Jump to content

texastough

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    685
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by texastough

  1. In the last real elections, 2015, the opposition party won in a landslide. Then Maduro neutered the National Assembly and rigged the 2018 presidential election to the point where the opposition did not participate. And the average Venezuelan has lost 20 lbs while this has been going on. Its not that hard dude.
  2. From the guy who posted the video asking our politicians whether we are meddling in Venezuela? So sorry if I don't take that at face value.
  3. what are you basing this on?
  4. ok cool, my bad JFC My belief based on virtually everything I have seen/read is that the vast majority of Venezuelans want a regime change. I don't know whether they would elect Guaido as president specifically, but getting rid of Maduro is the overriding goal. Guaido's stated goal is to serve in the interim only until free/fair elections can be held. Then, it will become clear who the "majority of Venezuelans in Venezuela support."
  5. Instead of firing off cryptic one liners and answering questions with questions, why don't you show some support for your suggestion that they are still behind Maduro, or whatever you meant.
  6. Do you understand that the deals big oil companies make internationally look a lot like oil and gas leases domestically -- the basic framework being that the oil companies take on the risk and cost to extract oil, and the mineral owners receive royalties for doing nothing? When Maduro reneged on leases to big oil, Venezuelan production dropped dramatically because they do not have the technology, equipment, and expertise to extract oil themselves. If an oil company is making money in another country, it is not by definition stealing natural resources. Unless there is corruption involved (big if) it is a contract where both sides benefit.
  7. This can't be serious. You're suggesting that a majority may still support the Maduro regime? For some in this thread that advocate doing nothing, your thinking is a form of misguided nationalism imo. That political boundaries are somehow sacrosanct and it is immoral to involve ourselves in other country's affairs. I don't think that is defensible from either a theoretical or practical standpoint. An alternate way of thinking that makes more sense to me is to recognize the increasingly interconnected global community, with aiding fellow human beings as the guiding principle instead of rigidly following political boundaries. About a year ago, I checked Venezuela news and the headline was "Child gangs killing each other over rights to 'good' trash." I agree that the U.S. should not act unilaterally, but when a despot is starving his people, we should get involved. Especially when it is crystal clear that the Venezuelan people have no power to get rid of Maduro and their only option is to flee the country. There is a lot of room for debate on the right ways to help, most effective ways to help, whether help will have unintended consequences, etc. But to simply say "let them figure it out" is the wrong answer in my book. I recognize that the devil may be in the details, and that the U.S. does not have a squeaky clean record meddling in other countries. But I think the debate should be over the proper ways, means, and motivations to help, not whether to help at all.
  8. What I hear you saying is, we should lose some games because too much winning is bad for the kids
  9. Mack, is that you? Even if this thread hits 1,000, this will be the dumbest take of the thread. Lets not take our top OL targets because it might make Evans look elsewhere!!!
  10. I agree they should have started yesterday, but at the same time I can't fault them for allowing the DOTUS nose-dive to continue on its own. As soon as they move to impeach, you know all sides will end up covered in shit. I think/hope they have the balls, and that it is a calculation that the administration is self-destructing without any help so why put a target on your own back? Especially when Mueller may remove any doubt about crimes.
  11. I didn't read the whole thread so sorry if this has been covered, but I would like congress to start impeachment proceedings now under the "unfit for office" clause. Take the last 2-3 years of his lies, racism, betraying our allies, inflammatory behavior, disregard for intelligence reports, abuse of the media, etc. and put it all on blast in a much tidier package than the trickle of news. THEN, when/if Mueller finishes up and implicates DOTUS in multiple crimes, add the "high crimes and misdemeanors" clause to the impeachment proceedings. I agree with you Hugo that there is value in getting the senate votes on record even if they do not impeach. I would like Trump to me removed sooner rather than later, but he's not going to win reelection and he will likely be prosecuted criminally anyway. So I don't think the calculus should hinge solely on whether they can successfully impeach. And, as a counterpoint to Brisket, I think the likely outcome of all this is that democracy in the U.S. gets stronger . . . follow me on this. Many countries have shithead autocrats that they can't get rid of. What is going to happen here is that while we got played and elected this piece of shit, we will remove him at most four years later, clean up a bunch of corruption and election funny business in the process, and shine a spotlight on the deplorables. In other words, I expect the pendulum to swing back in a big way. No, we can't go back to the way it was before and there will be some long term damage, but change is the only constant and I expect a lot of good to come out of it in the end. Switching gears, I hope there gets to be enough pressure on the senate to end the shutdown that they pass a bill without the wall and override any veto. It would completely emasculate DOTUS and be a good barometer for impeachment. Edit: I should have read up ahead of time, but it looks like only the VP and cabinet can act on the "unfit for office" clause -- not congress. But surely congress can still do some version of the above.
  12. Can we quit with the maga kids and go back to determining whether every pejorative term in our language accurately describes Trump? (Narrator: yes they do)
  13. “Close to 100% Successful”* * at enclosing reindeer
  14. Punta Allen?
  15. You're unchecked
  16. Not many wide open holes in those highlights either. He's incredible, has every attribute you want in a primary back.
  17. They really should open another investigation into this somehow. The WH's part in covering it up is so obviously fucked that it wouldn't surprise me a bit to find out about direct bribes from the Saudis to Trump & Co. that are probably poorly hidden with a hilarious paper trail. After all the smoke clears between the Russia quid pro quo and this, I think one takeaway will be that Trump sought the presidency primarily for personal financial gain.
  18. Can a mod go ahead and change the thread title to coaching changes or some such?
  19. Could you explain this a bit? What changed from yesterday when Mueller was going to try to rescind Manafort's plea deal, which would have happened on the public record, detailing Manafort's (and Trump's) lies?
  20. Is Omenihu just referring to Murray's "no comment" on Ehlinger's game?
  21. Beaty is self-scouting the Horns, not OU. Which makes this whole thing utterly regarded.
  22. Is it better than the one that got Bedford fired?
  23. The POTUS lying and going unhinged is news and needs to be reported. Its up to the country to reject the lies. Hopefully our democracy comes out stronger having gone through a crisis like this.
  24. *who* called it an act of war? A Russian defendant or is the Russian government a party to the litigation?
  25. jealousy is not a good look, mom
×
×
  • Create New...