Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns. The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns.

04-21-2017 , 03:44 PM
I assume he's talking about a vacant Florida State Senate seat for a departing GOP rep who sadly had to resign after dropping the n-word on his colleagues.
04-21-2017 , 03:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
Apparently the simple act of working for Jason Chaffetz is a grave enough crime for these women's looks and sexual appetites to be critiqued and speculated on.
Like we wouldn't have the same comments on any woman's picture posted on this forum?
04-21-2017 , 03:45 PM
it will be a miracle if the Dems hold 41 in the senate. Hopefully Hispanic and black voters figure out what is coming and manage to vote in larger numbers in 2018...
04-21-2017 , 03:48 PM
I know this is gonna blow peoples' minds and all, but that guy shouldn't have been executed even if he is guilty. I'll let others elaborate.
04-21-2017 , 03:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
Apparently the simple act of working for Jason Chaffetz is a grave enough crime for these women's looks and sexual appetites to be critiqued and speculated on.
It didn't even take that much. Pics in the thread was enough.

Last edited by Our House; 04-21-2017 at 03:51 PM. Reason: Pony
04-21-2017 , 03:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hacksaw JD
please let this be true
the benghazi stuff has been known forever. I mean, everyone knows that the republicans cut the funding for security there. so much blame getting thrown at hilary is just complete fantasy but hey it works.
04-21-2017 , 03:56 PM
Kill this death penalty ****. Or sentence it to life in another thread.
04-21-2017 , 03:58 PM
Quote:
The White House has adopted a new strategy in the battle over funding the government, one designed to compel Democrats to help fund Trump’s Mexican wall and expanded deportation force. White House budget director Mick Mulvaney is now saying that the White House might agree not to sabotage the Affordable Care Act — by funding the subsidies to insurance coverage for lower-income people which, if halted, could melt down the exchanges — if Democrats agree to fund the wall and more immigration enforcement agents.

But on the Thursday night conference call, House Dems resolved not to back down in the face of any such pressure, according to a readout of the call provided by a Democratic aide.

“We have the leverage and they have the exposure,” Dem leader Nancy Pelosi told people on the call, per the aide, adding that, because Republicans are in the majority, keeping the government funded will be seen as “their responsibility.”
Quote:
Absurdly enough, even as the White House is demanding concessions in exchange for not sabotaging the ACA, it is also pushing Congress to vote on a new version of the GOP repeal-and-replace bill that would be even more regressive and destructive than the last one was. Trump would likely take the blame for the chaos and loss of coverage that killing funding for the CSRs would unleash. Why should Dems bail him out of that problem — and allow Republicans to wield the CSRs as leverage against them — as long as the drive to roll back coverage for far more people continues? This should — and likely will — increase the resolve of Dems to dig in harder.

Tellingly, multiple reports indicate that the White House is demanding a rushed vote on the new repeal-and-replace bill because aides are desperate to showcase something, anything, as a legislative achievement in time for the 100-day mark. So you’d think the last thing the White House can tolerate is a government shutdown on Trump’s watch at precisely that moment, which would further reinforce the image that Trump and Republicans are making an enormous mess of governing. And so, in the government funding fight, Democrats should see the looming 100-day milestone as something that also gives them increased leverage. Judging by last night’s Democratic conference call, they are aware of this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.a7505b2869f2
04-21-2017 , 04:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by einbert
I once had a law professor semi-jokingly tell me that a textualist justice would be fine either with cruel or unusual punishment, but both were off limits.
04-21-2017 , 04:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllTheCheese
Kill this death penalty ****. Or sentence it to life in another thread.
Done.
04-21-2017 , 04:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
Apparently the simple act of working for Jason Chaffetz is a grave enough crime for these women's looks and sexual appetites to be critiqued and speculated on.
wait we can only talk about the looks of criminals?
04-21-2017 , 04:10 PM
The Republicans should just agree to intentionally lose a majority of elections from here on out. The Democrats get to govern, and the Republicans get to go back to obstructing. Win win.
04-21-2017 , 04:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirbynator
wait we can only talk about the looks of criminals?
you should stick to the thigh high boots, you're better at that.
04-21-2017 , 04:18 PM
take it back
04-21-2017 , 04:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
Apparently the simple act of working for Jason Chaffetz is a grave enough crime for these women's looks and sexual appetites to be critiqued and speculated on.
um wat? Check yer self before ya einbert yer self.
04-21-2017 , 04:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
Capital Punishment could be OK only if:

1. It is proven that it sometimes deters and

2. The criteria for certainty of guilt was moved to "beyond a shadow of a doubt" and

3. The murderer was a non poor person who meticulously planned the act purely to make money OR the murderer was someone who was already going to get life in prison who would otherwise consider his next murder a free roll. The "cruelty" of the murder should not be a factor.

I would also add a number four to prevent shenanigans.

4. To be eligible for capital punishment you must be white.
Actually, all you have to do is make the state governor themselves inject the cocktail or pull the lever. Watch how many of them change their minds. It's easy to sentence someone to death when you are not the one doing the actual killing.
04-21-2017 , 05:01 PM


damn good job on the Sessions sketch imo.
04-21-2017 , 05:04 PM
https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/stat...08531482591232

I swear he's not for real.
04-21-2017 , 05:06 PM
uhhh.. government is coming along really well
04-21-2017 , 05:08 PM
Are libtards still pissed off? If so then Trump gets an A+ with his supporters.
04-21-2017 , 05:09 PM
Apparently the Trump admin denies Exxon's Russia request, but I think that needs a big "for now".
04-21-2017 , 05:14 PM
https://twitter.com/CNN/status/855528955780182017

CNN talking about this on TV right now.
04-21-2017 , 05:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHip41
I agree completely.

Love how the pro life party wants to keep murdering people.
And cheers in the dark corners of the Internet the prospect of Ruth Bader-Ginsburg suddenly keeling over.
04-21-2017 , 05:29 PM
Any talk in here of Carl Icahn's lawyer swearing street thugs in loyalty oaths to ISIS in Indonesia as part of an effort to overthrow the government? An Indonesian partner in Trump properties is also involved.
04-21-2017 , 05:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Our House
https://twitter.com/CNN/status/855528955780182017

CNN talking about this on TV right now.
In other news, water is wet. I wish the partial source releases would stop. It is going to take at least year to get all the evidence before anything can really be done. Building a case is hard, especially with the FBI, CIA, and NSA giving their evidence. We know Russia did something, now to prove if Trump and his campaign had anything to do with... ugh

With that being said, the investigation started last July, so maybe this July the will have all their ducks in a row.

      
m