Holy fuck, take your personal issues somewhere else.
Holy fuck, take your personal issues somewhere else.
i am sure we will get it right this time
Socialism
Look, the wages you withheld from the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves for slaughter.
Originally Posted by Keckers
One thread per democratic candidate! That is how it is done on Boardgamegeek.com, but none of the threads really stay on track.
"Those who are skilled in combat do not become angered, those who are skilled at winning do not become afraid. Thus the wise win before they fight, while the ignorant fight to win." - Zhuge Liang
Fire mission complete, that was about 35 infractions for derailing and going entirely ad hominem in the previous thread.
Keep it civil. Keep it on topic.
Miss the days when the political discussions were how PL were fags and Russians were RMTing everything
Politics are for gay.
So.... Is Biden ligit running now or...
why are you electing these people?
Viking, n.:
1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.
Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.
Because 30% of the country is a bunch of ignorant rednecks
ftfyBecause 40% of the country is a bunch of ignorant rednecks
and some 20% of this country is the local equivalent of that, but we don't produce that level of stupid on a regular basis.Because 30% of the country is a bunch of ignorant rednecks
Viking, n.:
1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.
Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.
Don't forget that the electoral college is almost ludicrously tilted in favour of the redneck demographicand some 20% of this country is the local equivalent of that, but we don't produce that level of stupid on a regular basis.Because 30% of the country is a bunch of ignorant rednecks
I hope the senator is paying child support to the multiple mothers it would have took him to produce that brood.
That senator is from Utah, where more than 60% of the population believe in space Jesus.
meh
I think he's just trolling but I don't know why.Star Wars poster, Aquaman poster, Reagan riding a velociraptor poster while firing a gun, etc.
Well mystery solved then. Polygamy is still a thing there, right?
Anyways, the latest ragebait is that Trump will get to redact the report about Trump, according to Barr. Now i know why alt-rights were calling the investigation a waste of time, they probably were right all along.
Oh my god, stop whining about the electoral college. It's not going away.
In actual news: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1R72Y9
Did they have any business asking this question?A burning question was whether Trump himself would agree to be interviewed. Despite the tentative date being set, Trump’s legal advisers were split. Attorney John Dowd, who at the time represented Trump personally in the inquiry, worried that an interview would be too risky.
“We’re not going to go in there and make a mistake,” said Dowd, a pugnacious ex-Marine, recalling how he pushed back against Trump being interviewed even though the president had expressed willingness.
Dowd said he talked to Mueller’s team “about what they had done to Flynn and Papadopoulos.” Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and a former Trump campaign aide, George Papadopoulos, both ended up pleading guilty to lying to the FBI after submitting to special counsel interviews.
“We weren’t going there,” Dowd said in an interview.
Dowd said Mueller told him he wanted to discuss 16 areas in the interview, a scope viewed as too expansive. In agreeing to the tentative interview date, Trump’s lawyers had been seeking to draw out Mueller to find out what he already knew, Dowd said.
“We wanted to know what was really on their mind. They played it close to the vest. Our purpose was: the more meetings we had, the more we learned. That was the purpose of keeping the talking going,” Dowd said, adding that he never intended to make Trump available for an interview.
After the interview was canceled, it was apparent, according to Cobb, that the process would drag on.
“Once there was a decision by the president’s lawyers in January 2018 not to proceed with an interview at that time - but to keep the possibility open - it was clear this would take some time,” Cobb said.
The lawyers also faced the daily prospect of a subpoena from Mueller to force Trump to testify. If it came, their plan was to ask a judge to quash the subpoena, expecting the legal fight to reach the Supreme Court. It never came.
“We were prepared from the outset in the event of a subpoena to challenge it,” Sekulow said. “We felt confident the law was clearly on our side.”
Although not all experts agree, the legal team’s view was that a president cannot be compelled to testify unless the information could not be obtained from other sources and the circumstances were extraordinary.
By the spring of 2018, it appeared Trump had two options: either sit for an interview or be subpoenaed.
By that point, Trump’s team had been reshuffled. Dowd resigned in March. The Raskins and Giuliani came on board in April. Cobb was replaced in the White House by Emmet Flood in May. Sekulow was the only key member remaining throughout.
The new legal team pressed Mueller to show them that the investigation had reached a stage that would justify sitting down with the president, a source familiar with the negotiations said.
“Are you in a position where you have evidence of a crime?” the source said the team asked Mueller.
Well, that's not for them to decide, is it?The team stuck to that position through the autumn of 2018 while negotiating the deal in which Trump would answer written questions only on a limited subject - potential collusion with Russia before the 2016 election - not open-ended queries that potentially could have spilled into his businesses, finances or other matters.
CRITICAL MOMENT
Mueller’s agreement to submit a list of questions was a critical moment. The special counsel never stopped asking for the interview, the source said, but when Mueller acquiesced to answers in writing, it was a game-changer.
“It went from being constantly, ‘Are they going to decide to issue a subpoena?’ to, ‘We’re doing some written questions,’” the source said.
Trump’s lawyers would not entertain questions on the issue of whether Trump had tried to obstruct justice when he fired former FBI director James Comey, then overseeing the Russia probe, and frequently assailed Attorney General Jeff Sessions publicly for not ending the inquiry.
The legal team did not think a president could be found guilty of obstruction of justice for firing someone whom he had appointed in the first place to work for the administration.
The more I read this story, the more I think that Trump's legal team thinks they have authority over the President, which sets a disturbing precedent.
Last edited by Nordstern; March 27 2019 at 01:40:44 AM.
"Holy shit, I ask you to stop being autistic and you debate what autistic is." - spasm
The electoral college could easily be dispatched and should be but keep that noise down. More states have signed on to the popular vote compact. I hope they intensify efforts soon. Also if we had Merrick Garland gerrymandered states might of been fixed but now it could take decades to get the SC in a position to do so. We are so fucked for the little remaining future we have without climate change effects.Oh my god, stop whining about the electoral college. It's not going away.
In actual news: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1R72Y9
Did they have any business asking this question?A burning question was whether Trump himself would agree to be interviewed. Despite the tentative date being set, Trump’s legal advisers were split. Attorney John Dowd, who at the time represented Trump personally in the inquiry, worried that an interview would be too risky.
“We’re not going to go in there and make a mistake,” said Dowd, a pugnacious ex-Marine, recalling how he pushed back against Trump being interviewed even though the president had expressed willingness.
Dowd said he talked to Mueller’s team “about what they had done to Flynn and Papadopoulos.” Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and a former Trump campaign aide, George Papadopoulos, both ended up pleading guilty to lying to the FBI after submitting to special counsel interviews.
“We weren’t going there,” Dowd said in an interview.
Dowd said Mueller told him he wanted to discuss 16 areas in the interview, a scope viewed as too expansive. In agreeing to the tentative interview date, Trump’s lawyers had been seeking to draw out Mueller to find out what he already knew, Dowd said.
“We wanted to know what was really on their mind. They played it close to the vest. Our purpose was: the more meetings we had, the more we learned. That was the purpose of keeping the talking going,” Dowd said, adding that he never intended to make Trump available for an interview.
After the interview was canceled, it was apparent, according to Cobb, that the process would drag on.
“Once there was a decision by the president’s lawyers in January 2018 not to proceed with an interview at that time - but to keep the possibility open - it was clear this would take some time,” Cobb said.
The lawyers also faced the daily prospect of a subpoena from Mueller to force Trump to testify. If it came, their plan was to ask a judge to quash the subpoena, expecting the legal fight to reach the Supreme Court. It never came.
“We were prepared from the outset in the event of a subpoena to challenge it,” Sekulow said. “We felt confident the law was clearly on our side.”
Although not all experts agree, the legal team’s view was that a president cannot be compelled to testify unless the information could not be obtained from other sources and the circumstances were extraordinary.
By the spring of 2018, it appeared Trump had two options: either sit for an interview or be subpoenaed.
By that point, Trump’s team had been reshuffled. Dowd resigned in March. The Raskins and Giuliani came on board in April. Cobb was replaced in the White House by Emmet Flood in May. Sekulow was the only key member remaining throughout.
The new legal team pressed Mueller to show them that the investigation had reached a stage that would justify sitting down with the president, a source familiar with the negotiations said.
“Are you in a position where you have evidence of a crime?” the source said the team asked Mueller.
Well, that's not for them to decide, is it?The team stuck to that position through the autumn of 2018 while negotiating the deal in which Trump would answer written questions only on a limited subject - potential collusion with Russia before the 2016 election - not open-ended queries that potentially could have spilled into his businesses, finances or other matters.
CRITICAL MOMENT
Mueller’s agreement to submit a list of questions was a critical moment. The special counsel never stopped asking for the interview, the source said, but when Mueller acquiesced to answers in writing, it was a game-changer.
“It went from being constantly, ‘Are they going to decide to issue a subpoena?’ to, ‘We’re doing some written questions,’” the source said.
Trump’s lawyers would not entertain questions on the issue of whether Trump had tried to obstruct justice when he fired former FBI director James Comey, then overseeing the Russia probe, and frequently assailed Attorney General Jeff Sessions publicly for not ending the inquiry.
The legal team did not think a president could be found guilty of obstruction of justice for firing someone whom he had appointed in the first place to work for the administration.
The more I read this story, the more I think that Trump's legal team thinks they have authority over the President, which sets a disturbing precedent.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks