Jump to content

sheeeit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    702
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sheeeit

  1. I prefer on the rocks but for a group this frozen recipe is fantastic and very easy: 1 Can Minute Maid Limeade (The limeade you pick actually makes a difference. Don’t go with the cheap knock off version). Fill empty limeade can with tequila. Don’t go cheap but no need for high quality in a frozen. Half fill limeade can with a decent Triple Sec. 1 12oz beer Blend with ice. Smooth and delicious.
  2. Lulz. Stupid is as stupid types. This response is precisely why this place is such a cesspool. Your entire reply makes absolutely no sense and just makes outlandish nonsensical claims that you made up in your own simple mind. I have called trump a stupid idiot probably 50 times on this site. I think thats enough. This is a thread about AOC. You obviously cant defend her so you just deflect as usual. I don't have any idea what a "rent seeking middle man industry is". I am not sure I even want to know but I admit to being curious. What is it that you think I do?
  3. I don't disagree with this. But that was not her argument on unemployment. The argument you made above is perfectly valid. She was directly asked about the low unemployment rate and she directly argued that it was only low because some people were working 2 jobs. She argued that people working 2 jobs actually skewed the numbers and made the rate artificially lower somehow. Obviously working 2 jobs has no bearing at all on how the rate is calculated. I agree that tax incentives are debatable. It depends completely on the terms of the deal and the environment involved. But Amazon was only going to realize incentives (there were some smaller direct grants they would receive that were available to any company locating there and not unique to amazon) if they hit massive employment numbers and tax numbers. NYC was going to be positive billions of dollars on the deal with amazon. They, NYC, might just realize 15 billion in tax revenue versus 18 billion but the city would have been way ahead and it cost them nothing. A "smart" person and a cum laude econ major had to know this unless that person was pretty dense. Again, I am not arguing whether or not she was right about the amazon deal being good for nyc. I am arguing that she was arguing against the deal, passionately, using arguments that were not even remotely germane to the issue and showed an almost complete ignorance of the basic economics involved in the deal. I actually do think people like her are probably good for our politics. We need diverse opinions. She represents the wishes/views of her constituents. But it is just so intellectually lazy and ignorant when people try and argue that someone might think she is not that smart simply because she is a woman or brown or some other nonsense. I happen to not think she is very smart because she touts herself as a cum laude econ major and then when she opens her mouth she says things that are fundamentally stupid and show that she doesnt even know the basics of the major she graduated with. Not her opinions or subjective arguments. Just basic objective principles.
  4. Um, you don't seem to get it. I am not criticizing her beliefs or her "arguments". I am criticizing how a cum laude econ major could go on TV multiple times bashing the unemployment figures by arguing things that have no bearing, whatsoever, on the unemployment rate. Working 2 jobs has exactly zero impact on the unemployment rate. Someone working 10 jobs still just gets counted as being employed. I am saying she is not smart because she doesn't even know how the unemployment rate is calculated. The number of hours worked also has exactly zero bearing on how the unemployment rate is calculated. She tried to downplay the employment numbers by arguing something that has no bearing on the unemployment rate. This is basic 2+2=4 stuff. And she did it multiple times. Similarly, she actually thought that NYC was going to write a check to Amazon for billions of dollars. It is just laughable and stupid. It is perfectly fine to argue whether state tax breaks and incentives are a good tool or not, but she did not even know how they work. And again, this is from a cum laude econ major. And she just confidently asserted these things without even knowing how stupid she sounded. Do you think that is a smart person? I am pretty sure you are an attorney so think of it like this, everyone ridicules that guy on here who said circumstantial evidence is not permissible, and rightfully so. A dumb thing to say for sure but i doubt the guy was a lawyer or went to law school. If you were interviewing a recent law school graduate and they claimed that circumstantial evidence was not permissible, you would rightly consider them stupid and not even consider hiring them. Especially if they professed their nonsense passionately. As if they really, really understood the issue and had developed a solid understanding of their position. You would just sigh and move on to the next interview.
  5. i do enjoy coming back to this thread occasionally. She is not in my district and if her district likes her and wants to keep electing her then more power to them. But this constant drum beat of her being smart is really amusing to me. She constantly touts her econ degree and cum laude achievement. But let me ask you guys a hypothetical: Lets say you are interviewing candidates for an econ job and she comes in. You chat a bit and she seems reasonably well spoken and eager. In the course of the interview you ask her about the low unemployment rate we are seeing now and she responds with "well it is only low because people are working two jobs". You look up from her resume a bit startled and ask her to elaborate and she says "and it is skewed because people are working 50-60 hour weeks". Now both your eyebrows are arched and your head tilted a bit. You say ok, how do you feel about the Amazon announcement for NYC and she says "i am so against it, why dont we use those billions for teacher pay and infrastructure instead" At that point you would politely stand up and thank her for coming in. Then after she left you would put her resume in the trash and probably vent to your colleagues on the quality of graduates today. Now maybe if she was an art major or engineering major or english or something, those dumb comments above would be somewhat understandable. But she touts herself as a cum laude econ major. Just look up the classes required to to earn that degree. It is impossible that she was not taught about unemployment rates and tax incentives for businesses. Impossible. She is just not that smart. Doesn't mean she cant be a successful politician as lots of them are not very smart.
  6. Finally got through it. Just OK for me. DeNiro has been in soooo many movies like this that I just see him and not the character. Never been a big Pacino fan (he tries too hard most of the time) but he was good and Pesci was very good. Way too slow throughout most of it. Pretty shocked at the number of oscar nominations but I cant figure that shit out very often anyways.
  7. Well I am not going to quibble over the definition of "lots". If you read the whistle blowers account he talks about having heard about the call and how bad it was from multiple people. It is one of the ways he "corroborated" his story. That this wasn't just one disgruntled Trump hater but multiple people who had either listened to the call or had direct knowledge of it and thought it was worth reporting. Right? Then you have the 2nd whistle blower who, allegedly, did have direct knowledge of the call and has also come forward. So there are, seemingly, many people that have heard the call or have direct knowledge of it that have a problem with it. Yes? Perhaps you are unhappy with the word unsympathetic. Fine. I used that term to mean that they would be extremely unlikely to "cover" for Trump. Lets agree that these were honest and good people that truly thought the call was dangerous and were willing to expose themselves to the absolute shit show they knew was likely going to come as a result. I am fine with that and think it is entirely possible or even likely. But the point still stands. These people did come forward. They are already out there and, at least 2 of them have lawyers. You really believe that they would sit still and let Trump lie about the phone call at this point? They felt strong enough to come forward but are now going to be silent? The call transcript has been out there for a while now. It is incomprehensible to me that if it was a watered down version of the call that the whistle blowers or the people they talked to would not have come forward to dispute it. It would bolster their case tremendously. As for Zaid, again my saying he is unsympathetic to Trump means he would never cover for him. Although his past tweets do indicate at least a bit of animosity towards Trump. Here is one: "Amazing that every day seems to get worse with how pathetically embarrassing this President is. Never grows. Never learns. And no one around him can exercise meaningful control or influence. Our country will have work to do once he's out of office." This doesn't make him biased or bad or even wrong. The point being that if Trump were brazenly lying about the call, Zaid would know and Zaid would not cover for him.
  8. I am curious about your take here. From a purely legal standpoint (we can agree Trump is an idiot) but do you not see a distinction between asking for dirt on a direct political opponent versus asking for help in an existing/ongoing investigation of corruption that involves the son of a political opponent? Should all relatives of people running for office get some type of immunity from investigation? Keep in mind, there exists a treaty/understanding between the two countries already. Again, I am not saying it is not sleazy or potentially impeachable, I am saying I dont think it technically broke election law.
  9. Well for starters the whistle blowers that started this whole thing?? The ones that have come forward and are working with Zaid and have already talked to the IG? The 2nd one being the one that Zaid said has "first hand" knowledge of the call? Obviously whoever it was that told the 1st whistle blower about the call? They would be good starters.
  10. First, what you dorks can never seem to understand is that I dont care what happens to Trump. If he is guilty he should go down. My initial post was simply about how ridiculous it was for all of you and all of the dems calling this some unprecedented obstruction of justice and that our country was turning into some lawless banana republic because the WH was refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas. I merely pointed out that the WH under Obama did the exact same thing. I made no judgement on whether it was the right thing to do or not. Just that the hypocrisy from the left was amusing. And I thought the topic of whether or not executive privilege or congressional subpoena power held more weight was interesting (I still do). I have always said I think Bloomberg would be the best candidate. If Bloomberg gets into it, I would support him fully. In a dream scenario for me, Trump stirs up enough trouble to get Biden to drop out because Bloomberg has said he will not run if Biden is running. Bloomberg then agrees to run. And Trump gets impeached for the Biden stuff and Bloomberg gets elected. As for Mulvaney's comments, I do not think it is the slam dunk that you guys will think it is. I think there will be a distinction between a legal case and a political case. From a political prospective, I think the dems will pounce and proceed with impeachment. I think the Trump and co response will be that there was not really a quid pro quo. Their reasoning will likely be that the decision to withhold aid was for many reasons. Trump will say there was not any quid pro quo because, for one thing, the aid was, in fact, released before anything even happened. Zelensky will say he never felt pressured. Personally, I think that is a specious argument. I think Trump withheld aid so that Zelensky would continue investigations into the 2016 election stuff and Hunter' role in Ukraine. I do not think it will be enough to move the Senate but we will see. From a legal standpoint, I do not think Trump broke the law. If, and it is a big if, Trump had asked for or wanted some new, undisclosed investigation into the Hunter situation then I could see a case possibly being made. But even then, it would be a technicality. Hunter is not running for president. Even the most ardent of you would have to agree that his role looks incredibly suspicious with Burisma, especially taking into account his role with China. There is no law against investigating or prosecuting someone that happens to be related to someone running for president. Any investigation into Hunter is fair game. If Joe gets caught up in it then too bad for Joe. But he didnt ask for a new investigation. The investigation preceded Joe even announcing he was going to run. So you asked what I think. I think this will get Trump impeached in the house but not convicted in the Senate. I think he skates on the legal side. I pray Bloomberg runs.
  11. I guess you missed my point. Of course Trump could be lying. The point is that there were lots of people that heard the call that are unsympathetic to Trump that would/could very easily catch him in the lie. The fact that none of those people have said he is lying about the call makes me believe that the transcript released is legit.
  12. Um..there isnt a recording of the call. What is/was stored on the server is what was released.
  13. Lulz. Where does he make that distinction? I swear you guys have lost your brains. The WH situation room made their transcript of the call. Using the same exact process that they always use. Apparently the lawyers here have a hard on for whether it was made from notes, or voice activated software or some other method but everyone seems to acknowledge that the transcript was made in "real time" as the call was happening. That transcript was then classified (as all calls are initially) and, according to the whistle blower, placed in a more secure server than some other calls' transcripts. The whistle blowers' report comes out and then, after that, the POTUS declassified the call and released the official transcript created by the WH situation room that was on the secure server. The disclaimer on the situation room transcript is on every single one of them they do. They have explained it multiple times. The disclaimer exists because sometimes it is difficult to hear every word of the call. It does not mean, at all, that there are parts of the call that were omitted. I realize you dorks think there is some other secret transcript out there but there just isnt. The attorney representing the whistle blower, Mark Zaid (who is an outspoken critic of Trump and openly advertised for whistle blowers to come forward- and I mention this not because I think the attorney is not being honest, I think he is, but to demonstrate that he would not hold anything back), also has a second blower that he says has direct knowledge of the call. So for the latest crack pot conspiracy (that there exists a different transcript of the call that is more complete or has more info or whatever) to be true, then we must all believe that when POTUS said the entire transcript of the call from the WH situation room was released was lying. That somehow, they altered/doctored the official transcript to hide something. However, none of you have even tried to respond to the fact that if POTUS is lying about the transcript being the complete call, that this new 2nd whistle blower who is represented by the attorney who hates Trump and who was listening to the call in real time, is just letting the lie by POTUS go unchecked. That is simply preposterous. If Trump did lie about the transcript being complete and it comes out that there is, in fact, a longer transcript then that is better grounds for impeachment than the context of the call. Schiff and Zaid and the rest would be all over it. I would love for one of you to actually say that you truly think a second more complete copy of the transcript exists. Lets go on record.
  14. A lot to unpack here. You really do not understand what you are talking about. The whistle blower referred to the " official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced-as is customary-by the White House Situation Room. " The document that was released by the WH was that exact document. Not a summary of the transcript, the same transcript. There is no other document. The one released is the official situation room document. The exact document that was classified and placed on the secure server. The exact one the whistle blower was referring to. You are clearly trying to imply that there exists another transcript. There is zero evidence anywhere that another document exists. Listen carefully- dozens of people listened to the call, including the very same people that told the whistle blower about the call. You want us to believe that the WH released a doctored or abbreviated or something similar transcript to the public, and told the public it was the official situation room transcript, and that not one of the dozen people who heard the call- again including the ones that informed the whistle blower about how bad it was- have claimed that it was not the whole transcript. No one who heard the call has questioned this. No one. You are just wrong. (note- you need to tell the other lawyers hammering me on my word choice that the whistle blower is a "lying, fucking liar" for saying that the situation room transcript is word for word) As for the ellipses, once again you are just clinging to speculative nonsense. The former director of the same situation room for Obama said that the ellipses represented times where the person speaking paused in the course of the conversation. Nothing was omitted. If you could just think, you wouldnt have these problems. Just ask yourself if you truly believe that the dozen or so people that listened to the call and decided to take it to the IG and file an official report and communicate with the intelligence committee would just stand by and not hammer the WH if the transcript that was released was not the whole thing.
  15. Wow. Lets be clear, is the thing I am being accused of lying about the "document" (id hate to call it a transcript eve though that is exactly what CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, CBS etc all called it) that the WH released? I am lying because i referred to it as a transcript? I used the term stenographer? Here is the 'document" https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html Call it whatever you want. I really does not matter. It certainly does not read like something paraphrased. It is my understanding that the document is made by people listening to the call in real time. They are taking notes/transcribing what is being said. Obviously, the words they used are very specific and certainly read like a direct dialogue of the call. It is obviously an attempt to get down precisely the words used in the call. For the lawyers, I apologize for using the term stenographer. I was not using that in a legal way but just as a catch all for people taking notes and writing down what was said. As to your questions above..I do not think that this is a 5 minute summary of a 30 minute call. I think this is the entire call. I have no idea why the call says 30 minutes. In reading it, it certainly doesn't appear to have some huge gap. I am sure that translators slowed things down. But it would be very, very easy to ask the people who took the notes about it. This is so typical. People see some apparent inconsistency and assume it is some conspiracy. Why don't the dems just ask the note takers how long the call lasted and if there was any part of the conversation that was excluded? Seems pretty easy to me. Why do you suppose they haven't done that? And my recollection is that the whistle blower did not hear the call first hand but spoke with people that did hear the call first hand. Seems pretty easy then to get in touch with the people who actually heard the call and ask them if there is a bunch of missing dialogue. I mean we have people accusing the POTUS of saying things in this call. Does it make any sense to you that those people would let an incomplete transcript be released by the WH without calling bullshit on it? It is absurd to think that the WH would claim this is the complete call and that the dems have people that actually listened to the call and dont refute it. As to privilege, not once, ever did I claim that privilege was absolute. Never. All I said was that executive privilege is a legal right for any POTUS to claim. It is not absolute just like congressional subpoenas are not absolute. I am pointing out the absolute idiocy of people claiming obstruction of justice and that this time it means the end of our democracy. It is foolish. I am fully aware that no one has actually asserted an official position of executive privilege yet. At this point, the executive is attempting to reach an understanding on the proceedings. If they can not, then I and everyone else, expects them to claim executive privilege and let the courts handle it.
  16. Jesus. This place is completely insufferable. Call it whatever you want. POTUS released a document that was created by people listening in real time to his phone conversation. Is that better? You said they "paraphrased" it. "A paraphrase is a restatement of the meaning of a text or passage using other words." So I guess you yourself need to "fuck off, you lying sack of shit". And, as usual, you somehow get fixated on this and refuse to even try and justify that using executive privilege is "fucking lawful".
  17. Um..the people in government that communicated with the POTUS about his interactions with a foreign head of state? Are you talking about Rudy? POTUS did not instruct Rudy to ignore the subpoena. Rudy is just ignoring it. If they want to come after Rudy they certainly can.
  18. Really? There is a procedure in place for stenographers to record presidential phone calls. That transcript is what was released. It wasn't "paraphrased" it was dictation taken in real time.
  19. I suppose it is possible that you are just uninformed and not an "idiot". This is directly from Pence's letter to congress: "Please know that if the committees wish to return to the regular order of legitimate legislative oversight requests, and the committees have appropriate requests for information in the custody of the Office of the Vice President, we are prepared to work with you in a manner consistent with well-established bipartisan constitutional protections and a respect for separation of powers," Morgan wrote. "Until that time, the Office of the Vice President will continue to reserve all rights and privileges that may apply, including those protecting executive privileges, national security, attorney-client communications, deliberations, and communications among the president, the vice president and their advisors." So everything you typed was wrong. They are in fact relying on executive privilege and they have never set a "conditions were to end the investigation". Are you really an attorney?
  20. Do you even realize what you are saying? Either congressional subpoenas are absolute or they are not. You just typed that Holder failed to comply only after Holder (the one being subpoenaed) decided the gop had gone "too far afield". I think you typed it with a straight face too. So your position is that the person who receives the subpoena gets to determine what they want to provide? Wow. In fact, the specific documents that were requested from Holder but not provided in the subpoena were denied in the end by......obama exerting executive privilege. So by your definition it was obstruction. And contrary to your assertion about the WH not providing a scintilla of information, i suppose that you just forgot that the entire current impeachment inquiry is based on the potus phone conversation with ukraine. Potus released the transcript of the call. A transcript that every single legal scholar in america would agree is subject to executive privilege.
  21. As usual you guys are omitting certain facts. Maybe you are just unaware. There is actually very little case law regarding impeachments and very little precedent when it comes to congressional subpoena power and executive privilege. The reason is that, in virtually all former instances, the executive and congress worked out a compromise on the issues. What Cippallone's and Pence's letters are saying is that unless the congress and the executive can agree to certain guidelines in the impeachment process, the executive will invoke privilege which it is legally entitled to do. Contrary to what you guys keep saying, the executive has said it will be willing to waive privilege with an understanding and clarification of the process. It is asking for compromise. Perhaps it is bullshit but it will certainly be much harder for the executive to defend its position of uncooperation if the congress agrees to certain terms which certainly appear to have precedence. Essentially, congress is asking for everything and giving nothing. The executive has indicated they will cooperate under certain terms and, so far, the congress has refused to any such terms. So, like I have said, if both parties refuse to budge then it becomes a case of executive privilege versus congressional subpoena power. Congress is saying that they have absolute/unlimited subpoena power for any reason they want. This whole claim of "obstruction" is so stupid but you guys just love to eat it up. Asserting legal rights is not obstruction. Executive privilege is a legal right. I get it that most of you think it is bullshit, but that doesnt make it illegal. To me, this episode is actually a great statement to our country's constitution and rule of law. It is why we have 3 branches. It is within congress' legal rights to issue subpoenas an it is within the executives legal rights to claim privilege. If, and only if, the issues are heard by the courts (likely all the way to the SC) and then one side fails to comply with the courts rulings then that side would absolutely be obstructing justice and should be help accountable. But not before. Have any of you actually read what the executive is asking for in exchange for waiving privilege? It is actually pretty reasonable. If this is really an actual impeachment inquiry as opposed to a political hunt, then congress should agree to the terms requested immediately as they do not change any of the underlying facts of the case.
  22. Lulz. You clearly have no reading comprehension and this is another perfect example of you being so emotionally charged that you cant even respond. I clearly stated that my argument was on the issue and not, at all, based on who is currently in office. If you want to debate that then lets do it. "Because I fucking believe in the rule of law, regardless of whose fucking "team" is in power." Which "rule of law" should we follow? The law is not black and white on this issue. Is presidential privilege not lawful? The courts certainly think that it is. Both dem and repub appointed Justices have upheld it regularly. Apparently, you "fucking believe" that congressional subpoena power should override presidential privilege. That is a defensible position. Just as presidential privilege is a defensible position. I can not believe that you actually think that there should be zero instances where congressional subpoenas can be legally ignored. That is why we have a 3rd branch. If the courts determine a particular subpoena is lawful then full consequences should fall on the person not abiding by them. You are arguing that every single written and expressed comments by any POTUS or anyone providing counsel to a POTUS should be made public. That cant be your true feelings on the matter. "And I thought that Holder and the DOJ were wrong." I never suggested that you didnt. My point on that, which was pretty clear, was to point out the hypocrisy of the players involved. I am sure your personal position was consistent but I must have missed all of your posts that suggested America was a lawless, banana republic at the time.
  23. I am on the fence with this one. Essentially it boils down to the issue of which constitutional power is more sacrosanct: presidential privilege or congressional subpoena power. Ultimately, it is most likely a decision to be decided by the Supreme Court. I can see both sides to the argument. The impossible thing for 98% of this forums crazies to look at is how this plays out in the future when there is a new POTUS and new congress. But a few of you (especially THOSE of you who REALLY like to make their points) need to realize how incredibly stupid you sound when you make comments like unprecedented obstruction, banana republic, lawlessness etc. It was only 7 years ago when we had a very similar scenario. Congress issued subpoenas to Eric Holder on Fast and Furious related issues. Holder refused, citing executive privilege, was then held in contempt and then Obama/DOJ refused to act on the contempt and it went to court. And guess what? Life went on. America went on. The courts ultimately ruled and some documents were released and some were not. The absolute hypocrisy of the people involved is astounding. Both sides. In 2012 the republicans were crying that the subpoenas were lawful and the democrats (led by Pelosi) were claiming that the subpoenas were simply a political witch hunt. this is a direct quote from Pelosi " "What the Republicans are doing with this motion ... is contemptible," Pelosi declared. "This is something that makes a witch hunt look like a day at the beach. It is (the) railroading of a resolution that is unsubstantiated by the facts, based on a false premise." This what the WH said about the subpoenas "White House accused House Republicans of engaging in “political theater rather than legitimate Congressional oversight.” Amazing how the words are the same but now in different hands. This why I ultimately believe that presidential privilege should preempt congressional subpoena power. The precedent is just too damning. Lets assume Warren is the new POTUS and she has her first call with Xi. Some anonymous source tells Fox news that Warren said something unethical or possibly illegal in the call. Fox runs with the story, the House subpoenas records of the call, Warren refuses, the House claims obstruction and impeaches her. It would be ridiculous.
  24. great flick obviously. Biggest plot fail is that if Mike had been on a draw he could have just folded. He still had a big stack. But the movie has to end.
×
×
  • Create New...