Jump to content

Gap03

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    1432
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gap03

  1. Shit, I'll fucks with ya too ...
  2. Anyone watching what's going on in TX-31? MJ is currently up by 4k votes over Carter right now.
  3. Gap03

    Cruz vs Beto

    Every Cruz rally picture is strategically framed to make the crowd look big, but in reality there's never more than 5 or 6 rows of non-staff / non-press attendees. Goes to show that nobody really likes Ted. Too bad it may not matter because of Texas and its "(R)" problem ...
  4. I'd be willing to clarify birthright citizenship by constitutional amendment if we can also address the 2nd Amendment and the issue of corporate personhood. Let's get to it.
  5. Gap03

    Cruz vs Beto

    Between the data on the olds + early voting in Collin / Williamson / Brazoria counties, it looks like the GOP / Fox News tactic of continuing to scare the shit out of their base is working.
  6. Until Texas actually stops electing so many dipshits, I'm going to hold off on talking shit about WV, Oklahoma and Alabama ...
  7. Uhh, I don't know, Rand - is the President calling Russian assets that are subject to FISA-authorized wiretaps?
  8. Obviously, someone in the admin (no way Trump wrote that) really wanted to trigger the libs on this most pseudo of pseudo-holidays. Let's see how many take the bait ...
  9. Wouldn't surprise me if McConnell called the vote to try to put the screws to Manchin, assuming that he thinks Flake and Collins will fall in line.
  10. And there's even 12 from the A&M law school* - holy shit!
  11. Agreed. No way Cornyn or Kennedy take this position without having a sense of what it says already.
  12. I get the feeling that the phrase "sexual predator, a gang rapist, and a bumbling stumbling alcoholic" tested well in riling up the morons - Lindsay repeats it every fucking chance he gets.
  13. Given Trump tweets are official White House statements, hopefully the FBI is hauling ass up to New Haven with their cell phones off to start asking some questions.
  14. Jesus - could they just let her come back after lunch once Grassley and Feinstein are done blathering on? They're just torturing her (and all of us) by making her sit through this, and she obviously doesn't need to be here for this part.
  15. That guy's story had me scratching my head. Apparently they had dated for 4 years, but he is quoted in the story as saying: “Right after I broke up with her, she was threatening my family, threatening my wife and threatening to do harm to my baby at that time,” Vinneccy said in a telephone interview with POLITICO. "I know a lot about her.” So let me get this straight - you were dating her for 4 years, broke up with her, and you had a wife and baby right after you broke up? Like, she was your mistress for 4 years? Not sure this guy sounds like the expert on credibility.
  16. Don't know why, but Rob @0:12 gave me flashbacks to Black Tony Blair: I miss the Chappelle Show, especially at f'ed up times like now ...
  17. Well said, McCaskill. Dark money + the idiots that can't see through obvious bullshit = an inevitable path to idiocracy.
  18. Jesus - just stop. From WaPO: Definitely sounds like the hero here. Oh, and love this gem about our hero: WaPo Story
  19. I think you mean "Slocum's Razor" ...
  20. "Op-Ed Writer does want a deal and does want immunity. He wants you to know that he is proud both of what he has done and what he is doing."
  21. Doesn't conviction by the Senate still require a 2/3 vote? If so, I have my doubts as to whether that threshold would ever be met, given where things stand politically. Anyone know if perjury of a SC justice in a confirmation setting can be tried in the courts (as opposed to Congress)?
  22. That's where Graham was going. That was ... something:
  23. Gap03

    Cruz vs Beto

    It would be an interesting way to re-kindle the Trump / Cruz romance in advance of Cheeto's visit to Texas, though ....
  24. Anyone had the chance to parse through these docs yet? I did a quick scan, and it wasn't immediately clear what Booker's angle is here. Are these supposed to be some sort of smoking gun, or is he just pointing out that it's ridiculous that they're designating docs as "Committee Confidential" that are relevant to the vetting process? If the latter, not sure that I would be going the "Bring it" route - that sort of approach lends itself to arguments that this is more about theater than substance, especially where the average person will look at the docs and shrug.
×
×
  • Create New...