'bluehair' mean on pansy-ball island? 'cause here in winner-town I think it means something else. |
02-23-2018 11:04 AM
#123
| |
Means nothing in particular. In the context we're using it, it means the same as screeching banshee. | |
| |
02-23-2018 12:42 PM
#124
| |
|
Well here it's a mostly out-dated term that was once used to describe vain old women. Back in the old days if a woman dyed her hair too often, it would show a blue-ish tint. |
02-23-2018 04:36 PM
#125
| |
I see. I think I used the phrase "blue haired gender non conforming", poop rephrased it to the improved "blue haired transwhatever", and from there it's now BHT. I don't even know why I said blue hair, the screeching banshee I had in mind had nasty ginger eyebrows. | |
| |
02-23-2018 05:32 PM
#126
| |
Pablo Escobar was clearly intelligent and had a great sense for business. The caveats tied to those accolades are an issue when the accolades are being used to suggest he's fit for political office. | |
02-23-2018 07:08 PM
#127
| |
"fit for office" | |
| |
02-23-2018 08:15 PM
#128
| |
Pablo Escobar was elected to the Colombian congress, and therefore also fit for office apparently. | |
02-24-2018 04:49 AM
#129
| |
Then yes, he was, because the Colombian electorate decided he was. Just because you, and for what it's worth, I, believe that he wasn't fit for office, doesn't mean we're "right". What did he do while in office? He built schools and football fields. So, perhaps we're wrong. | |
| |
02-24-2018 05:12 AM
#130
| |
Hey I got an idea. Let's take some random undefined anecdote and start arguing about not it's meaning but it's subjective application. That ought to be fun. | |
| |
02-24-2018 05:14 AM
#131
| |
Well yeah, because people throw that term about like it should mean the same to everyone. | |
| |
02-24-2018 08:15 AM
#132
| |
02-24-2018 04:30 PM
#133
| |
Ong, instead of formulating a definition that fully encompasses what I mean by "fit for office", instead I'd like to ask you what you think the purpose is of parading around Trump's supposed business success, or for that matter any politician's accomplishments? | |
02-24-2018 05:21 PM
#134
| |
| |
02-24-2018 05:29 PM
#135
| |
<3 | |
02-24-2018 09:16 PM
#136
| |
| |
02-25-2018 07:19 PM
#137
| |
|
Wut?? |
02-26-2018 04:11 PM
#138
| |
If you follow through with your analogies, you might realize that they don't actually support your case. Resumes are regularly embellished, but within reason. To safe guard against rampant over the top embellishment which would render all resumes useless, employers do some level of follow up. | |
Last edited by boost; 02-26-2018 at 04:16 PM. | |
02-26-2018 05:02 PM
#139
| |
|
*sigh*....be smarter. |
Last edited by BananaStand; 02-26-2018 at 05:05 PM. | |
02-26-2018 05:16 PM
#140
| |
Aren't you guys bored of this yet? | |
| |
02-26-2018 05:22 PM
#141
| |
02-26-2018 05:39 PM
#142
| |
Boost thinks Mueller is going to fuck Trump up. | |
Last edited by Poopadoop; 02-26-2018 at 05:43 PM. | |
02-26-2018 06:20 PM
#143
| |
|
It might not be Mueller and it might not be indictment. But it for sure will be, just as it has been for a while now, revealing of Obama administration crimes. |
02-26-2018 06:47 PM
#144
| |
I'm expecting blizzards over next few days. Could be a couple of feet of snow here by the weekend. I'm stocked up with tea, sugar and milk, bring it on. | |
| |
02-26-2018 07:25 PM
#145
| |
|
How? What evidence could be used to fuck up Trump? What crime or misconduct has Trump committed that Meuller could use to fuck him up? |
02-26-2018 07:31 PM
#146
| |
|
The funny thing is that even though we can't *know* that Trump is a great businessman, all of the evidence available about all businessmen strongly suggests that Trump has among the highest probability of being one of the greatest. |
02-26-2018 07:41 PM
#147
| |
02-26-2018 08:07 PM
#148
| |
|
Typical idiot maneuver. Assume I'm a right winger because I reject your extreme leftism |
02-26-2018 08:53 PM
#149
| |
I actually don't think this. I think it's possible. I think it's fair to assume that is my stance from the OP, but I'm agnostic about whether Trump actually colluded, and I think both collusion and obstruction cases won't be terribly easy to make. | |
02-26-2018 09:10 PM
#150
| |
|
After this is all said and done, so many people are going to say they knew there was nothing on Trump. |