Jump to content

snafu

Members
  • Content Count

    3,861
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,599 Excellent

1 Follower

About snafu

  • Rank
    Thriving (sometimes)

Recent Profile Visitors

1,772 profile views
  1. Not so fast. Those are perfect jurors for a nonconformist.
  2. So, since we can't suffocate you with the back of a jury lounge chair. How would you like to go?
  3. This whole, so called: “public portion of the investigative phase” feels so strange. It is so one-sided. It is likely to hit a dead end even if it progresses to an impeachment vote and on to the Senate. It has all the earmarks of a political show to smear the President ahead of the full blown election season — and actually deep into the 2020 race. I think that’s part of the ploy here — roll out this first part slowly and partisan so that the process takes even longer to play out. The people who already hate the President will dig deeper into their position. I suppose the Democrats in Congress are also hoping to sway independents against Trump, that’s why the press keeps reporting poll numbers about independents. But if that’s their goal, it would seem that they take inspdependents for fools. Nobody should be comfortable with the way this obviously tilted process is playing out. Dems might win over independents if (I) the process was fair and (ii)if it allowed the President or his proxies to mount any sort of defense and (iii) in conclusion the President did something wrong. Im open to that. Unfortunately, since (so far) this is a railroad job, nobody is going to be swayed, not yet. It also occurs to me that the House Democrats are being hypocritical. They can’t make any coherent case that an actual crime has occurred. They can repeat the words “extortion” and “bribery” all they want, but that’s not what happened here. And if it is what happened here, then I’m sure that there are innumerable cases when prior Presidents used leverage in dealing with foreign heads of state. A fair response to that is that impeachment doesn’t require a criminal act. Well if that’s true (and I don’t deny it) then impeachment is much more of a political act. And since the Senate is not going to convict unless there’s more than what’s being presented by the House, this turns out to be a political act to smear the President during his re-election cycle. That’s exactly the charge against Trump (smearing the former VP). If this his post sounds obvious to you, then it is probably obvious to a lot of the country that’s following along. And if that’s the case, I really don’t know why the Democrats in the House are traveling this road. It smacks of desperation. And if they stop now, they look like fools — so they have to play this game right out to the end.
  4. You mean exactly like what Mike Bloomberg (and Putin) did when his term limit was supposed to be up?
  5. Well I’d consider trading Montour if he’s got any value. I hate his game. If anything (and I’m mostly serious) maybe they can send him to Rochester for half a season to convert him into a RW.
  6. That would be actually very funny if Epstein had killed himself.
  7. Well, if I REALLY want to get my butt clean, I use my toothbrush. Can we add an option on the poll for "toothbrush"?
  8. Agreed. I slid 5 spots and lost my survivor pick — to say nothing of the Bills, whose loss is 100x more painful to me than this.
  9. That’s one badass banner in the second photo!
  10. Well, if he's paying me, he can set the rules. But as a schmo walking the streets of the City, then it becomes very lame, very quick.
  11. Holy tone deaf! I suppose they can just act like a Democrat has for the past three years, huh? Maybe Republicans will be able to buy all the #resist bumper stickers and pink pu$$y hats.
  12. He tried to ban soft drinks larger than 16 ounces in NYC while he was mayor. It was litigated and the Court of Appeals shot him down. He's called "Nanny Bloomberg" for good reason.
  13. The cave dwellers in Plato's allegory are surmised to be likely to kill the guy who got free, went to see sunlight and shadows and reflections, and came back to tell them about it. So in your post, people in groups (1) and (2) would likely be disposed to kill people in group (3) . https://web.stanford.edu/class/ihum40/cave.pdf There are a lot of (1)'s and (2)'s on either side of politics and social Justice. It kind of goes along with the trend these days of D's calling R's "cultists", and at the same time R's calling D's "cultists". Too many people on each side have a strict orthodoxy to protect, and unless one orthodoxy or another gets totally discredited, there will be no peace between the two poles. And even then, whatever legit side there is will likely be smacked by the discredited side for being right.
×
×
  • Create New...