Jump to content

sheeeit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    702
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sheeeit

  1. You are always good for a chuckle. I have to admit that I had no idea what a carriage return was until I googled it. But when I speak into my phone it lets me say period and comma but not paragraph. I wish it would because it is annoying. But as you obviously saw, there wasn’t a paragraph after the sentence that I made the mistake in. Super catch buy you though.
  2. It’s what I get for speaking my posts and not editing.
  3. Is “military grade” propaganda better than civil grade propaganda? Are there other grades? And I do see your point. It is obvious that Facebook disabling some accounts means that Fox News stopped tweeting because they’re about to get ensnared by Mueller.
  4. Well if any of the freshman from Texas had been on every major news program in the country multiple times and were labeled the future of the party by the head of the DNC, then I’d bet we would be talking about them. No one is scared of her and she really won’t make any difference at all. Seems like most people critical of her are just laughing at some of the stupid stuff she says. But I have no problem with her being elected by the people of her district. She took the risk to run and she one. Good for her.
  5. If the moon was made of cheese, would you eat it? It’s a simple question.
  6. What will that do? The same person will just facilitate a meeting and leave the room when they start talking shop. The do not have to register as a lobbyist and the same thing happens. There is nothing wrong with lobbying. It is greatly needed. Pols can not possibly have an exhaustive understanding of every issue they face. Lobbyist are there to argue the merits of what they want. The actual issue/problem is lobbyists donating/directing money to campaigns. If the pol is not running for reelection then the lobbyist has little or no power over him except for the merit of his case. And, more importantly, he can not influence other pols that his legislation does not effect.
  7. You just can not help your demented self can you. Considering I openly supported and voted for Beto, your comments seem retarded. What the court found in CU, was exactly what I have been saying on here. No matter what tactic/law/regulation we try to put on campaign finance, the money folks will find a way around it. Dark money has existed in politics forever. CU tried to bring that money to light. I may not like dark money in politics but I realize that it will always be there as did Scalia. Overturning CU (which just is not going to happen) will not actually change anything. At least with the current law, we can track the money.
  8. You kind of have to read what they said. They did not, in any way, admit to any hacking. They are trying a legal argument that the court has no jurisdiction because what they are accusing Russia of doing is protected. It is an interesting legal strategy but they did not admit to anything. I do not know anyone that believes that Russia did not meddle in the elections. The argument is whether they coordinated with Trump et al (I do not think they did) and, to a lesser degree, how much their actions actually influenced anything (i do not think enough to make an appreciable difference).
  9. I am not sure the dems really understand what Citizens United did.
  10. Good thread. Some great ideas. Too many reactionary ideas to the current situation with potus and too many suggestions that have virtually no chance of ever getting done but good thread. The biggest thing we could do that would eliminate almost all of the gripes is to implement 2 things and both have to be implemented for it to work. 1) Strict term limits on congress. 8 years for Senate, 5 years for House. No ability to run for reelection at all. None. No sitting member of congress would ever run for reelection. 2) Triple the salary for members of congress. Virtually everyone agrees/thinks that money has too much of an influence in politics and I agree. But the reality is that there is no set of laws that could be enacted that would effectively restrain it. So rather than try and control something that is uncontrollable, we should limit the effect it actually has. Every politician will admit that getting reelected is their primary concern and that virtually every single decision they make is affected by how it will impact their reelection chances. If you eliminate that you eliminate the effect of money in politics dramatically. Most everyone will admit that a large % of state politicians are unqualified. The reason is that no qualified person wants the job. The pay is terrible, the time requirements are pretty high, the mud slinging is despicable and no single person can really have that much of an affect. It is similar on a national level. We need our best and brightest to run for office. On the EC, getting rid of it is not a good solution imo. making arguments that the popular vote was different is simply a stupid argument. It is an Aggy argument. There was not a contest held to see who could get the most votes, it was to get the most electoral votes. As a result, candidates campaign based on that set of rules. What would make sense, imo, is to do away with winner take all in the EC. Allocate state EC votes in accordance with the % of people that voted for the candidate. We would probably have to change some laws on required %'s to win but we could just adopt the person who gets the most is the winner even if it is not a majority.
  11. If a pee tape leaks (pun intended) I will buy drinks for every one of you at the bar of your choice for an entire night.
  12. Lulz. Considering that the mansion was not actually bought above market considering that a mansion in the same community sold for a HIGHER price per foot than the one Trump owned earlier that year, your take is all fucked up. Further, the estate has since been subdivided and the owner has sold 2 empty lots for over $70M and he still owns the main house and acreage. You could actually argue Trump did not get enough for it. By the way, all of this is public record. It is the reason that no reputable journalist mentions it anymore because the whole thing was explained and debunked.
  13. I am very curious where you think these discussions happened? Was it at the meeting in Sessions senate office with his staff and 2 defense dept members? Was it at a reception in a room with 100 people? Was it at a cocktail party? Those seem like just perfect places to plan wide scale espionage and conspiracy. Rosneft? You bring this up all of the time and you know it is ridiculous. The rosneft partial sale was to Glencore and the Qatari govt. It had been in the works for over a year before Trump even became a nominee. By the time the supposed payoff to (I am not even sure who you think was paid)... supposedly happened, the deal was deep in the final stages of due diligence. It is absolutely impossible that the attorneys and bankers for Glencore and the Qatari govt would let a sale that big go through if there was some state espionage connected to it, especially if the connection involved the US. Glencore and Qatar are in the business of making money. Yet, you want us to believe that they put billions of dollars on the line in a deal where russia was "bribing" the potus. And if they got caught, the resulting sanctions against russia and then rosneft would devalue their investment to nearly nothing. I have never heard even one single legitimate source even speculate about the rosneft deal. It was mentioned in the dossier. You are a total and complete loon.
  14. Agreed, I am friends with one of the actors and got to go to an advanced screening which was fun but maybe the pre-movie excitement was too much to really get into the film. Second watching I liked it even more. Curiously, Chastain is pretty mesmerizing as an actress and i really like her but I can not decide if I think she is hot or not. She is certainly attractive but, for me, not that arousing.
  15. Anastasis is being provocative? You have referenced twice about these secret meetings that Sessions lied about and you know well that he did not deliberately lie about them and that the "meetings" to which you are referring to are total nothings. Sessions had 1 meeting with Kisylak in his senate office with his senate staff as well as 2 senior defense officials. It certainly seems unlikely that Kisylak and Sessions colluded on the upcoming election in a meeting with 5 other people including 2 who had no direct connection to Sessions. During that stretch Kisylak met with dozens of senators and Sessions met with dozens of foreign ambassadors. And, as you also know, the FBI told Sessions he did not need to disclose meetings with foreign officials he met with in his capacity as a senator on his SF86. The other 2 "meetings" were nothing more than PUBLIC appearances where Sessions and Kisylak both happened to be at and they exchanged "pleasantries". Which, of course, is completely normal for the Russian Ambassador. This is just so typical of the entire collusion angle. There is nothing at all nefarious or immoral or illegal or unusual about Sessions "meetings" with Kisylak. Nothing. Yet people twist and turn it and the media fuels the speculation and suddenly Sessions is colluding with Russia.
  16. Sessions was pretty much a dead man walking when he recused himself from the investigation. Trump would not have nominated him if he knew he would recuse and would have fired him right then if not for the amazingly bad political optics. Trump wants an AG like Obama had in Holder/Lynch. People are making way too big of a deal about this. It will not have any effect on Mueller. The investigation is so far down the road that nothing will stop it at this point. Mueller will get to tell his story, for better or worse, in its entirety.
  17. So many classic lines in that movie- motorboat, stage 5 clinger, good band, bad band its like pizza baby, might as well be a bulls'eye, lets go shoot some birds, im not perfect, but who are we kidding, you arent either, a friend in need is a pest (great surly motto), whole speech with the priest. No doubt. He was pretty good in Hacksaw Ridge
  18. Have to agree on the Tom Cruise as reacher posts. Horrible casting. Horrible casting does not mean that the actors that were cast are horrible actors it is just that they were not a good fit for the role. I am probably in the minority but I think cruise is actually a very talented actor. I assume Hollywood would make a movie based on a book character in order to get all of the tens of millions of people that read the books to go to the movie. Considering that zero people that were fans of the book would think he was good in that role seems to indicate that it was poorly cast
  19. Damon and Will Smith in Bagger Vance we’re just terrible. They are both pretty solid actors but they were so miss cast that it ruined the movie.
  20. Kind of agree here but I thought he was fantastic in wedding crashers.
  21. When the repubs make statements about dems that want open borders I always assumed that they, the repubs, were simply exaggerating or taking comments out of context. I guess now I believe/hope there are only a few out there. I can not imagine the level of disconnect from reality that has to exist to get to the point of actually advocating for open borders.
×
×
  • Create New...