Jump to content

Tuco

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3287
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tuco

  1. Where are you pulling that characterization from?
  2. Would you vote against someone for being deaf?
  3. Probably a good decision to have this interview. He's agree to a debate on 10/25 and he needs to start setting expectations around his speech and the need for closed-captioning. This shouldn't matter. But neither should race, gender, sexual orientation and a host of other shit that does affect voting.
  4. I thought it was interesting that the story about the car bomb assassination story, that it was approved by some level in the Ukrainian government, got no traction. Frankly, we don’t give a shit. Assassination via car bomb or guided missile really is just a difference pushed by those with a lot of guided missile. I don’t care how they blew up a bridge. That doesn’t mean there are no holds barred. Similarly, if Al Queda had killed 3000+ civilians with targeted guided missiles, it would still be terrorism.
  5. He's doing what he always does: saying something outrageous to change the subject. Rather than have it be about mishandling classified documents, he is spouting off bullshit about how other Presidents dealt with non-classified Presidential records. When the Democrats and media correct him on it, it will be on the basis of non-classified Presidential records, rather than the much more serious crime. For folks who are barely following the issue, that changes what they think it's all about. They will think it's a question of whether Trump is getting held to a different standard over non-classified Presidential records. And regardless of what they conclude is the answer to that question, it will seem like big fuss over paperwork.
  6. Interesting strategy to not provide any chairs. Maybe it's a fundraiser. $100 a chair.
  7. I didn’t see option pricing for lacing the roast beef with pcp and exlax.
  8. Responding to Slacks from the Ukraine thread. A couple things: 1. I interpret your statement here is that CO2 pollution is the currently the most economic approach in our economy. In order for that to change, we need to figure out how change or system so being green is the more economic approach. Fair enough. The problem with pollution and the "free" market is that currently the system does not recognize the communal harm caused by the pollution. [I fully admit to learning this perspective on Shaggy/Surly...Bozo maybe...don't remember.] Polluters are not paying for the harm they are causing. The general public pays for it, and usually disproportionately those with lower means. Globally, the poor fucks from Bangladesh can't just buy a new condo on higher ground. They are just fucked. Their lives are ruined. They are paying the costs for the actions of the wealthy. The free market is clearly not working here. So how do you change that. The carbon tax is one approach. You assign a price for the damage carbon pollution is producing. If the costs are impacting the decisions makers (from corporate CEOs to middle age suburbanites buying massive trucks to little old ladies trying to heat their homes), then the free market will actually work to produce more economically efficient decisions, like it's suppose to. In the most talked-about version, the dividend from the tax is then distributed back to everyone evenly. If you consume less than your average schmuck, you get paid. If you consume more than your average schmuck, you do the paying. As with all things, there is the concern about unintended consequences. How do you handle imports and not fuck up current trade agreements? And it always seems like anytime something like this is enacted, corporations figure out ways to extract value without helping the planet, either through unintended loopholes or through intended ones that lobbyists get paid for. But, obstacles can be overcome and likely problems do not negate the overall advantages. Canada has implemented this. What's politically viable there can be here, although it may take us longer. 2. We never really had this criteria for stopping pollution before. When the rivers were fucking burning, people didn't say "well, gee, that's terrible, but we won't change it unless we can make sure the current polluters are compensated." Smog. DDT. Acid rain. We have a full history of just saying enough of this shit and stopping it at the source. Without compensation. I don't accept that the new criteria is that we have to compensate current polluters. 3. Can you imagine what the current price of gas would be without federally mandated efficiency requirements, without alternative fuel research on federal dollars, without credits for electric cars, etc.? The environmental movement saves people money. It just does a shit job of taking credit for it because it's not really the main goal.
  9. Climate change is an important topic, which is why it has its own thread. I will respond to slack in that thread.
  10. Yea, I understand it was a fundraiser. I am questioning whether it should be a priority at this stage in the race and why it might be.
  11. Sure. But, they’ve got to be close to the point where you have a hard time spending new money. There is a point in the campaign where new donations make no difference (to the budget) because you’ve already committed what you’re going to spend. Candidates keep fundraising either because they’re in the hole (lots of campaigns finish in red) or they want a war chest for theirs and other candidates next election. With such a tight race, I wouldn’t think that would be the priority, unless you are way in the hole.
  12. It's so weird that modern warfare includes a strong Twitter game: There was also a cargo train that dun blowed up in Eastern Ukraine. Much of the Russian military logistics is dependent on rail. Russia is losing the ability to resupply while trying to defend against the Ukrainian counter-offensive. Happy fucking birthday Vlad. CNN link for both quotes.
  13. In general, I think jail/prison for debt is bullshit. But I’m willing to make an exception.
  14. Are you saying a secret sub somewhere in the world or in the Black Sea. I think it would pretty hard to sneak anything into the Black Sea unless you airlifted it.
  15. Blood selects Ernie Chambers. Enough Republican heads explode to turn Nebraska blue.
  16. Wasn’t he a prof at Texas?. I was actually coming here to check if there was a vacancy in the law school opening up.
  17. Even as a Nebraska fan, I find the Republican loyalty to a mentally ill, violent running back disturbing.
  18. Yep. The cynic in me would say that when the majority party benefits from greater voter participation suddenly access to the polls magically becomes less complicated. But, beyond just maintaining power, I do think their are ideological differences regarding democracy.
  19. I moved from a suburb in Seattle to Seattle proper about six months ago. Didn’t get around to updating my driver’s license for a while. But I did get vote-by-mail cards for the primary prior to going to DMV. And voter guides. Landlords send in info when you sign a lease.
  20. I hope this ends with Trump calling Kav a drunken loser.
  21. Sure. All they need to do is ship it through the country that they invaded and is currently kicking their ass. And pay them transit fees, which were about $1.2B prior to the start of the war. But that's irrelevant.
  22. Can you quote anyone on this thread who believes the US blew up the pipeline?
  23. Speaking of crazy shit on the Russian side, have we talked about Ramzan Kadyrov? He's the Chechen "Head" who is fucking insane. Today he said he was sending his teenage sons to the front lines. Recently he was urging Putin to use nukes. His family fought against Russia, then flipped sides, and have ruled Chechnya since. Reading his wiki page, you might assume that it's just been filled with bullshit: It's a weird fucking world.
  24. For context, I believe Trump also claims he was cooperating with the DOJ. I guess the alternative is pleading the fifth, right? Is Bobb the one who signed the everything-was-returned-because-someone-told-me-everything-was-returned affidavit? Unless she was outright lying on that affidavit (and now admitting to it), I don't know if she will really add much. The whole point of the way it was phrased implied she didn't know much directly. Maybe it could help build an obstruction charge.
×
×
  • Create New...