Jump to content

Tuco

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2754
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Tuco

  1. 5 hours ago, Snake Diggity said:

    The googles are telling me only about 10% of stroke victims fully recover.  Yes he’s younger than the average stroke patient but I think expecting a full return to his previous abilities is setting up for disappointment.

    How many of them partially recover?  Keep in mind, the President of the United States is about to turn 80.  And Senator Feinstein thinks of him when she complains about younger generations.  

    I don't know what parts of Fetterman's brain were damaged.  If it was mostly motor control (including the act of speech), it really doesn't phase me in the least.  Is there any indication he's getting confused?  Memory loss, particularly new memories?  Emotional instability?  Those would concern me.  I also don't think he would be in front of a camera, at all, if that were the case.  

    • Hook 'Em 1
  2. 7 hours ago, bluto said:

    What a disgrace of a political system that your choice in PA is dr oz (holy shit, dr effing oz) or a guy who is clearly impaired from a recent stroke. 

    The Churchill line about "...in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly" applies.  Fetterman can recover from his brain damage.  Oz will always be Oz. 

    • Haha 1
  3. 1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

    So this is bugging me ….

     

    isn’t there some kind of tracking system for all these documents ? 
     

    who checked them out and where are they going  ?

    Did someone receive and sign for them ?

    WERE ALL DOCUMENTS RETURNED ?

     

    Someone was pulling documents  ?

    I think for Top Secret documents, there is a definitely a tracking system.  

    But, any system is reliant on people following it.  If Trump just said "Oh, I already gave that back" there isn't much some executive branch official can do while he is office.  I am sure the DOJ has a pretty good list of what has not been returned.  It does put a new perspective on the story that Trump would flush documents.  At the time, that story looked like people leaking what a dipshit he was.  Now it looks like spin.  It's a common theme: something that looks horrible for any other politician is actually "best case scenario" for Trump. 

    • Rage+1 1
  4. 6 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

     

    It's certainly plausible.  My guess would be North Korea.  He truly believes that he saved the world from nuclear war with North Korea, and that he was the only person who could have done so.  I could absolutely see him taking top secret nuke assessments as a trophy - to show interested parties how close we were to nuclear war.  I mean, finally a fucking motive for this stupidity that makes sense, in the way anything Trump does makes sense.  

    That being said, "people familiar with the matter" equates to the Trump camp.  Nobody else who knows anything can talk to reporters.  And this is a plausible explanation that is certainly foolish and vain, but isn't nefarious.  This isn't something that loses Trump's base.  So, grain of salt. Also, could be a red herring. 

     

  5. And?  John Podesta has been a political heavy hitter for a while.  There is nothing vaguely surprising about him taking a role in the Biden administration.  And hopefully he understands how to avoid spearphishing attacks now. 

    As a follow-up on this thread, the DOJ dropped the investigation into Tony Podesta and Vin Weber about three years ago. 

    article

     

  6. 19 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

    Brady Bates, 22, a newcomer who said he recently moved to Palm Springs for “the vibe” and because he felt safe there as a gay man, said he was undecided in the congressional race but would not support a candidate backed by Mr. Trump.

    That guy should be in a training videos for campaigns.  22 years old.  Just moved.  Knows he doesn't like Trump or Trump allies, but doesn't know which names are on his side.  He doesn't need convincing, just direction.  Get him registered.  Repeat "Will Rollins" a thousand times in a thousand ways until the name sticks.  Make sure he knows how, when, and where he can vote.  Repeat that information a few dozen times.  Get him a mail in ballot.  Remind him to send it in. A few dozen times if needed.  Getting his vote has nothing to do with political positions and everything to do with putting the work (and money) in. 

    And there are thousands of other Brady Bates out there.  People who follow politics (like everyone on this thread) frequently lose the context that we are the weird ones. 

    • Hook 'Em 3
  7. While it may be the same crime charged, what Hildawg did and what Trump has done, just based on the available information, differs wildly in culpability.
    Hildawg wanted her own email.  Technically, and in reality, that placed confidential information in an insecure location, where it didn't belong.
    What she didn't do is volitionally take confidential/classified material with her to an insecure location and fight for a year and a half to keep it/hide the fact.

    Also, a couple other differences:

    1. She didn’t have anything that was marked top secret or secret. There were some documents that were later deemed TS because of the information they referenced , but they weren’t marked when she received them. (Going mostly off memory here, so correct me if I’m wrong.)

    2. She did it to do a job. There is a balance between efficiency and security, and a balance between privacy and security. Clinton certainly deserves criticism for ignoring the established framework for where that balance should be. But I never saw a motive out there for personal gain. Trump doesn’t work for the government anymore. There is no job-related justification.

    Hillary’s actions are more in line with the numerous private email accounts we know people in the Trump administration set up. Kush operated as the de facto Secretary of State without being a govt employee. It’s tempting to compare top scandal vs top scandal, but in reality Clinton’s top scandal lines up to shit we didn’t even have time to focus on.
    • Hook 'Em 6
    • Like 2
  8. 9 minutes ago, Disco Strangler said:

    Maybe I have seen too many movies and have too much faith ...

    I have not doubt that foreign agencies are still spying on Trump (and Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc.) I would guess they would be more likely paying folks already on MAL payroll, rather than trying to create a cover that certainly the SS is thoroughly vetting.  That's a pretty valuable asset to risk on an ex-President. So, probably no trained spies working as bellhops. I would also imagine there have been trained spies who have been invited by guests and/or Trump himself.  

    There may be US intel there as well, but the political implications of the CIA spying on Trump would be huge. If they are there, it's probably more counter espionage to any of the folks from other governments.  I doubt that they are going into any of his private rooms or eaves dropping.  I hate Trump, but I would be pissed if the CIA was freelancing like that. And if they were, they wouldn't be sharing broadly across the agencies. 

    All just guesses. 

  9. 2 hours ago, CooterBrown said:


    Correct. It’s a DOT requirement for pipeline operating companies. That won’t change if it’s legalized.

    The DOT requirement could, and should, change.  The current urine tests are for what cannabinoids break down into, not the cannabinoids themselves.  It's the remnants of being stoned, not an indication of being stoned.  I believe saliva tests are for current use, or at least a much shorter history.  I think blood tests could be geared for active shit as well.  

    The current testing is an artifact from when the goal was to prohibit pot smokers in general, not just idiots who are inhibited at work.  If you did the same for alcohol there would be riots.  And, because it is so broad, many companies have stricken the drug testing policies entirely and are more likely to have inhibited employees. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  10. 1 hour ago, 'stache said:

    I don't think it would legalize it nationally, just decriminalize it nationally. State's could still make it illegal. The simplest thing is to remove it from Schedule 1. There would be a lot more involved, like taxing the shit out of it, but the bills have been written a number of times and I think could pass pretty easily. I hope the dems force the issue in October to see how many republicans actually say no in a way they'd have to admit is purely political to prevent Biden from having yet another "win" under his belt.

    We should probably define terms some.  I think "legalization" means establishing a legal framework people to use/buy/sell weed without any legal implications.  "Decriminalization' means removing criminal penalties, but still not establishing a system where people are allowed to do it.  For example, Nebraska "decriminalized" possession under an ounce of flower back in the late 80s.  That meant people wouldn't go to prison for low-level possession, but would still pay a $300 ticket if they were caught.  It was more about criminal justice and not stupidly spending millions of dollars to incarcerate people who were no risk to society.  But it is still against the law.  

    As far as the Feds, there are several things they could do to help:

    - Change the federal employment drug testing guidelines.  Many companies in legalized states still use these guidelines as the basis for their drug testing regime, even for employees who are terminally ill. 

    - I believe Reagan prohibited federal dollars from being used in testing the medical benefits of marijuana.  If that policy is still in place, it should be removed.  Thats less legalization or decriminalization, but rather 

    - Congress could establish a legal framework for handling finances for mj sales in states where it is legal.  That would be huge for reducing crimes around pot shops who are forced to operate in cash.  (I did hear that pot stores here in WA could accept debit cards.  Not sure if that was from federal action or some local stopgap.) 

    I agree that the Feds could not force the legalization of pot nationwide, just like they can't force the legalization of alcohol nationwide. (Hello, fucked up county in Amarillo.)   But there many different aspects to the issue that they could establish a legal framework for (legalization), including the federal drug laws that pertain to it. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  11. 17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Haha, I just noticed on the docket of this case:

    Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge Aileen M. Cannon. Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart is available to handle any or all proceedings in this case. If agreed, parties should complete and file the Consent form found on our website. It is not necessary to file a document indicating lack of consent. Pro se (NON-PRISONER) litigants may receive Notices of Electronic Filings (NEFS) via email after filing a Consent by Pro Se Litigant (NON-PRISONER) to Receive Notices of Electronic Filing. The consent form is available under the forms section of our website. (jas) (Entered: 08/22/2022)

    Yeah, I am able to follow some of the lawyer lingo, but I'll need a translation on this.  Is it an implication that if you want to deal with any warrant shit, you should probably deal with the guy who signed the warrant?  

  12. When considering what Trump would or wouldn't do, keep the following in mind:

    1. The intelligence agencies were the enemy.  They were out to get him from the start. 

    2. Trump is insane and stupid.

    It would take about ten minutes for Putin or MBS to convince him that intel contacts in the Russian or Saudi government were a threat to Trump and that he needed to provide their names to avoid being unfairly persecuted by the Deep State. 

    • Hook 'Em 6
    • Like 2
  13. 14 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

    A lifetime of working in the gray areas, where there's always lackeys to take the fall when things go sideways. Selling documents only he had access too is way too high risk and ballsy for a coward like him. Trump sucks at almost all things. But he's pretty good at avoiding putting his fingers directly on obvious crime.

    I'm not sure where Trump would draw the line for "obvious crime."  I think at a minimum Trump took top secret documents from the White House, resisted returning them, lied about returning them, and hid their existence from the FBI.  I don't feel like there is much question about those actions.  If those crimes weren't obvious from the outset, they would have been after the FBI and his lawyers explained it to him.  And yet he persisted.  

      

     

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 1
  14. 12 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

    But at best for Bobb, she is disqualified from representing trump because she's now a witness to his lies in the ongoing case.  She may also be charged as a coconspirator if she signed that certification knowing that trump was hiding sensitive national security documents.  I imagine if she engaged in espionage she would be disbarred; I mean she did take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

    Which is why it would make sense for her to go the informant route if she discovered Trump was still holding onto documents after she signed something that implied otherwise.  

    This is all predicated on her being a reasonable person, which is not a safe assumption in the Trump world. It is also assuming that she later discovered, for a fact, that Trump was holding onto classified documents.  That I could definitely see, because Trump is physically incapable of shutting the fuck up.  

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
×
×
  • Create New...