hpslugga

No one ever said that it did, and it doesn’t have to, either. You’re really bad at this.

He would say that.

Nah you ain’t about that life. You ain’t about that life that tends to suggest that you’re in a position to speculate on such subjects that are well past your pay grade.

$9.95 to be donated to: The Fund to Help Those Who Are Too Busy Helping Themselves To Ask For Help I forgot fatty’s address though, so you’ll have to ask him

$9.95 to be donated to: The Fund to Help Those Who Are Too Busy Helping Themselves To Ask For Help I forgot fatty’s address though, so you’ll have to ask him

Their evil was born under Nixon, hit puberty with Reagan, peaked out during the W Bush years and hit the demented-old-guy-with-long-fingernails-shitting-in-jars under Trump. They’re just now figuring out the those jars can be used as projectile weapons.

And it’s not even part of his career. His whole life has been a work…just like Trump.

I don’t think you know how Trump-y that dude really is.

On point a I would agree, but if they actually did that would mean Manchin and Sinema would have been convinced finally to kill the filibuster and to add more judges, so since that would almost have to be the case, point B would be moot because they’d be able to rapid fire those. I have next to zero confidence that it would come to it with this current makeup but at some, we do have to recognize that we are indeed a failed state and therefore have to operate within that framework. In a bi-factional system, when one faction doesn’t operate within the framework we like to call “rule of law,” there’s no reason for the other to do so either. Even if they put forth their most earnest effort to do so, the Democrats are never going to convince Republicans to operate within that framework, so that “when they go low we go high” shit just doesn’t reach anyone serious. It’s lofty rhetoric, sure, but lofty rhetoric doesn’t give us Roe back and it doesn’t protect Obergfell, Griswold and/or Lawrence. At this point, I’m not. The whole notion of “lifetime appointment,” coupled with this Court’s absolute lack of moral integrity, is just an invitation to the most sociopathic judges imaginable to aspire to serve on it. That no longer seems to me a viable option. A Samuel Alito and a Clarence Thomas can never be seen as people whom anyone should aspire to emulate. Well if the second alternative is no longer viable and you’re now only cynical towards it in its current guise, why would you still be troubled by the prospect of making it more democratic?

It’s time that we started discussing this topic and I want to start it off by posting two videos to kinda guide it along at least at first. I would really like to see the lawyers’ takes on it in particular.

Yeah that’s what the upcoming Texas law is. Moment of fertilization, no exceptions for rape or incest, will attempt extradition and subsequent prosecution if anyone leaves the state to do it. That’s precisely why Minnesota and others are literally flipping us off in advance. It’s also why employers like Dick’s are flipping us off in advance. None of that has shit to do with a heartbeat.

There was no 200 years of precedent. You’re just making shit up.

I was gonna say, if there’s a poster on this site who is in a worse position to tell another poster to “learn your history” than @Brothahorn, I’d like to know who it is.

Time will tell but don’t be surprised if in the long run it serves as a “dog finally caught the car and he didn’t know what to do with it” moment. Not at all predicting that, but at the same time, if it turns out that way, I will say “well wouldn’t you know who won the fucking pony?”

See the thing is, Kevin Bacon got flattened in that scene after saying that shit a couple times and he shut the fuck up after that. These naive morons keep saying “all is well” even when you need a spatula to pry them off the pavement. It’s like “all is well” had a bastard child with “‘tis but a scratch!!!”

Those poor guys, they just cannot complete a syllogism. They never could quite do that, could they?

Nah she would just claim the space lasers were running interference for the satellites…just like when Karen was flushing the cocaine down the toilet to protect Henry.

Seriously this is basically what Nixon did:

Right and that’s really my point of that whole thing. Did he have shame? Maybe. Possibly. But was it to such an extent that it made him resign? Fuck no. A shame-triggered resignation means you do it absent the political pressure that put you in that position. In other words, if he was told by those same people “look Dick, you screwed up but we will support you in the impeachment proceedings” and he resigned anyways? Yeah, that’s resigning out of shame. Doing so in response to that amount of pressure? Not so much. All this does is prove once again that the old saying “power never concedes anything without a demand” is absolutely true.

Yeah I would say her legal career is over regardless of whether she’s disbarred based on that almost entirely. She doesn’t have enough time to rebuild her very much damaged reputation.

They wouldn’t do it because they wouldn’t need to. Maintaining their positions would be a realistic option for them. It wasn’t for Nixon and that’s the only reason he resigned. It wasn’t out of “shame,” it wasn’t out of “respect for the office,” it wasn’t out of “love of country.” It was a political calculation. He resigned for the same reason that I don’t attempt to fly off the Empire State Building and survive: the result I would desire is 100% not in the cards.

Again, that’s just not true. He left office having no realistic path to maintain his position. He was told that he was going to be removed by members of his own party. That’s not “shame,” that’s taking the least humiliating path that’s available…again just like Bob Livingston. And again, the republicans wouldn’t do the same because their party is filled almost entirely with degenerates who would defend them no matter what. No Republican president will ever be told by senate republicans “you’re going to be impeached and we will have a hand in removing you.” And again if Nixon had this current batch in congress, no way does he resign. He gets impeached, is acquitted in a straight party line vote, and serves his term.

The best way I can put the comparison of the two is in villains in TV/cinema. As Nixon was Emperor Palpatine, Trump was a bastard child of the Joker and Ernest T Bass.

I’m quite aware of the whole scope of the operation and that wasn’t the point. The point is: 1. he was a willing participant and it received next to zero press coverage even though the sheer depth and depravity of the whole thing was so far beyond Watergate as to render it a footnote. 2. Since that’s the case, it cannot be said that the Republican senators who were going to vote to remove him in his impeachment proceedings were acting on some sort of “principle” or “good of the country.”