Jump to content

Tuco

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2754
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tuco

  1. I really wish they’d include bribery. It’s the easiest to explain to people.
  2. It is a question of the Feds assisting in those resettlements. Trump has stated that the Fed program will not resettle refugees in areas unless the local governments okay it. Executive order
  3. It's about their heritage. Unfortunately, their racist parents and grandparents didn't have a flag to easily identify them as racists, so this generation needs to somehow make sure everyone know that they come from a long line of racists.
  4. For what it's worth, Bismark has had a total of 200 refugees settled there since 2004. 117 Iraqi; 61 Congo; 12 Ukraine; 5 Somalia; 4 Ethiopian; 1 Serbian. 200 total people for a population of 135,000 over a course of 15 years. (Bismarck includes area outside of that particular county.) And there is a very good chance that the Iraqis resettled there were ones who had assisted our military. Does anyone think this is a question of economics or overwhelming social services? link
  5. -Parliament, Sure. That makes sense. If only the racists in Fargo had advanced knowledge, the racists in Burleigh County would have been totally onboard. Damn you Lutherans.
  6. "The overwhelming public opinion is so clear to me, that I think if you vote for it, you're not going to be reelected if you choose to run again," said Chairman Brian Bitner. Great. What's "it"? Assuming they are taking up a new proposal that prevents the immigrants from settling there, it sounds like the overwhelming consensus is that the measure will fail and the refugees will continue to settle there. But it's not clear, and with additional information that the mayor and state rep were for a measure to stop refugee settlement, it's hard to believe that it is a very unpopular measure. Looking at a different source, it sounds like Bitner believes that public opinion would prevent accepting additional refugees. This is one of those instances where I say fuck rural America. Population reduction is probably the biggest issue facing small towns in rural America. If you own a home, and there are more homes available than buyers, your house just isn't going to appreciate. All retail businesses are facing shrinking markets. But, despite that, they hang a giant "Immigrants need to apply" sign on the window. Fuck them.
  7. And, he has to have the caveat "...in modern history" because Johnson was impeached without winning an election. So, one out of the three impeachments happened in the first term.
  8. Nobody is going to normalize your bullshit.
  9. I figure the 2015 Republicans can now be categorized in these different groups. 1. Those who hate Trump and have completely lost any respect for the party that defends him. At this point, they plan on never voting for another Republican again. 2. Those who hate Trump, will not vote for him, but will continue to support the Republicans who run cover for him. 3. Those who dislike Trump. Given a choice between voting for Trump and voting for a non-Trump Republican that has secured the Democratic nomination, they would definitely talk about voting for the non-Trump Republican on the Democratic ticket. Because while they may dislike things like incarcerating immigrant children with no intention of reuniting them with their families, they are more concerned about the "socialism" of people having health care. 4. Trumpsters. It's funny that the folks in the third group think they are any better than those in the fourth. Crisp, I already know who you are going to vote for. Any Democrat who considers your opinion in their calculation is a moron. But understand this: as long as the Trump GOP is a politically viable party, it will always be the Trump GOP, long after he is gone. Success doesn't not facilitate change. You voting for him just means you will never have a candidate you actually like. I guess every dark, shit-storm, fascist cloud has a silver lining.
  10. I think you guys are underestimating the success of the for-profit business model had for preying on the poor. And, even non-profit and state colleges have a ton of people drop out their freshman year, and spend the next 10 years paying off the debt. And anything federally backed was not dischargeable in bankruptcy. My wife used to do bankruptcy for Legal Aid - Kaplan, ITT, Phoenix, etc. were frequently major creditors, and she would just get so pissed. As a country, we spent 100s of millions of dollars to feed these leaches and permanently bury our citizens in debt.
  11. Without enforcement of regulations, it's impossible to distinguish a "bad actor" from anything else. And the court system is a shitty ass remedy after the fact.
  12. I like Warren. I do. But the idea of her beating Trump at his own game is not reassuring to me. Being a "populist" is much worse than being a "socialist."
  13. ...and to follow up on this, from Thursday Dec 5: 1. Nancy Pelosi - 200k searches 2. Camila Cabello Romance - 100k 3. Mulan - 100k 4. V Wars - 100k 5. Aaliyah - 100k What does that mean? Not a hell of a lot. But, heh, "Dotard" was weighing in at #12 with 50k searches. Link Edit to add link of Peloton v. impeachment trend.
  14. I just want to quote this post to show that simply posting a graph, completely devoid of any meaningful information, is somehow compelling to idiots. "Hey, look Martha, there's two lines and some numbers on the left hand side. That seals it, let's buy that bridge. " No link. No labels on either axis. No context. Just a picture, with colors. That's all it takes to convince Trumpsters that they are informed. Nevermind the fact that apparently "impeachment", like "Peloton", is trending upwards. It's not just "low information voters," it's "no-critical thinking voters" who are unable or uninterested in evaluating the information they gladly consume.
  15. If you look at the rest of her Twitter feed, she’s just crazy. She has a similar message for the police about a traffic ticket.
  16. The founders did not account for political parties when they formed the Constitution. The whole concepts of "majority" and "minority" wouldn't make sense. All of this - parties selecting committee chairs, whips, etc. - are later inventions. Hell, even the notion of the President naming his Vice President was an invention later. Can you imagine how much difference this would be if the GOP (and DNC) couldn't punish Congressman and Senators for following their conscience? Of course, the founders were wrong. The structure of government led to the party system, and very quickly. Washington was the last non-partisan to be elected, and he watched his fellow founders divide into camps. He watched two of his brilliant advisors, Jefferson and Hamilton, wage political battles which necessitated parties for strength. This was his warning in his farewell address. I don't consider Washington to be a visionary of political philosophy, like others were. But, yeah, he hit the fucking nail on the head here.
  17. You know, "safely" is perhaps not a term I'd use here. Seriously, I hope the FBI/CIA is tailing him for his own protection. His usefulness has pretty much ended, and I can't imagine guys like Firtash would be thrilled with what he might eventually say, either because he is an idiot or to save his own skin.
  18. I had never heard the harmonics aspect of it. I know there were plenty of mistakes going in to it, beyond that.
  19. He was the National Security Advisor. I would imagine there would be a higher bar to clear to compel him to testify, than say Sec of Energy or Dir of OMB, which should be more bureaucratic. The Dems probably want to avoid court case losses that would embolden others from testifying and push the narrative the White House is on solid ground in blocking testimony.
  20. According to this thread, they avoided challenging Turley and stuck to the friendly witnesses. A lot of posters are frustrated by that, but it sounds like you agree with the approach. I tend to as well, not because they couldn't find cracks (or canyons) in his logic, but because there was a decent chance he'd have some 2 sentence retort that showed their ignorance on some fine point and it would make them look foolish. The goal isn't to convince people watching the entire exchange; they are looking to avoid negative headlines.
  21. Most politicians do. Zelensky does have close ties with Ihor Kolomoyskyi, who, yeah, is probably a mobster. And it's not like Z has a strong resume of fighting crime. He was a TV star on Kolomoyski's TV station playing the President. Like Trump, his resume consisted of pretending to be someone important. But, the consensus view of the intelligence community and the State department was that Z was someone that was a move in the right direction for fighting corruption. And Lev/Igor had approached Kolomoyski seeking assistance in digging up dirt on Biden. Kolomoyski, unlike Firtash, told them to fuck off. So it's not like the anti-Biden coalition of morons was particularly concerned about Kolomoyski's checkered past. It might be a reasonable defense of Trump's actions if Trump had done anything, literally anything, to indicate he was worried about corruption and Zelensky. There were no inquiries to State or the CIA. He didn't announce concerns to Congressional committees. It wasn't mentioned to the OBM, so it wasn't noted in the Congressional notifications on the delay of funds. He didn't even mention the concern to Z on either of the phone calls, except outside of the very specific concerns about Burisma and Crowdstrike, which there are no indications Z had connections to.
  22. The party line is that he was reevaluating after Zelensky was elected. Of course, the fact that he didn't inform the OBM of that, and has produced zero evidence that he was trying to make that assessment, would cast doubt on the claim.
  23. Heavy's article on Turley , for background. Apparently Gary Johnson was planning on putting him on the Supreme Court. So close, yet so far, far away.
  24. Cards on the table: if you had a magic wand to make it happen, do you believe the President should be impeached by the House and removed by the Senate for the crimes he has committed? Right now the only thing you are doing is spouting off bullshit GOP talking points without stating any coherent positions.
  25. Oh well. We can't fix stupid. But we can support Congressmen doing their Constitutional duty. Democracy is an experiment.
×
×
  • Create New...