Jump to content

jimmyjazz

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    45369
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    9

Posts posted by jimmyjazz

  1. 7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    Here's my question for Trumpkins: how do you justify this?  I mean, I hear y'all hollering about how you think "No, the DEMS colluded with the Russians!"  Fine.  Let's say they did.  Shouldn't we want to stop THAT?  Shouldn't we want to secure our elections against purposeful foreign interference, REGARDLESS of which "side" it might favor?  

    I fully expect a revised version of an election security bill specifically targeting interference which helps Democrats.

  2. I missed the Pool Burger reference -- Wagyu beef for $8.50?  Sign me up.  Loyal Forever looks great but I'm not so sure about ranch on a burger . . .

  3. 46 minutes ago, Zavala said:

    Couldn't use "collusion" because it's not a legal term. 

    Did use "exonerate" and the entire news media ran with it. The nobody in the justice system has the power to exonerate. 

     

    Without fail, you'll simply latch on to whatever silly argument Sean and Rush and FOX tell you to run with.  It's stunning.  Nobody gives a shit if there's no "Department of Exoneration".  TRUMP has been the one saying he was exonerated -- not Mueller.  And now Trump is floating the opposite because he caught wind of a dumbass congressman trying to make a semantic gotcha while missing the entire fucking point.

    No, the Mueller report did not exonerate Trump.  It's not just because Mueller lacked the power to exonerate -- it's because the evidence made it impossible to exonerate (as a matter of English language) even if that power existed.

    The simplicity of Trumpkins is breathtaking.  You will quite literally believe anything you are told, with no fact-checking whatsover.

    • Like 3
  4. 1 hour ago, Mojo Hand said:

    A joint statement is a brilliant idea, if you could get one.   Carter and Clinton would be in for sure, but I don't know if you could get W or Obama to come out publicly. 

    Eh, it would be largely toothless.  3 Dems and a Republican simpleton.

  5. I think Bette stands a very good chance of being right about Trump's "blackground".  Now, the Tweeden shaming is over the line -- Bette made her career off bawdy song and dance work long before she ascended to superstar status, and I'm pretty sure she'd be offended by some of Franken's behavior, too.  (Not that I agree with Franken's resignation, I don't actually, but he did cross a line and "she was dressed like she wanted it" is a piss-poor justification.)

    • Like 3
  6. 6 minutes ago, Red Five said:

    Yeah, isn’t that sort of a crime? I mean, it used to be.

    You mean this?

    Quote

    DEMINGS: "Isn't it fair to say that the President's written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete because he didn't answer many of your questions, but where he did, his answers showed that he wasn't always being truthful?"

    MUELLER: "I would say, generally."

    The "perjury" part?  That's a crime?  

    Image result for george costanza had i known

    • Like 1
  7. 2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

    He is an old man, and the testimony is long and intellectually intense.  It's not a fault, its just reality. 

    I don't disagree -- my point is that this kind of scrutiny for this long is tiring for anyone of any age.

  8. Just now, hayden_horn said:

    it's funny, the D's do it to establish his credibility, and the R's do it to try and take the edge off their questions/attacks on his credibility.

    More to the point, both do it to establish their patriotism, whether it exists or not.

×
×
  • Create New...