Jump to content

sheeeit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    760
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sheeeit

  1. When I first read BT's post about 14/88 I was chuckling because I thought he was being funny. Then I realized that he was actually serious and I really laughed.
  2. This is sooo typical of this place and all of you guys. The only reason there is even any kind of "smell test" is because, as usual, the media print a small part of the actual story and you guys just lap it up like dogs. Do you ever get tired of relying on half truths in the media to form opinions? Hugo asked what he posted that wasn't non-factual. Actually, almost everything that makes this look suspicious is un-factual. The only facts are 1) At one time Kennedy's son worked at De, and 2) Trump made development/construction loans with De during part of the time that Kennedy's son was there. That is it. Everything else being discussed is half truths and outright lies that are very easy to investigate. The biggest claim that is non-factual is this supposed claim that Kennedy's son was Trumps personal banker or something like that. It is a complete and total falsehood. Kennedy never made any construction/development loans and he never had any role in that side of the business. Kennedy was a trader. He traded in mortgage backed securities. Traders do not make loans. It is a completely different division of the bank. Kennedy had exactly zero input in any of the De loans to trump co. Zero. Trump started his relationship with De before Kennedy even worked there. Trump did have a relationship with a De banker and that was the guy that basically started the commercial real estate lending office in NY for De. Lots and lots of articles about it. The guy knew he was taking a risk on Trump but did it anyway. Your Citizens United point is incredibly stupid. Citizens United was decided in January of 2010. Kennedys son was long gone from De at that point and was running a small real estate investment firm that, according to the only records I could find, made exactly zero political contributions. Your point is absurd. Yes De was fined for money laundering related issues. From what I can tell they deserved to be. But the division in question was based in Moscow. Just like every single other big I Bank had offices there. De is a massive institution. This happened in 2017. Of course, Kennedy never worked on anything russian related or had any connection whatsoever to the russian division when he worked there and he had been gone from the company for 8 years when the fines were handed down.. It appears that Kennedy has a friendly relationship with the trump kids. That is neither unusual or surprising considering their backgrounds and work.
  3. I actually thought you were better than the usual suspects here. My delusion? I pretty clearly said that we have no idea who would have won the popular vote. I have no idea if trump would have won that or not. The point that apparently went over your head was that to try and use the popular vote result to draw any type of conclusion is aggy since the game that was played was to get the most electoral votes. You seem to be backtracking a bit now. Sheeeit never even suggested that trump was doing "america's will". Sheeit was calling you out for suggesting that trump being potus was against the will of the people based on the fact that he got fewer votes. I mean this was your post right? "They did in 2016, and the candidate with 3 million fewer votes than his opponent became president. These are some of the consequences of a system that doesn't reflect the will of the people and a president who tells the majority who voted against him to fuck off on a daily basis." You are clearly saying that our electoral system does not reflect the will of the people because trump got less votes. There was a contest to see who gets the most electoral votes. There was not a contest to see who could get the most total votes. You can not make assumptions about results from a contest using data that was not the intent of the contest.
  4. Mojo- Your arguments about the popular vote and electoral college are sort of the epitome of Aggie. It is like Aggie arguing after the football game that they had more offensive yards and therefore they were the better team and should be considered the winner. You have absolutely no way of knowing who would have won the popular vote if that was the way the election was set up. The candidates would have campaigned differently. They would have rallied in different states. They would have spent their advertising money in different ways. How many Hillary supporters in Texas did not vote because they knew that Hillary would not win Texas? How many Trump supporters in California did the same thing? If you want to argue the popular vote should be the way we choose going forward, then that is a decent argument. But to suggest the will of the people was different than the outcome is just very flawed. The contest was not to get the most popular votes it was to get the most electoral votes and that was the goal of the candidates and that is what determined their campaign strategies.
  5. http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2018/06/28/political-murders-push-120-in-mexican-elections/ Amazing. Hard to even grasp this. If we had 1 or 2 pols killed there would be rioting in the streets and the police/military/ would be in full force. 130 in a year. Mexico does not know what to do.
  6. We shall see. My take is that the people of NK are tired of starving. Un realized that and knew he had to do something. You guys seem to be suggesting that just because he had a summit with trump that his power is stronger. I do not see that at all. His power was supreme before the summit. I think that it is impossible that the people of NK did not hear the talk that the world would feed them if Un gave up his nukes. If 6 months from now, Un has done nothing and the people are now dying instead of just starving, then I think his power is much more tenuous. I think only a naive fool would think that China or Russia or anyone would risk access to the financial behemoth that is the US to trade with NK.
  7. I have not been to a kfc in years, may have to make a trip. Also, I can not imagine the shitstorm that would rain down on the first politician that espouses legalizing meth and heroin. That is the biggest reason why it wont happen. Maybe an idiot like trump would do it because he just doesnt care about the fall out.
  8. I dont disagree. It has to be to the point that the mexican citizens really want change and the elected folks realize they cant do it themselves. Might never get to that point. But, I also think there are some prudent folks in mexico that really care about the future of their country. I do not think they would be afraid to swallow their pride if they thought help from the US could seriously help the problem. It could be spun a lot of different ways. Maybe a joint military operation with a mexican figure head at the top. The mexicans can spin it that it is the us and their appetite for drugs that is causing the violence and, therefore, it is only right that the americans help pay for and die for the solution. This approach would clearly be a last option. Legalizing would hurt the cartels the most.
  9. I realize that this is just fun speculation, but you guys need to differentiate between who you want as potus and who has an actual chance of beating trump. If the economy is still humming then he is going to be very hard to beat, especially by the same old tired people that have been around forever. If the economy is humming, the only way a dem beats trump is if that dem is has good economic credentials and will essentially espouse many of the same economic policies as trump. Then they can make moves away from trump's idiocy on other things. But if the dems run a fairly liberal candidate and their approach to the economy is tax the rich, higher min wage, bad ceos and tax companies then they are going to get bludgeoned.
  10. Ha. repped you. FDA.
  11. I have thought about the solution to the mexican drug problem a bunch. Like all things, there are no easy answers. But I think there are only 2 choices. 1) The easiest and least violent way is to legalize most drugs that come in from mexico. Weed, cocaine, meth, heroin etc. I realize that this is highly unlikely to happen, but we have made progress on weed. I have no idea what it would look like but I envision stores similar to liquor stores that sell narcotics. Let US companies manufacture the narcotics and let the FFA regulate the quality and then let them sell to retailers that are also well regulated. Heck, I would even let mexico supply much of the drugs if they can compete. have them sell to licensed dealers here in the us. Likely a pipe dream but it would eliminate a ton of the profits for the cartels. 2) Negotiate with mexico (tell them basically) that the us military is coming in. The drug trade is just too lucrative and the state and local police are in a horrible spot. Take money from the cartels or get killed and have your family killed. That scenario is never, ever, going to eliminate the problem. The cartels make so much money that they have arsenals of weapons, more than the local police. So, imo, an outside group has to intervene. It would be unbelievably brutal in the short term. The policy would have to be scorched earth. Assaults on cartel locations. Total burning of fields and plants and equipment. An eradication of the trade. Then, help mexico to police the areas so that it never grows so big and out of hand again. In a large scale operation, you essentially eliminate all of the known bad guys and wipe out all of their supply. Make it very, very difficult for someone to come in and start from scratch. Obviously, solution 1 is the best avenue. Maybe some combination of both. But I can not blame the local police in many of these mexican communities for not stopping the problem.
  12. I would vote for Bloomberg over anyone that has run in the last 20 years except for maybe Romney. He may just be too old. It is going to be hard for the people mentioned to beat trump just from an oversized personality standpoint. Bloomberg is certainly smarter and much more polished (not exactly a high bar) than Trump. He is also not an ideologue. I hope he runs.
  13. You are truly a weird little man. You are also so full of shit it is amazing. I have little hope that anyone will call you out for calling me a liar and then using total bullshit lies to justify it. This just seems par for the course for this place and people like you. The daily estimate of people crossing legally everyday is about 1,000,000. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/07/19/opinion-million-people-cross-border-legally-every-day-and-that-good-thing.html Seems a little higher than 50,000. But I will link several articles from left news agencies that all agree that the monthly number arrested/apprehended is 50,000. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/05/crossing-attempts-at-us-southwest-border-triple-in-march-from-year-ago.html http://time.com/5303831/trump-illegal-immigration-border-arrests-may/ https://www.npr.org/2018/06/06/617750865/may-marks-another-increase-in-border-arrests-despite-trump-crackdown I wonder if anyone will call you out.
  14. Maybe. It still doesn't make much sense to me. If the generals were ready to pounce pre-summit and then Un gets some perceived respect from the US then what does that buy him? 6 months? A year? I think it is much, much more likely that Un has risked way more on the summit than the us. If he doesn't deliver change now, then the people will be much more inclined to revolt. Un played his trump card (no pun). I think a coup of the generals is much more likely as a result of them not wanting to get executed by unruly mobs than trying to take out Un to get power.
  15. Jesus. You guys are high strung. I made a mistake when typing. Meant to say month not day. I based it on this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/border-arrests-exceed-50000-for-third-month-in-a-row/2018/06/06/db6f15a6-680b-11e8-bea7-c8eb28bc52b1_story.html?utm_term=.9893499e8685 My point still stands. If 50,000-75,000 poor, unskilled, non-english speaking people were crossing the Canadian border every MONTH then I absolutely think the same people calling for a wall with Mexico would be calling for a wall with Canada.
  16. I am curious, what do you think would be the reason that the well-fed generals would stage a coup?
  17. Which race would they be against?
  18. If there were 50,000-75,000 poor, unskilled, non-english speaking people crossing the Canadian border everyday then I absolutely think the same people calling for a wall with Mexico would be calling for a wall with Canada. Personally, I am against the wall but I can certainly realize that it is a complex situation with no easy fixes.
  19. Obviously it is way too early to know much of anything, but I do take some issue with the above. The people of NK that are eating bark and pulling tape worms out of their stomachs could care less if Un stared down the US. The economy of NK is just as bad today as it was before the Summit. If conditions do not change on the ground in NK then the exact same situation will exist for a coup. Saying the US lost leverage or gave Un some modicum of acceptance is fun to talk about and bash trump about but it has exactly zero practical affect.
  20. violating the 5 year rule but films like old school and wedding crashers were funny from start to finish and carried the theme well. I think it is just hard to make/write good comedies for a full 2 hours. Comedy is also very subjective. I loathe slapstick type comedy where the jokes are so obvious and so predictable. Finding clever and original comedy is hard. Also, I went to a larry the cable guy stand up show and thought it was really funny. I wouldnt go to one of his movies for free.
  21. You seem to have plenty of time on your hands. Maybe you can find the post where I said I know for a fact that there was no collusion. Of course, I have never said that. All I have done is offer my opinion. But, apparently, my opinion is full of shit because we don’t know all of the evidence yet but all of the other opinions are perfectly valid because…
  22. Wow. Did you just claim that my opinion on collusion is invalid because we have not seen all of the evidence relevant to the issue, on a board where literally 1000s of opinions have been given on collusion by other people that also have not seen all of the evidence. I must have missed the posts where you pointed that out to them.
  23. LULZ. What gibberish. I have no idea if trump colluded or not. From what I have scene, my opinion is that he did not. Virtually every act of collusion talked about in the media does not stand up to close inspection. It is all based on anonymous sources and innuendo. Just be honest. What you guys dont like is when you go off on a new tangent (and there have been tons of them and they continue to come) about collusion and how this is the one that will bring trump down and then someone like me actually takes a little closer look at the allegations and applies a little logic and common sense and determines that the allegations are flimsy you guys freak out. I just give my opinion. My opinion could very well be wrong. I doubt it, but it could. Example, just recently one of the usual suspects said that there has been foreign intel for years now that shows collusion. When I read this i think it "smells bad". Then I apply just a tiny bit of logic and critical thinking. I note that the DNI (coats) has every single piece of intelligence that exists in the US at his disposal. I note that he has testified to the house and senate investigations into russsia/collusion. I note that these intel committees have interviewed dozens of intelligence officials including virtually all of the higher ranking ones. I note that, by law, these intelligence folks must reveal what intelligence they have. I then read quotes by 7 or 8 different members of the intel committees who have seen all of this information and none of them say hey have seen any collusion yet. So based on that, my opinion is that there is not any foreign intel that shows collusion. The evidence that the intel exists is based on anonymous sources through media, twitter and blogs. I feel pretty confident betting on the testimony of the Director of National Intelligence over anonymous sources and twitterers. So, as I always do, I outline my position and offer my reasons for why I believe it. And the best rebuttal to my opinion is not a well thought out counter argument or even an attempt at a counter argument. It is met with "Go fuck your face with smokey's dick you dissembling, disingenuous bag of cat shit.". That is reality in this place today.
  24. Just for fun, how about you post something from me that supports some action of trump. FYI, me arguing that trump did not collude with russia is not support of trump as potus. It is my opinion that there was not collusion. You be best too!
  25. College days in Cali. Long ago. I had no experience in sports betting. Roommate has a bookie (bookie is a loose term as it was just another college guy that took bets for someone else) and convinces me to bet with him. Usual story, we start at like $50 a game and start losing early saturday and try to double up. By monday we are down about $5K (which included a $1K bet my roomate did not tell me about) and I had about $150 to my name. We want to double it on monday night but bookie says we have to pay first. My roommate goes to his apartment and gives him his car keys as collateral . My college was in northern cali and roommate was huge 49er fan. We went to the game, Niners vs Redskins. This was montana, rice days. Niners won easily. We were drunk. I did not bet on a sporting event again for nearly 15 years.
×
×
  • Create New...