Jump to content

2024 Presidential Election Thread - Let's keep the party going.


Recommended Posts

Posted
5 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

This is compelling, but at the end of the day I can't agree with it. Becuase it would ipmly that as an asset, he's actually excelled at being a Russian asset, and I just can't square that this motherfucker has done anything competent in his life. 

That's a good point. More likely, he's simply their useful idiot.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

The home healthcare pay for family providers is such a great idea.  How many families simply can't afford in home care of any sort, and the ultimate result is that the person in need winds up in a state run facility which is called something crappy like "Shady Pines" but is really just indigent care?  And as for that indigent care, what does that actually cost?  I'm guessing a solid several thousand dollars a month if not more.  Instead, paying a family member $1500 a month or something along those lines would result in financial ease for those in that situation, the ability to actually care for a loved one nearing the end in their home, and save taxpayers money.  It's a win on so many levels.  

  • Hook 'Em 8
Posted
3 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

Guilty as charged. It is shocking.

Don't keep going down the rabbit hole. It will just lead to uncontrollable sorrow as to where we are as a country and what we've become. What you just read was child's play compared to some of the poison he's spouted recently. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
17 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

This is compelling, but at the end of the day I can't agree with it. Becuase it would ipmly that as an asset, he's actually excelled at being a Russian asset, and I just can't square that this motherfucker has done anything competent in his life. 

the term you're looking for is "unwitting accomplice".

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
18 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

This is compelling, but at the end of the day I can't agree with it. Becuase it would ipmly that as an asset, he's actually excelled at being a Russian asset, and I just can't square that this motherfucker has done anything competent in his life.

A Russian Holding?  A useful idiot?  We can find some common ground here.

13 minutes ago, C-Man said:

That's a good point. More likely, he's simply their useful idiot.

Beat me to it.

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I feel like engaging in "diplomacy" when you are not, in fact, an elected or appointed official of the United States and acting in that capacity, is in fact, quite illegal. I'm pretty sure it's called the fucking Logan Act. 

Could also be interesting from a FARA perspective, which has been enforced several times in recent years.  But I assume it would need to be shown that Trump got payment for it.  

Recent notable cases

Edited by Tuco
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, hornmpa96 said:

Exactly - I would guess when this is scored that it’s actually cheaper to care for Seniors in their homes as it eliminates all of the facility costs associated with nursing homes.

Medicare expends exactly zero on those facility costs.  There is no benefit for it.

Now, health care in declining years, for falls and whatnot from elders left at home because people can't afford a healthcare worker, that's maybe another thing to consider.

12 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Could also be interesting from a FARA perspective, which has been enforced several times in recent years.  But I assume it would need to be shown that Trump got payment for it.  

Recent notable cases

The Logan Act is less than a paper tiger.  They ought to narrow it a bit or just take it off the books entirely so we can quit fantasizing about prosecutions that are never going to be brought or will be dismissed over First Amendment concerns.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The Logan Act is less than a paper tiger.  They ought to narrow it a bit or just take it off the books entirely so we can quit fantasizing about prosecutions that are never going to be brought or will be dismissed over First Amendment concerns.

Which is why I brought up FARA.  

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

Medicare expends exactly zero on those facility costs.  There is no benefit for it.

Now, health care in declining years, for falls and whatnot from elders left at home because people can't afford a healthcare worker, that's maybe another thing to consider.

The Logan Act is less than a paper tiger.  They ought to narrow it a bit or just take it off the books entirely so we can quit fantasizing about prosecutions that are never going to be brought or will be dismissed over First Amendment concerns.

It sounds like engaging in Diplomacy being illegal when he is not an elected or appointed offiical of the US government is still an illegal act. Which is what dumbshit claimed it wasn't. 

Whether or not we decide to bring prosecution to bear on people who do illegal shit seems like an entirely different fucking problem. As opposed to saying "Well, no one will charge him so it's not really illegal."

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Medicare expends exactly zero on those facility costs.  There is no benefit for it.

Correct, but MedicAID does cover facility costs (for exactly the low-income type of folks being discussed here).  Any plan that would take Medicaid out of the picture for Grandma Kettle at the nursing home by instead spending a similar amount of Medicare dollars on Grandma Kettle is a good outcome.

Honestly, it's not much different than the analysis that's been done on hospitalization: the sooner you can get a patient out of the hospital at home, you get the win-win of reducing hospitalization costs AND leading to better patient recovery and outcomes.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
42 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I feel like engaging in "diplomacy" when you are not, in fact, an elected or appointed official of the United States and acting in that capacity, is in fact, quite illegal. I'm pretty sure it's called the fucking Logan Act. 


I don't think that's true. From Wiki:  The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that criminalizes the negotiation of a dispute between the United States and a foreign government by an unauthorized American citizen. The intent behind the Act is to prevent unauthorized negotiations from undermining the government's position.

So if Trump wasn't negotiating a dispute, it would appear he's free to talk to whomever he wants.

Posted
4 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

I just did like ten seconds of googling and see that Pennsylvania calls their early voting "in person mail ballot" voting and what the fuck does that mean? 

It’s when you mail your person to the elections office and they vote for you. Just make sure they don’t have a gun; in Pennsylvania, it’s illegal to have a gun on your person except in Allentown. 

  • Haha 2
Posted
37 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The Logan Act is less than a paper tiger.  They ought to narrow it a bit or just take it off the books entirely so we can quit fantasizing about prosecutions that are never going to be brought or will be dismissed over First Amendment concerns.

TIL it's a matter of free speech to negotiate a contract on behalf of another party without their consent?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
6 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

When I hear JD talk I'm all like...

insta-2.gif

Hey, another smiliarity....   Looks like the demise of a few Russian officials. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, Podrick's Magic Cock said:

Twenty years ago, Howard Dean screamed and was labeled too much of a hot head to be president.  Now, an open traitor is allowed to run for the office?  What..the...fuck?

Bruce Willis Party GIF by IFC

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Podrick's Magic Cock said:

Twenty years ago, Howard Dean screamed and was labeled too much of a hot head to be president.  Now, an open traitor is allowed to run for the office?  What..the...fuck?

61R5rR.gif

Edited by Chad Fuck
  • Rage+1 2
Posted

But she only goes on friendly media!!! Unlike Trump, who is interviewed by:

Ben Shapiro
Laura Ingraham
Elon Musk

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
4 hours ago, 4th&Five said:

Image

Quote

Woodward Trump is a total sleazebag who has lost it mentally, and he's slow, lethargic, incompetent and overall a boring person with no personality." - Steven Cheung, Communications
Director

Fixed

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted (edited)

When Kamala wins and the government orders Bugs Bunny to cut Florida into the Atlantic Ocean, we should have a Cash 4 Clunkers program where we take all the leftover beach homes from the hurricanes and ship them piecemeal to Lake of the Ozarks as one last jobs program.

Edited by StassneyHorn
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Js1 said:

But she only goes on friendly media!!! Unlike Trump, who is interviewed by:

Ben Shapiro
Laura Ingraham
Elon Musk

Laura has the bigger cock of those three. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, bolverk said:

It's not just that Trump was secretly talking with Putin while out of office, but that Trump was also pressuring Republicans in Congress to block military aid to Ukraine to fight Russian invaders. In short, he was attempting to influence our foreign policy, likely at Putin's bidding.

Yes he was:

Donald Trump reportedly asked Vladimir Putin for his advice on whether the US should help arm Ukraine at their first in-person meeting.

The Republican presidential nominee, who has been vocal in his criticism of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, reportedly asked Putin “what do you think?” when the pair met in Hamburg in 2017, according to The New York Times.

Trump has wildly claimed Putin “would never have gone into Ukraine” if he were president and has touted his “very good relationship” with him several times.

 
 

The meeting — which took place three years after Russian forces invaded the Crimean peninsula — was “an opening” for Putin to begin exploiting Trump’s “escalating political grudge” against Ukraine in a bid to weaken US support for the country, officials who were privy to the exchange have shared with the newspaper.

Trump had only been in office for seven months when the pair met. Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson attended the meeting, which was “a masterclass” by Putin to mold the relatively new president’s approach to Ukraine, according to The Times

  • Rage+1 5
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Js1 said:

But she only goes on friendly media!!! Unlike Trump, who is interviewed by:

Ben Shapiro
Laura Ingraham
Elon Musk

can't wait until trump interviews himself like one of those tiktok videos.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted

If Trump has been talking diplomacy to Putin this whole time, why didn’t he tell him not to invade?   What lever does the power of the presidency afford him that haven’t been used by Biden?  It’s not like trump would use the threat of troops or that Putin would believe him if he did. 

  • Hook 'Em 4


×
×
  • Create New...