Jump to content

hpslugga

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3,266
  • Joined

Posts posted by hpslugga

  1. 2 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

    wait, the Unselects?

    edit: ohhh, that's what he calls the jan 6 select subcommittee. the unselects.

    jesus fucking christos

    You have to think like aggy in order to understand what he’s saying. It’s essentially a foreign language

    • Hook 'Em 3
  2. 2 hours ago, Rimbo said:
    Quote

    “Our Founders lay this case out,” says Eastman. “There’s actually a provision in the Declaration of Independence that a people will suffer abuses while they remain sufferable, tolerable while they remain tolerable. At some point abuses become so intolerable that it becomes not only their right but their duty to alter or abolish the existing government.”

    As the article already points out, I love how this degenerate says "provision in the Declaration of Independence" as if it were a legal instrument.

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 1
    • Haha 2
  3. 1 hour ago, Rimbo said:

    Legal Eagle dives in:

     

    Beat me to it. 

    I was very happy to see that he pointed out paragraph 83 (7:30 mark), which to me puts to rest any and all debate about "what did he really know?" He fucking knew that he lost and he admitted it...just not in public. Of course he further demolishes that nonsense beginning around 15:30 with the "state of mind" stuff. I also liked the bit at the end re: Elias. That's a perfect illustration of how absurd the MAGA argument is.

    Trump's case here is like an onion that's rotting from the inside: keep peeling them damned layers and it just keeps looking worse.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  4. 1 hour ago, Foosters said:

    By his own admission, every single person Donald Trump hired to work in his administration has turned out to be a crook, a liar, and a bad guy. Sure can pick em 

    I mean you really only fit one other description if you’ve worked for Trump and aren’t any of those things: fired.

  5. 2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

    One hundred percent.  The crimes alleged occurred in DC.

    Even if there was a change of venue to Maryland or Virgitina, the DC Circuit retains appellate jurisdiction.

    And with that said, I wouldn’t advise Trump on filing for COV. He’s not going to get more friendly juries in either of those states. Of course he probably has it in his tiny little mind that he can shift the venues of all his cases to Aileen Cannon.

  6. 1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

    Neat.  None of this is any reason to not push every single sane person we know to the polls in 2024.

    Which is exactly what I do and what I encourage everyone else to do, but that’s independent of two things:

    1. My whole point was that I expect that to happen (high turnout against Trump) and have no reason not to expect it.

    2. For Trump to use his expectation of the exact opposite of that as any part of his criminal defense strategy is absolutely crazy.

    1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

      I will not be satisfied until he and others like him are dead and buried.  Literally.

    Well hopefully they won’t be buried. Hopefully we will be able to cremate them and urinate upon the ashes a la Shooter McGavin.

    • Hook 'Em 5
  7. 1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

    Everyone read this.  Then read it again.  This is it.  The bolded is our "4th and 5, with the national championship on the line" moment.  It all comes down to that.

    Trump is the 2024 GQP nominee.  That's happening, there's no room for debate, nothing will stop it.  He could be charged, tried, and convicted of the most horrific crimes imaginable, as he gleefully admits "fuck yeah I raped and murdered a baby!", and he still waltzes to the nomination.

    Trump's entire defense strategy is this: win the White House.  All of his convictions would at most be up on appeal, so he won't be in a prison anywhere.  Pardon himself (or at the very least, argue that no criminal proceeding against him can advance while he is POTUS -- impeachment is the only remedy, and we know the GQP senators will never vote to convict).  Pardon everyone else implicated.  THEN, do exactly what he accuses the DOJ of doing: he'll absolutely weaponize it, and use it to go after every political enemy, real or imagined.

    Trump's defense plan is to win the White House.

    The Republic's plan for survival is to never let him back into the White House.

    4th and 5 coming up.....it's up to all of us to play the role of VY.

    Trump isn’t winning in 2024, so that’s not a viable defense plan.

    I know it’s posh and trendy in these parts to consider people like Nate Silver to be some sort of EC wunderkinds and national polls in August the year before the election to be any sort of relevant, but the reality is that Trump didn’t even win in 2016. The D’s lost that one by nominating the one candidate that Trump conceivably could have beaten.

    Trump started losing independent voters in the 2018 mid-terms and they’ve yet to go back. He’s the President-reject as of 2020, a status that was confirmed last year in the mid-terms. 

    Add to that, within the very narrow framework of mainstream political discourse, Biden has a solid record to run on in the 6 battleground states. Contrast that to Trump, who himself is a victim of the same axiom he created shortly after taking the oath: republicans cannot win contested primaries without Trump’s endorsement, and they can’t win general elections with it. I once again have to pose this question because I’ve yet to see a sensible answer to it:

    Of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, exactly which ones is Trump flipping back to himself next year? 

    His criminal defense can go in multiple directions. He can plead straight not guilty and argue the elements, he can cut a plea, or he can try to delay these trials until after the election. Option 3 is the craziest one because it’s the most likely to fail; even more likely than option 1. His only sensible move in terms of criminal defense strategy is option 2. But he’s not going to do that. Why? Because it’s not about keeping him away from legal accountability. It’s about the grift, and option 2 represents the quickest ending to the grift.

    Think about it:

    Option 1: he gets to keep hee-hawing about how innocent he is and grifts people out of their money to contribute to his defense right til the very end of all trials.

    Option 2: Trials are over and he loses respect from a chunk of his base; at least the smarter half who recognize that he’s admitting to criminal culpability, one of such cases establishing that he knew all along that he lost in 2020 and those poor suckers got duped.

    Option 3: See option 1.

    Thats why plea bargaining never enters the discussion. No grift, no consideration.

    • Hook 'Em 9
  8. 41 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

    The mouth breathers will admit that they haven’t read the indictment but that their sources tell them that it is an indictment against free speech. And if you tell them otherwise, they will not accept your facts.

    The exact verbiage of such an exchange reads as follows:

    ”I believe what I believe because that’s what I believe. I believe that, and I’m not gonna believe what you believe because it’s not what I believe.”

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Drool 2
  9. 21 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

    Love that the right media is arguing that trump didn’t know what he was doing was illegal, and even trumps lawyer is saying that trump was just following his lawyers’ advice.  They seemed to jump over the fact that they now agree trump broke the law.

    Oh it’s worse than that. They’re going out to the usual outlets claiming that this indictment is an assault on Trump’s free speech rights. And that tracks…if when you’re reading the indictment you shut your eyes when you turn to the…you know, pages. And that’s especially true with page 2 when the indictment specifically concedes the highlighted portion:

    IMG_4234.thumb.png.b6207c6869cb361458b5855490b33e6d.png
     

    Nowhere in the indictment is it possible to conclude that Smith is attempting to squash free speech. That’s a canard. It’s a straw man of the highest order. So of course they’re going to say that. And what will they not say? Well, you know, the stuff that actually is in the indictment. So they read into the indictment things it does not say, and they don’t read what it actually does say. Shocking, I know.

    • Hook 'Em 7
  10. 46 minutes ago, GhostOfTomJoad said:
    1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:
    My understanding is that he had an impressive resume from his job as a waiter.

    More likely he worked the ball collector at the driving range and one day dotard saw him jiggle the handle just right so the dispenser took the token and gave him an extra jumbo bucket instead of the small. Trump immediately identified him as a technical genius and voila, he put him in charge of IT.

    That has to be the most accurate assumption of a Trump scenario anyone’s ever posted here.

    • Like 1
    • Haha 4
  11. 1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

    I mean, I don't get the objective. We all know what happened. The world knows what happened. The information is out there. It cannot be suppressed at this point. And to what end? It makes no sense.

    It’s the constant, obsessive and psychotic need to stroke the ego. There’s no elaborate explanation; it just goes straight back to that. The founding fathers can’t be seen as slave owners…because that makes certain white people in Florida…feeeeeeeeeeeeeel bad.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  12. 38 minutes ago, Js1 said:

    No Labels will go No Where.

    I'm really not scared of them. 

    The thing is, politics doesn't work the way 3rd party candidates portray it. It is not an issue of "sit on your hands for four years, we will conveniently show up about a year or so before the next election and start bitching about the two major parties, offering mere platitudes as solutions." Enough people can see right through that, which is why the real goal of running 3rd party is to thrust issues into the mainstream of political discourse (see Perot, Ross and Sanders, Bernie). 

    But Lieberman? That's just a bridge too far. No Labels is literally "both sides" embodied by a political party...a political party that has no real legislative agenda. All they do is, in their own delusion, proclaim that R's are as far to the right as D's are far to the left, leaving out these poor old centrists that just want to meet everything in the middle for middle's sake. It's a canard that only really accomplishes identifying people who think they're too above-it-all the actually know anything about public policy.

    Just check out this loathsome position they declared a few weeks ago: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4052216-no-labels-pledges-to-end-third-party-push-if-biden-way-ahead-of-trump-in-spring/

    Quote

     

    "Political organization No Labels committed to end its third-party push if polling shows President Biden “way” ahead of former President Trump next spring.

    No Labels, a bipartisan group, has been pursuing an effort to launch a “unity ticket” in the 2024 presidential election that would include a Republican and a Democrat “if the two parties select unreasonably divisive presidential nominees.” Trump and Biden are currently leading the polls among candidates in their respective parties. Democrats are wary of third-party recruitment pushes amid concerns that they could take votes away from Biden in next year’s election.

    Ben Chavis, the Democratic co-chair of No Labels, told NBC News Thursday that the group “is not and will not be a spoiler in favor of Donald Trump in 2024.” He also said the group would be prepared to “stand down” by the spring of next year, saying it will make a decision after Super Tuesday and before its convention in April."

     

    Yeah that may sound good to the superficial-minded. But that first sentence just as easily could read "political organization No Labels committed to end its third-party push if polling shows Mitt Romney "way" ahead of Bernie Sanders."

    This is the actual political spectrum, and not the self-serving ones that hack shock jocks like Dan Bongino cling to:

    In the US, where does the Democratic Party and the Republican Party fall on  the international political spectrum? - Quora

    Purely in terms of policy, the establishment Democrats are located around the "C" in "Conservatism" and the establishment Republicans are around the "T" in "Traditionalism" (the MAGAts split the difference between the two F's). That's not a huge difference and it's fucking asinine to believe in this dog-and-pony show with which No Labels seeks to entertain us by splitting the difference. They want to make the makeup of their party seem all involved, precise, legitimate, fair, even-handed, etc. Well yeah, splitting a frog's hair in half is a delicate procedure...and it's also a pointless one.

    In 2016, Bernie's run ultimately failed to secure the nomination, but it did a major service to thrusting socio-economic issues into the discussion. What idea are these fucking clowns going to thrust into the conversation? "Cut rich people's taxes, but don't be mean to blacks?" "Same sex marriage but with fault divorce?"

    Based on how they've performed in the last 3 election cycles (2018, 2020, 2022), I seriously doubt the D's are nervous about this. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  13. On 6/23/2023 at 12:14 PM, Js1 said:

    Criminal masterminds and election stealers. But they couldn’t do it in 2000, 2004, 2010 midterms, 2016, only half of the 2018 midterms, only half the 2022 midterms 

    Geez it's almost like they only do it in advance of the GQP calling arbitrary shenanigans using questionable claims from unreliable sources based on insufficient information. How do the D's always know when the GQP is gonna pull that shit before they do it?

    On 7/10/2023 at 7:33 PM, Bama Chick said:

    The “whistleblower” that Jim Jordan and James Comer said disappeared and was supposedly giving info on Hunter Biden’s laptop?

    Just been arrested for being a Chinese spy lol
     

     


    And was paying a Trump administration official.

    Accusations, confessions yadda yadda.

     

    I read the indictment in full. I guess I've become numbed to the whole thing because I kept thinking the guy they were referring to was the bastard son of Richard Secord following in his father's footsteps. But yeah, if this is the guy that the GQP is relying on to bring down the Biden Crime Family...well I guess I've become numbed to their standards as well because none of this surprises me. At all.

  14. 18 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

    Who the fuck is this Jim Caviezel guy?

    He plays the main character in that preposterous snuff film Mel Gibson made back in 2004 in order to incite people against the Jews.

    • Hook 'Em 5
    • Like 1
  15. 1 hour ago, GoPokes83 said:

    Couldn’t find a thread. Saw this on the news this morning, apparently this has been around a couple of years. They call it pro, but I can’t imagine the players even make back gas money. If this somehow takes off it looks like 300 lb linemen types are going to be SOL. This is a very fast game. https://www.affl.com/

    “Compensation & Benefits: - Selected players will be paid $100 per practice and $800 per game. - The league will also cover travel expenses for games. - Preseason: 6 weeks with 2-3 practices per week (practices held outside of normal work hours - Season: 8-10 weeks with 2 games & practices per week.”

  16. On 7/1/2023 at 5:25 PM, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

    So let's see if I understand this.  An undisclosed benefactor paid off Kavanaugh's 200k in credit card debt, his 1.2 million dollar mortgage, and his 92k country club balance right before he became a supreme court justice, and yet he voted AGAINST student loan forgiveness? Is my understanding correct?

    I wouldn’t bother pointing out the hypocrisy of the SCOTUS. For every time you can find the six stooging themselves are for the two-faced bastards they’ve always been known to be, they’ll say “fuck you, don’t care,” assuming they say anything to you at all.

    Uncle Ruckus screamed bloody murder about how the Harper case was moot, yet he wants to vote in the majority on an actual fake case.

    The thing you said about Kavanaugh and loan forgiveness.

    Just about anything that comes out of Alito’s filthy fucking mouth.

    We have to stop referring to these characters as “justices” and refer to them as what they are: carefully handpicked political operatives that are selected specifically to service an ideological agenda…and to wear a robe while doing it.

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 4
Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...