Printable View
Yeah, how to do you ask and answer your own question? I don't get that. I think his lawyer told him to say 'it's been asked and answered' and he just mangled it.
So how do you rate this next to sharpie-gate in terms of stupidity? 'Cause that might be an all-time winner for me, especially how he just dug in his heels for two weeks after and insisted the hurricane was headed for Alabama. Lol wtf.
You know I'm as critical of Trump as anyone, but there was clearly a circle on that map showing Alabama was going to get hit, and I think it is very immature of the MSM to not issue a correction and apologize.
You can be critical of Trump, but still admit when he's right about something.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EDp4WVGWwAYLVjX.jpg
https://twitter.com/Lost_Droids/stat...295809/photo/1
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EDpqgw3X...pg&name=medium
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EDpi4aXW...name=4096x4096
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EDv33-HW...pg&name=medium
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EDqCh8GX4AAfKVi.jpg
Damn, that wall is really coming along!
Best thing about sharpie-gate: Trump tweets about Alabama being in danger, bunch of people in AL panic, weather guys have to tweet to correct Trump. Instead of saying 'oops my bad', he brings out a map and draws a line on it to include AL in the forecast. It's so fucking pathetic it's hilarious.
Meanwhile, looks like Biden might be gaffing his way out of the nomination, while Warren is picking up steam. Not sure how that will play out but I think at this point a bedpost could probably beat Trump in 2020.
It very much looks like Biden is not going to be among the front runners in 2020, if he doesn't drop out completely. I think he's still popular among democrats who haven't followed the debates. He has to be doing pretty poorly among voters who have heard him speak in the last couple of years.
Apparently Trump thinks differently if he's trying to blackmail the Ukraine into producing dirt on Biden in exchange for military aid. I like the response from the head of the Ukrainian parliament. They're not known for twisting words over there:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/ukrain...ial-us-requestQuote:
“Clearly,” said Geraschenko, “Trump is now looking for kompromat to discredit his opponent Biden, to take revenge for his friend Paul Manafort, who is serving seven years in prison.” Among the counts on which Manafort was convicted: tax evasion. “We do not investigate Biden in Ukraine, since we have not received a single official request to do so,” said Geraschenko.
https://www.axios.com/trump-biden-uk...fc3ed0e48.htmlQuote:
The conversation I had was largely congratulatory, with largely corruption — all of the corruption taking place — largely the fact that we don't want our people like Vice President Biden and his son creating to the corruption already in the Ukraine and Ukraine has got a lot of problems. The new president is saying that he's going to be able to rid the country of corruption, and I said that would be a great thing, we had a great conversation.
President Ralph Wiggum, everybody!
Interesting that the head of DNI agreed to testify before congress. I wonder if they might actually have a good reason for not turning over the transcript, as in "it will just encourage other shady characters to call the president, and we don't want that" or some such.
It always amazes me that just when I think the shit show that is Trump can't get any worse, it invariably somehow does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=s4CeA0KgAiI
It's always fascinating to see the time period between a new allegation and confirmation of said allegation.
- 'He didn't do it, but it would have been ok if he did and he really should do it!'
... And can it be coincidence that both Ajit Pai and Steven Mnuchin have the perfect lips to receive a mushroom shaped penis?
I'd like nana back for a day just so he can explain this:
https://twitter.com/stonecold2050/st...917958659?s=20
https://twitter.com/skolanach/status...393012736?s=20
Have you guys noticed how it is impossible to respond to Trump fans without getting banned from twitter?
No. I'd have to use Twitter to notice that.
Frankly, I don't understand why anyone that is not a business would partake in Twitter.
I'm not being hyperbolic when I say that I can't at all understand why any private individual would create an account with Twitter or any similar company that makes its money off of selling the personal information of its users.... while literally charging those users for their use by advertising to them.
I could go back to my old drug habit if I wanted that kind of relationship. At least I got to feel tingly for an hour or so for the cost of the drugs and the shams of friendships I had in those days.
Half-joking:
What does Twitter even offer for the extreme cost? The opportunity to see pictures of food you wont eat being posted by people you barely know? Seriously... food porn is the least appealing form of porn. And yes, "food porn" is exactly the correct name for that practice.
It would seem that the problem is they add value to people's lives and reached ubiquity before laying on the cost (mining our data and jamming ads in our faces.) Now, arguably, a large part of the value they provide is alleviating our fears of missing out, since everyone else is signed up. It's similar to smoking's bait and switch: at first you get a little buzz and it's novel, but nicotine cravings slowly raise your resting anxiety level to the point that the relaxing effects (returning you from the artificially high anxiety levels to your more natural baseline) is the reward.
They really have high jacked out psychology-- we've learned enough to build blunt tools to hack our source code, and it's no surprise that this is the result.
Adblock+ works with twitter and idk why anyone would be on the internet without an ad blocker.
I've always thought of twitter as just a better version of RSS feed.
I just have to accept that people often don't make sense to me.
My gal uses Twitter, and she does enjoy it. It's pretty nice to live with someone who just laughs aloud randomly in the house somewhere because she was flipping through her Twitter feed.
So if I'm honest, I have to admit that it does bring some joy to my life.
It's just that the cost is astronomical for the benefit. She laughs at lots of stuff. It's not like Twitter is her only path to spontaneous jubilation.
I know I'm the weird one on this... and on my objection to cell phones (it's nothing to do with the phone and everything to do with the GPS)... but knowing I'm different doesn't help me understand why the majority of other people seem to value things so differently than I do.
How is participating on an internet forum inherently different than using twitter?
The difference is that I've met and I trust Eric, the owner of FTR. I can't trust a committee.
The difference is that we can be paranoid about whether Eric remains a good actor when it comes to our personal information, but we know for certain that Twitter is selling its users information while having the gall to advertise to them on top of it. So is Facebook.
The problem is that you can trust a person, but you can't trust a corporation, IMO.
Wow, I hate to get my hopes up after seeing Trump get got about a million times already and nothing happening, but this whistleblower shit looks serious.
We'll see if anything sticks. He dodges bullets better than Neo.
I like that they went: oh you want transcripts of these calls? Well, we think it would be more appropriate if we had someone who listened to these calls give his vague recollection! it's as if they're using Watergate as a blueprint for how to handle this... And how amazing is it that there's a secret server!
I think this is going to be a long long process and democrats might actually want to drag this out until up to the election and collect articles of impeachment. I don't want him to go down on petty extortion. What he set into motion at the mexican border is a crime against humanity and his support for SA is enabling the genocide in Yemen... and for what? They say nice things to him and rent his rooms. The most shocking thing at the end might be that nobody has serious kompromat on him, it's just that he's unbelievably easy to buy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vYSStFLZvA
Holy shit!
Wooooooh boy!
I only watched the part with Killer Mike speaking, but Dayum.
That's a good introduction.
All the YT news shows drag out their videos. You have about 2 min of content and then they're panel-ing it to death.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0e1...youtu.be&t=244
I have a hard time understanding why these people do this.
I love how the woman responding is just giving backhanded compliment after backhanded compliment.
He usually does XXX. Look how he didn't do XXX. Isn't he great?
This is a long and sordid tale.
A timeline of Trump, Guiliani, Biden, Ukraine
I started at the top and got bored fast, so I skipped to the bottom and was all, WTF?!, so I had to go back to the middle.
This isn't your average scandal. This is withholding taxpayer approved military support to an ally nation at war for personal gain.
This is way beyond chirping nonsense and lies about "chain migration" while having personally chain migrated his in-laws.
But again... he's gotten away with so, so much so far that I can't even predict how this goes down.
The idea that he will ultimately get away with it is still near certain. He'll never be convicted of anything, and if he is, he'll be pardoned by Pence. Not that the notion that he'll get impeached can be taken seriously at this time.
I think the other scandals are objectively just as bad, it's just that they were far more complicated, built on thinner evidence and therefore far easier to obfuscate. They all paint a picture of a president who thinks the rules don't apply to him, and who will flagrantly act in accordance.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
But, yes, this one is pretty cut and dry, or at least it appears to be. The detailed timeline is great, but your single sentence summary doesn't really leave anything out:
Quote:
This is withholding taxpayer approved military support to an ally nation at war for personal gain.
Again, you're right that it's unlikely he gets punished for this. Of course it is possible that this, and whatever is unearthed in the process of impeachment is damaging enough that it locks up 2020 for the democrats. In this case, 46 wouldn't be on his side and wouldn't be likely to offer up a pardon.
Nonetheless, I'm honestly more worried than anything. As you've pointed out, there are many ways that this can bounce off him. And if that ends up happening, we're fucked. The presidency has gone through a lot in these passed few years, but if a president can get away with using congressionally approved tax payer dollars, the weight of the office, and the various arms of the government to further his personal interests, it's game over for this wonderful (although at many times awful) experiment we've been running for the past few centuries.
I've pretty much abandoned Twitter, and Facebook. I still have accounts but fb I only use to keep in touch with distant family, and Twitter might occasionally get used as a source of information, like maybe something is going on and I want to try and find news links by sifting through the 95% of posts relating to the event made by virtue signallers.
If you want to be a good person on Twitter, then when there's a tsunami in Indonesia, don't hashtag pray for them, because it makes it harder for people to access useful information. Those people could be potential donors who want to know how bad it is, it could be local people trying to post important information, people saying they're not dead. If I were looking for my sister after disaster hit, I wouldn't give a fuck about the sympathies of a gender neutral fuckwit from California.
The problem with Twitter is it's full of cunts.
The idea that they sell my information is kind of laughable to me. I mean, I use ad block, and even where I'm exposed to ads, I literally never buy products by clicking on ads. My information is worth a grand total of fuck all, so if someone is willing to pay Twitter for it, more fool them. And if people are so fucking weak that when they see a flashing image of something they like, they buy it, well more fool them too.
This is all pretty funny. 95% of people posting on twitter in response to a disaster are "virtue signallers". Let me ask, is it possible for someone to do a good deed without it having an ulterior motive?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Pretty sure gender neutral fuckwits aren't usually the ones sending "thoughts and prayers."
99.9% of people think they're immune to advertising. But 99.99% of those people are wrong. That's kinda the sick beauty of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
87.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
I'm not immune to advertising. If I see a sign saying "buy chocolate here" then I might buy some chocolate. But you kind of need to advertise something I want.
Do you think sending thoughts and prayers is a good deed?Quote:
This is all pretty funny. 95% of people posting on twitter in response to a disaster are "virtue signallers". Let me ask, is it possible for someone to do a good deed without it having an ulterior motive?
You mean does it save lives? No. But it might be nice for people to think some twat on the other side of the world is sympathizing with their troubles, yes. So it could be a morale boost for them I guess. I don't think there's anything wrong with it, the way you seem to.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Or convince you it's something you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Ong, you've displayed a simplistic understanding of the ways in which your data can be used, and so I don't imagine you're particularly well suited to assess the value of your data.
Having a bunch of data on you is a one time health pack cheat code, having little tidbits of data on everyone is godmode.
Poop, I can't believe your role as Ong's nemesis is so ingrained that you feel compelled to take the pro "thoughts and prayers" stance.
I'm not defending "thoughts and prayers" as an excuse for not having gun control though. Sometimes you have to look at the sentiment behind the words and not just the words themselves.
Posting "thoughts and prayers" is to spread an intellectual plague.
I think it's closer to the truth to just say I'm a unique case. My income is next to fuck all, I spend my money almost exclusively on food, tobacco and weed. I simply do not consume anywhere near as much as the average person.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Facebook sell my data, and I get "tailored" ads as a result. Do I ever click on those ads? Nope. Do I ever see an ad and then go and buy the product? Nope, in fact I'm more likely to buy a rival's product as a result of the ad.
My youtube data is probably worth something, because I will watch recommended vids. If they are sponsored, rather than relying on blockable ads, then they make money from me watching their video. But I don't give a fuck about that, I'm happy to be recommended stuff I'm interested in watching, and am happy that content creators can make an income without me having to buy anything or disable my adblock.
I think it is a problem. It spams the Twitter feed, making it harder to find actual information. What purpose does it serve? Do you really think someone in a disaster zone reads a comment from the other side of the world and thinks "oh how nice, someone I've never met and who doesn't even speak my language has empathy for my shitty situation, I feel so much better about having lost my family."?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It serves no purpose other than to signal an individual's apparent virtue.
I want tea, chocolate and weed. Good luck convincing me I want anything other than these.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
In order for Trump to be impeached, it has to happen before 2020 (he must be the sitting POTUS), and Pence will be sworn in.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
46 can't take office before that.
Ugh. I wish I didn't agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
I mean I don't do it myself because I think it's pointless. But I can see something thinking 'oh those poor people, i can't afford to send them money I'll try to do the next best thing and send them some Jebus.' So while I agree it's retarded, I don't think it's necessarily virtue signalling. Some people actually believe praying will help.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Also I'm not sure you should be looking for missing family members on twitter lol. If they can use twitter they can use skype or I dunno, dial a number on the phone their posting on twitter with?
I think he meant if there's no impeachment, 2020 election runs its course, a D wins, then Trump gets the book thrown at him, that D #46 won't be pulllng out the pardon paddle.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
You'll still have thoughts and prayers!Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Seriously, I think all America needs to do to turn away from the abyss is for Trump to lose in 2020. I think most people are probably appalled at his behaviour and don't want America to be run by a criminal enterprise. That said, you guys need to address the underlying problems that led to him becoming popular or there's still going to be issues.
Pro Tip: using the forward arrow key skips ahead 5 seconds in the video. Makes it super easy to skip the portion of the video where they're wasting my time.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's possible to pray without telling anyone you're praying, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
So the praying is one thing and the telling people you're praying is another thing, right?
So the telling is virtue signalling, and is separate from the praying, right?
I'd guess the odds of Trump finishing his term, then being prosecuted for his actions while POTUS after the fact are very slim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If he's going to be nailed for stuff he's doing as President, then it's gonna happen while he's President, or it wont happen
is my prediction.
Trump is not the problem, he's a symptom, and even if he's prosecuted and sent to a min security prison for a couple minutes, it's not going to change the hearts and minds of the people that voted to put him in office.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Your suggesting logic applies to people who pray.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
So the question is why do/did people support him? Part of that is gullibility and they are buying his bigly snake oil about how he's their saviour, and I think that's the good news because those people can be brought back.
Another part is some people are jerks and want a surrogate jerk in power. Those people exist in every country.
The solution is to make a country where fewer people are jerks, so you have to ask what makes someone a jerk? There's probably a number of things, but income equality springs to mind.
Not so much as suggesting we can apply logic to the actions of people who pray.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Most of what I was hearing at the time was "stick it to the man," and "politics as usual has screwed us over."Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I'd love it if they see what happens when you put someone who never had a truly patriotic thought in their life in office, but that's not what they're gonna see, and I know it.
Unless they're in the electoral college, they do not represent any appreciable %-age of voters (I hope).Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Gets me right in the feels, man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Well, a couple of things:Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
1) being impeached is not synonymous with being convicted and therefore removed from office. Essentially to impeach is to indict. The House impeaches, the Senate adjudicates.
2) were he to be impeached and convicted, thereby removed from office, 46 would be Pence.
3) trump will still be president in 2021 (should he not be impeached and convicted before his term ends)
4) there is nothing that bars congress from impeaching and convicting a public official after their term has ended. Removal from office would obviously be moot at this point, but the guilty would then be barred from holding office from there on.
This may have been a bit confusing-- what's implied is that, in all scenarios in which Trump does not get a second term, whether 46 is Pence or a Democrat depends on whether Trump resigns/is removed from office before January 20th 2021.Quote:
In this case, 46 wouldn't be on his side and wouldn't be likely to offer up a pardon.
It's an awkward position for a Democrat 46, because a huge part of what's blatantly wrong with Trump is that he attempts to persecute his political rivals. It would be very hard for a Dem46 to convince aggrieved MAGA hatters that that's not what's happening. But actively pardoning isn't an option, and even directing his DOJ to look the other way doesn't seem politically permissible.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Then there's the whole question of state AG's, who a Dem46 has no hard power over.
Yeah, if all goes well over the next year and a half or so, we'll be able to breath a sigh of relief.. but then the real work starts.Quote:
Trump is not the problem, he's a symptom, and even if he's prosecuted and sent to a min security prison for a couple minutes, it's not going to change the hearts and minds of the people that voted to put him in office.
Making a post on Twitter is not praying though. So even if you're one of the minority who thinks prayer can help, posting a comment saying you're doing it is still virtue signalling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
And you're wrong. People use Twitter, and indeed Skype, or Facebook, to search for loved ones after disasters. It might be direct, or indirect, such as seeking out information regarding emergency shelters. As for phoning someone, that's not so easy when tens of thousands of people are trying to phone people at the same time. People might also be using Twitter to try to find news articles relating to the event, to see how bad it is, and which regions are affected. That's a lot harder when 90%+ of the posts are "thoughts and prayers".
The vast majority of people do it to demonstrate they are kind and thoughtful people... that's what virtue signalling is.
so much nonsense in one post.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
People don't use twitter to search for loved ones, don't be an idiot. And if they did, as a last resort, check someone's twitter account to see if they posted, other people tweeting thoughts and prayers isn't going to make any difference. You look at NanaOng's twitter account, and see she's tweeted 'I'm ok everybody! Just need some thoughts and prayers" and you know she's fine.
And if you're looking at twitter to find out where emergency shelters are or to get updates on the news, you don't deserve to find your family. Use google, you fucking idiot.
And I'm not sure if you've heard of this invention, but nowadays there's phones that use satellites. So no, the phone lines don't get overwhelmed during a disaster and therefore you have to rely on twitter lol.
As far as people using twitter to virtue signal, sure it probably does happen. I'm just saying there's reasons people can express concern about something besides just trying to make themselves look good. If, e.g., you have a friend in the hospital and you go visit them, is that virtue signalling too? Or does it only count if you tell someone else you went - 'hey I saw Joe today and he's doing ok, a bit down but what can be expected after a double testiclectomy?' What if you tweet out 'hey Joe, hope you're feeling better with no balls now. Must be a relief to be able to fit in your jeans again. damn those things were the size of grapefruits! Who'da thought a flea infestation could get so out of hand like that?' knowing he's going to see it. Is that virtue signalling too?
I'll accept sometimes people are virtue signalling if you accept sometimes they genuinely think their message is doing some good.
Fair point. I guess maybe some people think it helps the person they're tweeting at to know someone is speaking to Jebus on their behalf. Maybe that's the idea behind it. I don't know really.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Goes on to post a wall of nonsense.Quote:
so much nonsense in one post.
It's one resource that someone might use. Are you telling me that if you were looking for someone, and your phone wasn't working, you'd think "nah can't be fucked with Twitter"? You'd use every resource available.Quote:
People don't use twitter to search for loved ones, don't be an idiot.
I'm not really talking about people seeing if they've been active and made a recent post, Facebook is more likely to be the resource there. Then again, many people use Twitter but not Facebook, so some people might want to check out if their sister has been online. They can do that easily without having to filter through the virtue signallers, by simple checking their feed.Quote:
And if they did, as a last resort, check someone's twitter account to see if they posted
You do realise that the information probably finds its way onto Twitter first, right? Local emergency services run Twitter feeds, and news agencies pick up on these. That's how journalism works these days, journalists are lazy and basically rely on Twitter to do their job for them. A google search is not going to yield desirable results as quickly as Twitter when it comes to world events as they are happening.Quote:
And if you're looking at twitter to find out where emergency shelters are or to get updates on the news, you don't deserve to find your family. Use google, you fucking idiot.
Of course you'll try phoning them first. What if they don't answer? Here's a fun activity for you... google "finding loved ones after a disaster". Obviously, they recommend using social media. Obviously.Quote:
And I'm not sure if you've heard of this invention, but nowadays there's phones that use satellites. So no, the phone lines don't get overwhelmed during a disaster and therefore you have to rely on twitter lol.
Sure there are. There's a big difference between "hey Mom, hope you're ok, see you soon x" and "omg how horrible, that tsunami looks scary, hope everyone is ok, pray for #Indonesia". The difference is that on the one hand you're directly communicating with someone you know, on the other you're posting inane crap that makes nobody feel better except perhaps other virtue signallers who are completely unaffected by the disaster and somehow think what they read was a nice thing to read.Quote:
I'm just saying there's reasons people can express concern about something besides just trying to make themselves look good.
We're not negotiating here. I don't give a fuck what you accept. And there's a huge difference between thinking you're doing good, and actually doing good. I don't doubt these people think they are doing good, if they didn't they wouldn't do it because they wouldn't expect to look and feel good as a result. Anyone who thinks a message to people they don't know is helping is a moron, especially when the vast majority of posts relating to the topic are others doing exactly the same.Quote:
I'll accept sometimes people are virtue signalling if you accept sometimes they genuinely think they're message is doing some good.
These people who "think they're doing good" are whoring for likes and shares, and trying to to the absolute bare minimum to "help" so they can feel good about themselves. Virtue signalling.
Then look at them. Or are you saying they only post thoughts and prayers? Wat the fuck is your actual argument?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Right, and do you look at their personal fb page or twitter account or do you search twitter for #disasternews? Fuck me, just give up already.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
#prayforMidlands
There. Now if your ever in a disaster and your family is looking for you they won't be able to find you.
You're so disingenuous.
I deleted the new thread you started, it was inane and amounted to spam. I seem to have accidentally deleted the aarrggh thread too. I'll mop up the tears later.
fascist!
One thing that really leaves me scratching my head in this insane news cycle is this new bit of information about the Kislyak meeting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...40f_story.html
The meeting is mentioned in the Mueller report, but not that he said he was unconcerned about russian election interference because the US did it too. That means it was either redacted - unlikely because similar remarks remained unredacted, or Mueller only got a redacted version of the conversation as well.
Oi. Cool it, Hitler.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
-Ghandi
Next he'll be trying to stifle any reasonable argument by [poop is a twat] them nonstop for days.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Oh wait...
Paywalled so can't read.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
One thing I'm waiting for to happen is a bunch of other phone transcripts get released and we basically find out that every convo Trump has with a foreign leader has nothing to do with America and everything to do with Trump getting richer/winnng in 2020/offering things in return for cheap loans. At least that seems to be the direction it's heading.
Here Ong this ought to cheer you up. fwiw I'm pretty much with Joe Rogan on this shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lye1lzneSnQ
1) Yeah. Impeachment is equivalent to a Grand Jury. If the impeachment hearing reaches a supermajority of votes to impeach, that amounts to a criminal indictment. That is, the impeachment hearing is a precursor to leveling criminal charges and any legal actions that follow. The purpose is to see if there is adequate evidence to take the time and effort to press charges, basically. It's meant to protect elected officials from frivolous law suits, as I understand it. IF the impeachment goes through, then removal from office to stand trial is the next legal action.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
It should be noted that 2 US presidents have been impeached and neither left office.
Nixon was not impeached, but resigned when it became clear that he would be impeached. Nixon was pardoned by Ford, even though at first Ford said he'd only do it if Nixon apologized. Nixon said he didn't commit any crimes and had nothing to apologize for. Ford relented and pardoned him anyway.
4) That was a rabbit hole.
As far as I can tell, impeachment only applies to "officers of the US federal gov't." This includes not just POTUS, but top-level federal judiciary seats and all offices which are filled by presidential appointment with Senate approval.
In addition, it includes every officer in all branches of US military. I assume impeachment doesn't apply to military officers, as the military has its own courts, but it's a guess.
So, as far as I can tell, once the official is no longer in office, the impeachment clause does not apply to them. That's under the assumption that "officer of the US fed gov't" isn't a lifetime title, but that's not completely clear. A person may choose to hold the honorific "The honorable" [MMM] for life, having ever held one of these offices, though wikipedia says use of this honorific is not common.
I'm not exactly sure who and under what circumstances needs to be impeached to continue with criminal prosecution, and an ex-POTUS may or may not have that protection.
"Election USA 2020: Colludo-mania!"
I'm sorry for accidentally deleting an active thread.
Not sorry for nipping the new one in the bud. The arrggghhh thread was sufficient for our constant bickering.
Yeah, the ex-POTUS impeachment is interesting but almost certainly will remain theoretical, and is a bit in the weeds. But if you're enjoying the rabbit hole, this is just a few paragraphs: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...ton-again.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Anyways, my point was that there are some interesting scenarios given the game board-- for example, it could be in Trump's best interest to get himself impeached if it's a lock that we'll have a Dem POTUS in January 2021 and he'll face criminal charges that Pence would preemptively pardon him for. Of course he still has the issue of being charged by state AG's..
Those are interesting scenarios, but it seems to me that assuming Trump is capable of strategizing like that is unsupported by his past behaviour. My guess is he's just going to keep digging in his heels and proclaiming his innocence until whatever end happens.
Like I said before, Trump will only be taken out of the WH by his fingernails, kicking and screaming the whole way.
Interesting.
It does appear that we've been lucky to have presidents who more or less go white dwarf after they leave office. It is hard to imagine Trump not going supernova. It's just hard to imagine a post-Trump world at all. Hopefully this is wrong, but I feel like no matter how he leaves office, his base will be enraged. If he dies of a heart attack, it will be a deep state cover operation; if he loses the election, it will be because it was rigged, if he serves both terms and anyone but a Trump sycophant isn't elected in 2024, it will be because the election was rigged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Seems spot on to me. That said, his base can go fuck themselves. I'm done worrying about how they feel. I might be more worried if I lived there though I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
I just don't think you can be afraid to vote out Trump because his base won't like it and might react badly. That's no different than not standing up to a bully because he might punch you in the face. You still have to do it.
This is funny. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if Trump loses an election, the vast majority of his supporters will accept it. The reaction will be a lot more subdued than the outrage at him winning, and the shitshow we've had since.
I might be wrong, this post might not age well. But it's what I believe right now.
I think the vast majority will accept it too if you define 'accept' as meaning not getting violent about it. But it doesn't take much of a proportion out of millions going off the rails to make things ugly. If even 1000 of those millions go mass killer (which I think is unlikely, probably closer to 10 or 100), then it's going to be pretty traumatic.
Well yeah we can be creative about what it means to "accept" the result, for clarity on what it means to me then I would say that the vast majority of his opponents have failed to accept him winning. So if Trump losing is met with hysterical noise from his supporters, then I would say they too have failed to accept the result.
If violence is the measure, then the vast majority of his opponents have accepted him winning, and of course the same will be true if he loses. I think talk of 1000 or even 100 mass killers is fear porn of the highest quality. That's right up there with documentaries about Yellowstone Park.
There will likely be incidents if he loses, just like there are incidents all the time. Find me a year where USA didn't have a mass shooting. idk what the average is, but I wouldn't expect there to be any more mass killings than average in the year after an election.
The difference is he encourages it, past presidents didn't. Like Boost said, he's going to go supernova. He's already talking about impeachment leading to a possible civil war.
Keep in mind that most of Trump's base are simply Republican voters who aren't attached to Trump, per se, so much as they're attached to the Republican party.
If Trump somehow wins again in 2020 I think the odds are even that 47 will be Guiliani.
lol.
The whistleblower is hearsay.
I got news for you... the actual recording of the phone call is also hearsay... that doesn't mean it's not valuable evidence at getting to the truth.
Some hearsay is good evidence. Some is bad. When the topic of discussion is the content of the phone call, and that is hearsay by definition (it was said outside of a court and not under oath), then obviously the hearsay is good evidence.
Try harder, scandal defenders.
You mean 46, no? But either way, lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
46. 2024.
Sorry lost count.
I cannot emphasize how much I am not with Rogan on this. This is "the left" ... "eating itself"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Who's the left? Is "the left" a transgender boy at a girls school? Oh that old cliche! I remember when I was a transgender boy at a girls school! What else? Because a teenager, who... do we even know his political affiliation? Who says that if you're trans you're left? 2% of black people support Trump. I'm sure some gender-queer are just as confused... and because that teenager uses pretentious language to describe himself, that means "the left" has lost the plot?
What absolute drivel.
I missed that post.
If someone who is born female identifies as a male, and expects to have the same rights as men, they are promoting left wing views. The left is very much concerned with equality. The idea that "the left are eating themselves" is based on the notion that they seem to abandon equality as soon as someone they don't like expects to be treated the same as someone they do like. To truly support left wing ideals, you need to accept that white males are also entitled to equality. To treat a woman who identifies as a male with contempt because she is white, that is the opposite of equality.
I think it's fair to say the compnay in question are left wing, or at least identify as such. No right wing or politically neutral company will see any benefit to hiring a "diversity officer", whatever the fuck that is.
The trans person, I don't think it matters if he's left wing or not. He probably is, but that's a guess based on his genderqueerness. They tend to lean left because they want to be treated as normal people, so it's natural for them to tend in that direction. Of course, it's not a given. Chelsea Manning doesn't come across as particularly left wing, not that I know a great deal about her other than she slipped secrets about Clinton to Assange when she was a he. Seems pretty anti-left to me. So yeah, it's not a given, though I'd say it's a reasonable assumption. That said, I also think the trannie's ideology is irrelevant in the matter. It's the company's ideology that is relevant here.
https://youtu.be/bCAnalgNQps?t=21Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Someone give this reporter a medal: https://youtu.be/mEXWI5YK0E8?t=172
lol "You talking to me? You must be talking to me. I don't see any other colluders up here."
AOC's winning the presidency 2024
Holy shit I haven't seen all these avatars and side flairs in a year. Feels longer.
Hi Wuf! Long time.
You doing well?
You a professional economist, yet?
Yo!
I left the econ life, but the econ life never left me.
I'm doing phenomenal. Thanks for asking. You?
Still doing that gig where I play with toys and watch YouTube videos in a physics department.
Pretty rockin'.
Still with the same gal. She's rockin', too.
The summer heat finally broke and the windows are open for the first time in months.
Altogether rockin'.
That's awesome and great to hear.
Wuf!!Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I thought it was Ivanka.
If she runs, she has a chance to beat AOC. She's one of the only who could.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
AOC is so powerful that she probably has no choice but to run 2024. I'm not sure about Ivanka. Her new haircut suggests she might be looking to run, but I'm not as confident as I am that AOC will.
How you been?