Jump to content

SmokeyTheBear

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    3782
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by SmokeyTheBear

  1. 1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

    She's actually appearing in this?

    An arraignment is not a real high-tension proceeding, typically, except as pertains to pre-trial detention, but she's not nearly serious enough a law dog for this.

    I'm only half paying attention but she came out and did a statement. Not sure if her role extends past that today. 

  2. 6 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

    Hillary's email server was wrong, but I don't think we can attribute to malice where stupidity will cover the bill.

    Most people don't understand basic email security. If they knew what I knew about email, nobody would ever use it. I still use it because i just don't fucking care who knows about things I email.

    Some billion dollar companies don't understand digital security in general. It's something that most people put a willful blind eye to because it's all too complex. And government has a tendency to lag behind in adoption due to those misunderstandings or cost concerns. 

  3. 3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Yknow, you'd think the GQP might have a few qualms about having the first Presidential nominee, not named Lyndon LaRouche, subject to criminal indictments.

    But yeah  . . .  Geezus Tapdancing Christ.

    This indictment is so much more powerful than Bragg's.

    spacer.png

    • Like 2
    • Haha 2
  4. 9 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

    it's gotta be. there's no way that man can ever come close to that much power again. we won't survive it

    ANY (wo)man who becomes President. Nip this type of shit in the bud and set a precedent. 

  5. 1 minute ago, Hammerin Hank said:

    I’m surprised it hasn’t happened yet. I’m curious who recorded the tape, and wonder if we’ll ever find out.

    Well, the orange idiot did keep an unsecure cell phone in his pocket all thru his Presidency. Any government with decent technical capabilities can get into the mic/cam. Probably not what happened in this instance but he obviously didn't care about being discrete with anything, let alone national security information. 

  6.  

    10 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

    Are you being serious, or purposefully silly? How many NATO countries want to actively send in troops to kick Russia out of there? The US certainly doesn't. 

    I do agree with others that Poland and the Baltic States are probably rarin' to go, but virtually the rest of NATO has no desire to send their own troops in there. In the US, politically it would be a disaster for the president and political party that did such a thing.

    I do feel alarmist about the power plant right now, particularly after what happened with the dam, but I'm not seeing the kind of rhetoric from the US and other countries I'd like to about the issue. Mostly we're still collectively dithering about whether it was Ukraine or Russia that blew it up (narrator: It was Russia). 

    Anyway, that's not going to be a realistic option. Remember, one member nation can veto any new member. That's why Turkiye can keep Sweden of all places out of NATO. There's simply no way you're going to get every NATO country to agree to such a deal. 

    It was mostly said in jest. It's not the right time to make that move but I know it would improve the situation in Ukraine and expedite the end of this war (in their territory anyways). It also shows the world (China), that we really won't abide these types of transgressions. By jumping into one war, you may stop another. Maybe not. Yall need to chill, just throwing a hypothetical out there. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
×
×
  • Create New...