Jump to content

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty


Recommended Posts

Posted
2 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I'm in the "it's always been this way" camp, we just have way better access to the shit show. in the past we'd be oblivious to most of it. hence why a lot of people can't handle this realization now. the influx of information, good and bad, has broken a lot of brains

I think the stakes are higher as they work though new grifts so that it affects more people directly.

We've always had corruption in things like import licenses, liquor or gaming. 

The problems started accelerating when we got into areas that were for public good and privatizing taxes:

  • Defense became a huge deal during WWII and then during the cold war with the whole military industrial complex.  This didn't hurt anyone except more taxes.
  • Then we had the war on drugs and privatization of jails and the profit incentive was more people in jail for petty crimes, now there were classes of people directly affected by this policy.
  • We moved on to making traffic horrible so that we would buy off on privatization of roads with toll roads build with public bonds that transferred the risk to taxpayers and profits to corporations. 
  • Privatization and deregulation of our electric providers means the focus is on profit instead of providing a service so when the power goes down and rates skyrocket we get to use more taxes to line the pockets of the corporations that don't have the best interest of the public at the top of their priority list.
  • Now we're doing the same thing with education by intentionally making it bad so that people will buy off on vouchers to enrich out of state business interests.

So the more they dig into the "for the public good" areas to privitize things that are really public services the more it affects the population.

 

  • Like 2
Posted
18 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

She's technically right, I suppose in that the government argued in support of that paragraph that it was "Rule 404(b)" material.

I don't know that the government made that argument in support of other paragraphs.  It was kind of a dumb argument, because it does require some proceedings and a ruling before other bad acts are admissible.

Rule 404(b) is the rule that generally prohibits the use of evidence of uncharged or other bad acts as trial evidence, at least until the government shows that it is for some other purpose than the defendant acted consistently.  The government can probably meet that burden easily, but until they do, they can't use these as trial evidence.  An indictment is not trial evidence, but may be read to or given to the jury as part of the charge.

I'm confused about it being "stricken" from the indictment, that doesn't read like an evidentiary ruling. Are indictments evidence in criminal trials? I honestly don't know, don't practice criminal law. 

Posted
6 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I'm confused about it being "stricken" from the indictment, that doesn't read like an evidentiary ruling. Are indictments evidence in criminal trials? I honestly don't know, don't practice criminal law. 

Hard to say without sitting down with the indictment.  But if Paragraph 36 wasn't one of the counts on which the government is seeking a conviction, then it's a matter of proving an exception to 404(b) like motive, intent, or absence of mistake, any of which seem possible.  Was that paragraph related to something he did while he still was in office?  It's all running together for me at this point.  

 

Stricken.  Quashed.  It's gone for now.

Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Zeus said:

They are all the same

Quote

In the months after the election, President Trump and Dr. Eastman helped foster those  public beliefs and encouraged state legislators to question the election results. Dr. Eastman testified before and met with “state legislators[] to advise them of their constitutional authority . . . to direct the ‘manner’ of choosing presidential electors.” Relying on public interviews with attendees, the Select Committee states that on January 2, 2021, President Trump and Dr. Eastman hosted a briefing urging several hundred state legislators from states won by President Biden to “decertify” electors. President Trump also made personal appeals to state officials.

On January 2, he called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to discuss allegations of election fraud. During the call, President Trump repeatedly claimed it was impossible for him to have lost the popular vote in Georgia, and repeatedly mentioned his “current margin [of] only 11,779” votes. He explained to Secretary Raffensperger that he did not care about specific fraud numbers as long as he won, “Because what’s the difference between winning the election by two votes and winning it by half a million votes[?]” When Secretary Raffensperger pushed back against these requests, the President warned of public anger and threatened criminal consequences. The President interspersed the conversation with specific fraud claims—dead people voting, absentee ballot forgeries, trucks ferrying illegal ballots, and machines stuffed with “unvoted."

Mr. Raffensperger debunked the allegations “point by point” and explained that “the data you have is wrong;” however, President Trump still told him, “I just want to find 11,780 votes.” The next day, President Trump attempted to elevate Jeffrey Clark to Acting Attorney General, based on Mr. Clark’s statements that he would write a letter to contested states saying that the election may have been stolen and urging them to decertify electors.

The White House Counsel described Mr. Clark’s proposed letter as a “murder-suicide pact” that would “damage everyone who touches it” and commented “we should have nothing to do with that letter.”

President Trump eventually did not promote Mr. Clark after multiple high-ranking members of the Department of Justice threatened mass resignations that would leave the Department a “graveyard.” In the months following the election, numerous credible sources–from the President’s inner circle to agency leadership to statisticians–informed President Trump and Dr. Eastman that there was no evidence of election fraud. One week after the election, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency declared “[t]he November 3rd election [] the most secure in American history” and found “no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.” An internal Trump Campaign memo concluded in November that fraud claims related to Dominion voting machines were baseless.

In early December, Attorney General Barr publicly stated there was no evidence of fraud, and on December 27, Deputy Attorney General Donoghue privately told President Trump that after “dozens of investigations, hundreds of interviews,” the Department of Justice had concluded that “the major allegations [of election fraud] are not supported by the evidence developed.” Still, President Trump repeatedly urged that “the Department [of Justice] should publicly say that the election is corrupt or suspect or not reliable.”

By early January, more than sixty court cases alleging fraud had been dismissed for lack of evidence or lack of standing.

2. Plan to disrupt electoral count

In response to alleged fraud, Dr. Eastman researched and planned a strategy for President Trump to win the election. Just after Christmas, Dr. Eastman wrote a now-public two page memo proposing that Vice President Pence refuse to count certified electoral votes from states contested by the Trump campaign: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The memo outlines the two ways in which Dr. Eastman’s plan ensures “President Trump is re-elected.” If Vice President Pence refused to count electoral votes from all seven contested states, President Trump would win 232 votes to 222.24 Alternatively, if Congress claimed that a candidate could not win without reaching 270 votes, Vice President Pence could send the election to the Republican-majority House of Representatives, which would then elect President Trump.

The memo emphasizes that “[t]he main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission – either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court.” On January 3, 2021, Dr. Eastman drafted a six-page memo expanding on his plan and analysis, which he later disclosed to the media. This memo “war gam[ed]” four potential scenarios for January 6, only some of which would lead to President Trump winning reelection. Claiming that “[t]he stakes could not be higher,” Dr. Eastman concludes his memo stating that his plan is “BOLD, Certainly. But this Election was Stolen by a strategic Democrat plan to systematically flout existing election laws for partisan advantage; we’re no longer playing by Queensbury Rules.”

On January 4, President Trump and Dr. Eastman invited Vice President Pence, the Vice President’s counsel Greg Jacob, and the Vice President’s Chief of Staff Marc Short to the Oval Office to discuss Dr. Eastman’s memo. Dr. Eastman presented only two courses of action for the Vice President on January 6: to reject electors or delay the count. During that meeting, Vice President Pence consistently held that he did not possess the authority to carry out Dr. Eastman’s proposal. The Vice President’s counsel and chief of staff were then directed to meet separately with Dr. Eastman the next day to review materials in support of his plan. Dr. Eastman opened the meeting on January 5 bluntly: “I’m here asking you to reject the electors.” Vice President’s counsel Greg Jacob and Dr. Eastman spent the majority of the meeting in a Socratic debate on the merits of the memo’s legal arguments. Over the course of their discussion, Dr. Eastman’s focus pivoted from requesting Vice President Pence reject the electors to asking him to delay the count, which he presented as more “palatable.” Ultimately, Dr. Eastman conceded that his argument was contrary to consistent historical practice, would likely be unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court, and violated the Electoral Count Act on four separate grounds. Despite receiving pushback, President Trump and Dr. Eastman continued to urge Vice President Pence to carry out the plan.

At 1:00 am on January 6, President Trump tweeted, “If Vice President @Mike_Pence comes through for us, we will win the Presidency . . . Mike can send it back!” At 8:17 a.m., the President tweeted again, “States want to correct their votes . . . All Mike Pence has to do is send them back to the States, AND WE WIN. Do it Mike, this is a time for extreme courage!” Following his tweets, President Trump placed two calls to Vice President Pence directly. After not being able to connect with the Vice President around 9:00 am, they spoke at approximately 11:20 am. Vice President Pence’s National Security Advisor, General Keith Kellogg, Jr., was present and described President Trump as berating the Vice President for “not [being] tough enough to make the call” to delay or reject electoral votes.

ThEYR'e aLL tHE SAme!!

 

Edited by Foosters
  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
45 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I'm confused about it being "stricken" from the indictment, that doesn't read like an evidentiary ruling. Are indictments evidence in criminal trials? I honestly don't know, don't practice criminal law. 

It is sort of like striking something from a civil pleading. It may remove a factual issue from a case or remove an entire cause of action, just depends on what is stricken. 

Posted
21 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Well that’s definitely subtle.

20 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

It’s amazing how corrupt this country is right now 

20 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

Yup. I’m trying to decide whether it’s always been this corrupt but now it’s out in the open due to the internet, or it truly has degraded. I believe the corruption is way worse and it’s sad. 

20 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

A bigger problem is if anyone on the right is accused or even convicted of something every republican simply doesn’t believe it 99% of the time.   It takes something outlandishly over the top like George Santos, and even then 30% still won’t believe it 

18 hours ago, GenXer said:

I have a theory that the hardcore trump supporters are criminals themselves. They may engage in fraud, tax evasion, or other shady dealings. They rationalize their own behavior by comparing it to trump. Like, hey it’s cool if I don’t report all my income; the president doesn’t report all of his either.

We’ve always been corrupt, but not on the level that we are now - way too much money is flowing into politics, and some of it is still easy to hide.  You don’t have to go to a bank and cash out thousands (or more) in cash and risk being seen when you can electronically transfer it, and along with that, it’s easy to move campaign funds around with just a few mouse clicks.

And the Republicans scream from the rooftops about Democrats doing this or that, and it’s because the Republicans believe that because they are corrupt, the Democrats are just as corrupt - Republicans can’t fathom somebody trying to act honorably when given the chance to rake in a shitload of money.

Posted
3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Think of it this way: the following is pretty much a true statement: "everyone steals."  It's true.  That little stack of post-it notes in your kitchen junk drawer that you took from the office, the pen from the bank, or some similar item you nabbed from somewhere says so.

Yeah, but it’s not as easy to steal shit from the morgue, since you have to keep it frozen and make sure the kids don’t get into it by accident when digging through the freeze for ice cream. And everybody that posts from work while on the clock is stealing resources from their employer (unless you’re in the shitter), but I digress  

A lot of Republican politicians feel like they are entitled to get wealthy simply from being politicians, whether it’s a US Senator doing stock deals with insider information, a sitting President whose properties are frequented by foreigners looking to curry favor with them, or a judge like Clarence Thomas getting gifts, or Aileen Cannon getting a property at below- market value,

Posted
3 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

A lot of Republican politicians feel like they are entitled to get wealthy simply from being politicians, whether it’s a US Senator doing stock deals with insider information, a sitting President whose properties are frequented by foreigners looking to curry favor with them, or a judge like Clarence Thomas getting gifts, or Aileen Cannon getting a property at below- market value,

My S. Texas grandfather used to sit and pontificate to us youngsters, a Pearl in one hand and an unfiltered cigarette in the other.  One of his pieces of wisdom was "hell, boy....any politician, you gotta give 'em reasonable stealin' privileges.  It comes with the job!"  Which gets to my bit about "everyone takes post-it notes."  Everyone takes advantage of some "perk" of their job to add a few percentage points to their quality of life.  If a politician uses his broad knowledge of development codes, traffic patterns, and the like to make a better real estate deal than Joe Schmoe could....so be it.  If he gets invited to UT football games to visit with UT leadership about how the City and University can work together better....so be it.  Hell, lots of public entities have rules that their employees cannot accept a gift worth over $50...meaning that they CAN accept a gift.  So do I care if your local director of planning sits down with someone who buys them a $30 lunch and pitches why they think it's important to allow live witnesses at permit hearings?  Nope.  It's de minimis.  And if the director is changing his policy position because someone bought him an Old Timer with cheese and some boneless buffalo wings, we were already fucked.   Dem, Repub, Monster Raving Looney Party, human beings always have and always will do such things.

But when they get fucking WEALTHY by virtue of their position, and use their position for the PRIMARY end of service to self/self-enrichment, that's when we're fucked.

And politicians have done that in the past -- truly crooked politicians have existed since the dawn of time, from all parties.  Sometimes, it was completely systemic (Tammany Hall shit in NY), sometimes it was one-offs (Bob Menendez taking gold bars to get some dudes favorable import treatment for halal meat).  But not in my memory has it been 1) across-the-board for an entire party, and 2) treated by that party as a fucking VIRTUE instead of something to be hidden and ashamed of.

They fucking BRAG about it, they don't try to hide it.  It's a feature, not a bug.  It's one of the ways they demonstrate their absolute power: "look at me, I'm corrupt right in front of your face.  And there's not a goddamned thing you can do about it.  THAT is how powerful I am, you fucking insects."

It's how you kill a Republic, very, very quickly.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

It is sort of like striking something from a civil pleading. It may remove a factual issue from a case or remove an entire cause of action, just depends on what is stricken. 

I don't think it goes that far. It's just a factual allegation that is removed from the pleading. In this particular case I don't think it is excluded from the trial, just subject to proof and the 404 test. 

There's a discussion in the opinion about "speaking indictments" that contain recitations not strictly necessary that are usually judged by relevance and prejudice to the defendant. She declined to strike any paragraphs except 36 because the government cited 404 in support.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't think it goes that far. It's just a factual allegation that is removed from the pleading. In this particular case I don't think it is excluded from the trial, just subject to proof and the 404 test. 

There's a discussion in the opinion about "speaking indictments" that contain recitations not strictly necessary that are usually judged by relevance and prejudice to the defendant. She declined to strike any paragraphs except 36 because the government cited 404 in support.

In light of the tweet on the previous page regarding Trump having a gun at Mar-a-Lago that hasn't been released to local law enforcement, his felony conviction outside the State of Florida, and the conditions of his release, what are your thoughts on this?

I realize it's not your practice area, but it seems pretty clearcut if they can locate the gun.

 

Felony Conviction
If you have been convicted of a felony as described in Section 790.23, Florida Statutes, and the felony conviction occurred within the State of Florida, your civil rights and firearm rights must be restored by the Florida Office of Executive Clemency. Felony convictions occurring in another state require restoration of civil and firearm rights by the state in which the conviction occurred. If you were convicted of a felony under federal law, you must have a presidential pardon or have been granted federal relief from disabilities. If your civil rights and firearms rights have not been restored as described above, or if you cannot provide proof of restoration of civil rights and firearms rights, you are not eligible for a Concealed Weapon or Firearm License. (bolded in original)

Posted

Not to suggest that Trump wouldn't ignore his obligation to turn over any firearms after his conviction, wouldn't there be some sort of grace period in which he would be allowed to do so?  

Posted
4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Not to suggest that Trump wouldn't ignore his obligation to turn over any firearms after his conviction, wouldn't there be some sort of grace period in which he would be allowed to do so?  

Imagine if Trump were a poor Black man and then ask that question again.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted

I knew that former Presidents could still own firearms but they were never allowed to touch them with ammo.  I'm sure there's some nuance where like Secret Service cleared the weapon so the former President could show it to a friend or whatever.  I guess it's maybe that Trump customized pistol he received as a gift at that gunshop a few months back?  Otherwise, there's no record of him at any gun club, shooting club, clay sports facility, hunting license, etc. since he left military academy high school.  I dunno, I assume there's all kinda nuance to the rules, but W.'s former bodyman indicated that Bush could not handle a weapon with live ammo, even hunting.  It was just something they have to give up.  I assume back in the day of Teddy Roosevelt, it was kosher...but not anymore.  But I guess, an exception could be made for, "Look at this tremendous custom weapon.  Made just for me for how fantastic I am."  I'm guessing with his eyes closed, some agent could make sure there was nothing chambered, nothing in the weapon at all but bullshit and fables.  But if you gotta turn it over, you gotta turn it over.  Every gun has a story, this one is just gonna be stranger than most. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

I knew that former Presidents could still own firearms but they were never allowed to touch them with ammo. 

If true, that's silly.

Posted

I'm guessing like most "warning signs", it came from some kinda incident where a former POTUS almost killed themselves on accident.  I think it's more of a concern by the SS not to want a former POTUS to die on their watch because of negligence so they just cleaned the board.  

I dunno, Trump has so little experience with firearms over the last 60 years and can barely negotiate a bottle of water...let alone a pistol at his bumbling age.  It'd be in the best interest of the nation if he was given more weapons and more pills and encouraged to legally possess them to practice more.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

I knew that former Presidents could still own firearms but they were never allowed to touch them with ammo.  I'm sure there's some nuance where like Secret Service cleared the weapon so the former President could show it to a friend or whatever.  I guess it's maybe that Trump customized pistol he received as a gift at that gunshop a few months back?  Otherwise, there's no record of him at any gun club, shooting club, clay sports facility, hunting license, etc. since he left military academy high school.  I dunno, I assume there's all kinda nuance to the rules, but W.'s former bodyman indicated that Bush could not handle a weapon with live ammo, even hunting.  It was just something they have to give up.  I assume back in the day of Teddy Roosevelt, it was kosher...but not anymore.  But I guess, an exception could be made for, "Look at this tremendous custom weapon.  Made just for me for how fantastic I am."  I'm guessing with his eyes closed, some agent could make sure there was nothing chambered, nothing in the weapon at all but bullshit and fables.  But if you gotta turn it over, you gotta turn it over.  Every gun has a story, this one is just gonna be stranger than most. 

Something to consider is that he turned over two of the three pistols he owned to NYPD last year, so it's not like he can plead ignorance. Mar-a-Lago is his little fiefdom where laws don't apply, and he can simply squirrel away shit he wants to keep from the government.

Posted
1 minute ago, bolverk said:

Something to consider is that he turned over two of the three pistols he owned to NYPD last year, so it's not like he can plead ignorance. Mar-a-Lago is his little fiefdom where laws don't apply, and he can simply squirrel away shit he wants to keep from the government.

 

image.png.3be04cac50a395b04ee52dc8e67e017b.png

image.png.585e5e15d7f12c7b4132d4e46031c329.png

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

If true, that's silly.

A federal agency tasked with his protection would likely disagree. 
 

Suicides account for 56% of deaths related to firearms, while 41% were homicides, and about 1% were preventable/accidental.

Ex POTUS has agents to guard against homicide.

 

Posted

Some felon-in-possession of firearms statutes apply even to those merely under indictment.  The federal law requires a conviction, but makes no exception for those convictions that are not yet final, meaning subject to appeal or post-trial motions, etc.  But there is probably some case law interpreting what is and is not a "conviction" for purposes of 18 USC 922.

Also, Trump's conviction won't even be "final" for purposes of appeal until he is sentenced.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

A federal agency tasked with his protection would likely disagree. 
 

Suicides account for 56% of deaths related to firearms, while 41% were homicides, and about 1% were preventable/accidental.

Ex POTUS has agents to guard against homicide.

 

What does that have to do with the ex POTUS possessing a firearm?  I'm not talking about convicted felon Donald Trump, I'm talking about @YGIFS' assertion that no ex POTUS can possess loaded firearms.

Posted
9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

What does that have to do with the ex POTUS possessing a firearm?  I'm not talking about convicted felon Donald Trump, I'm talking about @YGIFS' assertion that no ex POTUS can possess loaded firearms.

I suggest that the post you quoted addresses non felons, too.

Posted

Trump is not in my Top 3 of favorite Presidents, but I think that he and every other former President should be properly armed, in case they ever have to engage in single combat with an aggressive foreign peer. Think AMLO all jacked up on PCP, or Macron with a bellyful of stale wine and Sartre.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 2
  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

I suggest that the post you quoted addresses non felons, too.

I'm sorry, are you drunk?  I simply questioned the reasonableness of the concept that no ex POTUS can possess a loaded firearm.

Posted (edited)

He wasn’t president, but they say that 1952 and 56 Democratic nominee and later diplomat Adlai Stevenson wore a pair of single action Colt revolvers with ivory handles and hair triggers in a custom made, white leather rig set up for a standard draw on the right and a “navy twist” on the left. Sammy Davis jr. heard about this and challenged the UN Ambassador to a quick draw contest at Joey Bishop’s house during a party, and that’s how Sammy Davis Jr lost the eye. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 5
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 3
Posted
12 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

He wasn’t president, but they say that 1952 and 56 Democratic nominee and later diplomat Adlai Stevenson wore a pair of single action Colt revolvers with ivory handles and hair triggers in a custom made, white leather rig set up for a standard draw on the right and a “navy twist” on the left. Sammy Davis jr. heard about this and challenged the UN Ambassador to a quick draw contest at Joey Bishop’s house during a party, and that’s how Sammy Davis Jr lost the eye. 

I can tell you from personal experience, that if you go to a Halloween party dressed as an Arab Sheikh, and you strapped on a machete (because who owns a scimitar in this day and age?) and you run into another guy dressed and armed the same way, do not, DO NOT get in a friendly machete quick-draw contest.

  • Haha 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

I can tell you from personal experience, that if you go to a Halloween party dressed as an Arab Sheikh, and you strapped on a machete (because who owns a scimitar in this day and age?) and you run into another guy dressed and armed the same way, do not, DO NOT get in a friendly machete quick-draw contest.

Aw, but those shenanigans sound cheeky and fun!

  • Drool 1
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm sorry, are you drunk?  I simply questioned the reasonableness of the concept that no ex POTUS can possess a loaded firearm.

Well, I wasn’t. My thinking is that POTUS’ wishes take a back seat to Secret Service imperative. 
 

Edited to say that is a good thing. Were POTUS able to countermand SS, tfg might have led J6 insurrectionists into the capitol. I assume JFK was the last POTUS to override SS policy.

I can agree that having a loaded firearm is a reasonable expectation, while also believing that the SS has last say.

Edited by Willfully Horn
Posted
1 hour ago, RDCanecutter said:

I can tell you from personal experience, that if you go to a Halloween party dressed as an Arab Sheikh, and you strapped on a machete (because who owns a scimitar in this day and age?) and you run into another guy dressed and armed the same way, do not, DO NOT get in a friendly machete quick-draw contest.

I’m digging out my Indiana Jones gear

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Drool 1
Posted
1 hour ago, RDCanecutter said:

I can tell you from personal experience, that if you go to a Halloween party dressed as an Arab Sheikh, and you strapped on a machete (because who owns a scimitar in this day and age?) and you run into another guy dressed and armed the same way, do not, DO NOT get in a friendly machete quick-draw contest.

Are you saying that it somehow morphed into an Arabic bris?

  • Drool 1
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, RDCanecutter said:

I can tell you from personal experience, that if you go to Fantasy Fest a Halloween party dressed as Fidel Castro an Arab Sheikh, and you strapped on a machete (because who owns a scimitar in this day and age?) and you DO NOT run into another guy dressed as a female dominatrix and armed the same way, do not, DO NOT get in a friendly machete quick-draw contest. They'll scream "Fidel you've been a bad boy!" and chase you down Duval St with a paddle while the crowd cheers them on.

Good advice!, good advice

Edited by locodos
  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
On 6/11/2024 at 10:12 PM, RDCanecutter said:

Trump is not in my Top 3 of favorite Presidents, but I think that he and every other former President should be properly armed, in case they ever have to engage in single combat with an aggressive foreign peer. Think AMLO all jacked up on PCP, or Macron with a bellyful of stale wine and Sartre.

Trial by wombat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, no, that is not a spelling error or auto-correction.

  • Haha 3
  • Drool 1
Posted
On 6/11/2024 at 2:37 PM, Brisketexan said:

My S. Texas grandfather used to sit and pontificate to us youngsters, a Pearl in one hand and an unfiltered cigarette in the other.  One of his pieces of wisdom was "hell, boy....any politician, you gotta give 'em reasonable stealin' privileges.  It comes with the job!"  Which gets to my bit about "everyone takes post-it notes."  Everyone takes advantage of some "perk" of their job to add a few percentage points to their quality of life.  If a politician uses his broad knowledge of development codes, traffic patterns, and the like to make a better real estate deal than Joe Schmoe could....so be it.  If he gets invited to UT football games to visit with UT leadership about how the City and University can work together better....so be it.  Hell, lots of public entities have rules that their employees cannot accept a gift worth over $50...meaning that they CAN accept a gift.  So do I care if your local director of planning sits down with someone who buys them a $30 lunch and pitches why they think it's important to allow live witnesses at permit hearings?  Nope.  It's de minimis.  And if the director is changing his policy position because someone bought him an Old Timer with cheese and some boneless buffalo wings, we were already fucked.   Dem, Repub, Monster Raving Looney Party, human beings always have and always will do such things.

But when they get fucking WEALTHY by virtue of their position, and use their position for the PRIMARY end of service to self/self-enrichment, that's when we're fucked.

And politicians have done that in the past -- truly crooked politicians have existed since the dawn of time, from all parties.  Sometimes, it was completely systemic (Tammany Hall shit in NY), sometimes it was one-offs (Bob Menendez taking gold bars to get some dudes favorable import treatment for halal meat).  But not in my memory has it been 1) across-the-board for an entire party, and 2) treated by that party as a fucking VIRTUE instead of something to be hidden and ashamed of.

They fucking BRAG about it, they don't try to hide it.  It's a feature, not a bug.  It's one of the ways they demonstrate their absolute power: "look at me, I'm corrupt right in front of your face.  And there's not a goddamned thing you can do about it.  THAT is how powerful I am, you fucking insects."

It's how you kill a Republic, very, very quickly.

 

Posted
51 minutes ago, Pancho said:

How does this not lead to an investigation? 

 

I don't see anything illegal in the tweet that's visible to me, and I'm not clicking through to Twitter to see what else is typed there. What am I missing?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I don't see anything illegal in the tweet that's visible to me, and I'm not clicking through to Twitter to see what else is typed there. What am I missing?

Reportedly, Johnson agreed to look into how in the hell the U.S. House of Representative might help out Trump with his state court criminal conviction.  I don't know if a fool's errand is something worth investigating.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

Fun fact-Milwaukee's most notorious criminal, Jeffrey Dahmer...only had half the number of felony convictions as Donald Trump.  And they both enjoyed their meat well done with lots of ketchup.  

Anybody know where to find the RNC broadcast schedule?  It's less than 30 days out and it's this closely guarded secret.  Obviously they do their 'work' during the day which consists of basically just ripping up the platform/plank and just writing 'Donald Trump' on the board 100 times like Bart Simpson.  But there are some people in particular I'd prefer to watch make awkward speeches on his behalf throughout the week, but can't find the agenda anywhere.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1


×
×
  • Create New...