Author Topic: US Politics Thread |OT| SAD TRUMP  (Read 6967573 times)

0 Members and 33 Guests are viewing this topic.

warcock

  • Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15120 on: March 07, 2018, 11:03:12 AM »
Sessions lawsuit against CA kind of makes me a bit less bitter that at least part of 10 percent of my income is going to be used to troll trump. Where you at shills? Put your money where your mouth is. YAAAASSS

It's actually about State's Rights.

 I dunt understand wat ur gettin at. This invalidates my claim how exactly? Surely this instance is completely devoid of political actors and interests. It is just a technical legal matter.

#RESIST  :noah
« Last Edit: March 07, 2018, 11:11:01 AM by warcock »

Optimus

  • Lieutenant colonel, 26th Hate Machine battalion
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15121 on: March 07, 2018, 11:34:37 AM »
Do people really not know ISIS has been around since 1999? It's not like it just popped up out of the blue in 2014 because of Hillary and Obummer. It started as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999, became Al Gayda in Iraq in 2004, then Islamic State of Iraq in 2006 after various mergers and other name changes. And it started in JORDAN, not Libya or Syria.

Read a book, morans.


lol and I'm the pedantic cunt? Sure buddy, and the Mujahideen were there before we armed and trained them and the Saudi tribes were there before the British made them rich and gave them control of the oil (aka gave themselves control of the oil). Based on this logic the entire Middle East clusterfuck is totally not the West's fault, these things were all there before!

I didn't call you pedantic nor a cunt.


I called you a moran for blaming Hillary Clinton for ISIS because you don't know the history of the group. If you really want to be a wiener and not count it as a thing until it took the Islamic State name, it was still formed years before Hillary was Secretary of State, before Libya and Syria.


I wasn't talking about you regarding the pedantic stuff, it was a general observation. I blame Hillary Clinton for ISIS because she was responsible for it, you can debate the semantics all you like but ISIS as we know it was created by Clinton (and Obama that agreed with the warmonger's plan) further destabilizing the region and further arming "rebels" most of which were religious terrorists that were sending a lot of those weapons to ISIS and satellite organizations. You fuckers are defending a war criminal and you can bet your ass that if she wasn't a US politician and mass media were against her you'd consider it a taboo even slightly defending such a scumbag.

I am saying this honestly and without the asshole persona I've developed here, you're so conditioned by the bullshit you're spoonfed by this society that you defend a fucking psychopath, shame on all of you.

Nola

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15122 on: March 07, 2018, 11:54:19 AM »
Do people really not know ISIS has been around since 1999? It's not like it just popped up out of the blue in 2014 because of Hillary and Obummer. It started as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999, became Al Gayda in Iraq in 2004, then Islamic State of Iraq in 2006 after various mergers and other name changes. And it started in JORDAN, not Libya or Syria.

Read a book, morans.


lol and I'm the pedantic cunt? Sure buddy, and the Mujahideen were there before we armed and trained them and the Saudi tribes were there before the British made them rich and gave them control of the oil (aka gave themselves control of the oil). Based on this logic the entire Middle East clusterfuck is totally not the West's fault, these things were all there before!

I didn't call you pedantic nor a cunt.


I called you a moran for blaming Hillary Clinton for ISIS because you don't know the history of the group. If you really want to be a wiener and not count it as a thing until it took the Islamic State name, it was still formed years before Hillary was Secretary of State, before Libya and Syria.


I wasn't talking about you regarding the pedantic stuff, it was a general observation. I blame Hillary Clinton for ISIS because she was responsible for it, you can debate the semantics all you like but ISIS as we know it was created by Clinton (and Obama that agreed with the warmonger's plan) further destabilizing the region and further arming "rebels" most of which were religious terrorists that were sending a lot of those weapons to ISIS and satellite organizations. You fuckers are defending a war criminal and you can bet your ass that if she wasn't a US politician and mass media were against her you'd consider it a taboo even slightly defending such a scumbag.

I am saying this honestly and without the asshole persona I've developed here, you're so conditioned by the bullshit you're spoonfed by this society that you defend a fucking psychopath, shame on all of you.
You and etiolate should be much better friends than you are.

warcock

  • Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15123 on: March 07, 2018, 11:54:24 AM »
Do people really not know ISIS has been around since 1999? It's not like it just popped up out of the blue in 2014 because of Hillary and Obummer. It started as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999, became Al Gayda in Iraq in 2004, then Islamic State of Iraq in 2006 after various mergers and other name changes. And it started in JORDAN, not Libya or Syria.

Read a book, morans.


lol and I'm the pedantic cunt? Sure buddy, and the Mujahideen were there before we armed and trained them and the Saudi tribes were there before the British made them rich and gave them control of the oil (aka gave themselves control of the oil). Based on this logic the entire Middle East clusterfuck is totally not the West's fault, these things were all there before!

I didn't call you pedantic nor a cunt.


I called you a moran for blaming Hillary Clinton for ISIS because you don't know the history of the group. If you really want to be a wiener and not count it as a thing until it took the Islamic State name, it was still formed years before Hillary was Secretary of State, before Libya and Syria.


I wasn't talking about you regarding the pedantic stuff, it was a general observation. I blame Hillary Clinton for ISIS because she was responsible for it, you can debate the semantics all you like but ISIS as we know it was created by Clinton (and Obama that agreed with the warmonger's plan) further destabilizing the region and further arming "rebels" most of which were religious terrorists that were sending a lot of those weapons to ISIS and satellite organizations. You fuckers are defending a war criminal and you can bet your ass that if she wasn't a US politician and mass media were against her you'd consider it a taboo even slightly defending such a scumbag.

I am saying this honestly and without the asshole persona I've developed here, you're so conditioned by the bullshit you're spoonfed by this society that you defend a fucking psychopath, shame on all of you.

Lets us assume you have a point. I am not sure why you are so ardently commited in singling her out. Lets say psychopathy and sociopathy are hugely underdiagnosed, and their detrimental consequences are shrugged off to the side and you take issue with that. Where do you even begin at that point, from the multitude of buissness leaders, clergymen to benji himself. Authorative figures that can influence both your material wellbeing and the moral constructs that surround you. Yet when it comes to this politician, an area in which these types of people thrive and bloom in, you are completely revolted when it should follow that it is a completely unexceptional occurence in that environment.  Relax bro, im a social democrat and by that extent a bernie stan through and through. But i actually like Hilary, and as many other people mentioned i'm not sure how she violently diverges from other democrats for you to spazz out like that. Now if you are up for tag teaming her post election shills who insist on settling for gradualism despite the lack of historical policy context that suggests that is the preferable course of action (aside from political feasibility) i'm with you.

Optimus

  • Lieutenant colonel, 26th Hate Machine battalion
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15124 on: March 07, 2018, 12:12:08 PM »
Now if you are up for tag teaming her post election shills who insist on settling for gradualism despite the lack of historical policy context that suggests that is the preferable course of action (aside from political feasibility) i'm with you.


It's partly that and partly a character flaw of mine, I hate hypocrisy with the force of a thousand suns. When I hear Trump supporters talk about Trump and admit he's a "ruthless businessman" I don't really have a huge problem with them, they're partly admitting they're supporting an asshole and I dislike that because they're morons but at least they're partly honest with themselves. On the other hand we have liberals that have convinced themselves they're the epitome of morality and justice so when a piece of shit like Hillary is forced on them they have to justify their support so they try to defend her, they're trying to ignore her crimes they're trying to still act holier than thou while supporting such a scumbag while at the same time the scumbag known as Hillary Clinton does the same.

That sets me off, I can take idiots supporting assholes but where I draw the line is when these idiots and the assholes they support are pretending to be nice, benevolent and so on. Plus, you know, she's an actual war criminal.

Tasty

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15125 on: March 07, 2018, 12:21:34 PM »
lol and I'm the pedantic cunt?

I didn't call you pedantic nor a cunt.

I wasn't talking about you regarding the pedantic stuff, it was a general observation.


Optimus

  • Lieutenant colonel, 26th Hate Machine battalion
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15126 on: March 07, 2018, 12:38:47 PM »
Did you mean to make that post on RE, or are you talking very specifically to just Jack? Because no one here but Jack defends Hillary as a great person who isn't dirty as hell.

Many still defend her indirectly, it's the "not that bad" defense. No, she is that bad and worse.

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15127 on: March 07, 2018, 12:44:36 PM »
Let's remember that Optimus thinks BLM was the result of Hollywood liberals tricking black people so as to divert their focus from economic issues.

Nintex

  • Finish the Fight
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15128 on: March 07, 2018, 02:01:25 PM »
Donald Trump: "I will only tell you the truth"
Donald Trump: "Hillary Clinton is the co-founder of ISIS, Obama is the founder of ISIS"

Fact: "ISIS was created before the 2016 election BUT they called Trump a donkey who would be the end of America. Hillary clearly colluded with ISIS"

Verdict: Somewhat true
🤴

Brehvolution

  • Until at last, I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin upon the mountainside.
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15129 on: March 07, 2018, 02:36:16 PM »
"If I'm elected, ISIS will be gone in 30 days!"

:trumps
©ZH

Nintex

  • Finish the Fight
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15130 on: March 07, 2018, 02:43:27 PM »
He didn't say 30 days from when
The founder and co-founder are still around  :ohhh
🤴


Joe Molotov

  • I'm much more humble than you would understand.
  • Administrator
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15132 on: March 07, 2018, 04:00:14 PM »
It like when politicians setting Age of Consent laws don't even know what ephebophila is.
©@©™

Nola

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15133 on: March 07, 2018, 04:44:27 PM »

It's partly that and partly a character flaw of mine, I hate hypocrisy with the force of a thousand suns. When I hear Trump supporters talk about Trump and admit he's a "ruthless businessman" I don't really have a huge problem with them, they're partly admitting they're supporting an asshole and I dislike that because they're morons but at least they're partly honest with themselves. On the other hand we have liberals that have convinced themselves they're the epitome of morality and justice so when a piece of shit like Hillary is forced on them they have to justify their support so they try to defend her, they're trying to ignore her crimes they're trying to still act holier than thou while supporting such a scumbag while at the same time the scumbag known as Hillary Clinton does the same.

That sets me off, I can take idiots supporting assholes but where I draw the line is when these idiots and the assholes they support are pretending to be nice, benevolent and so on. Plus, you know, she's an actual war criminal.

It’s only hypocrisy because you have set up this ridiculous bastardization of history. One that puts Hillary - a hawk for sure - but with relatively minor actual influence from a historical standpoint of the positions she has held in government with regards to the issues you speak of like ISIS and Middle Eastern genocide, but yet has somehow in your mind been morphed into this central figure for every foreign policy evil the western world has committed lol.

She’s a hawk that exists somewhere on the spectrum slightly further out from the idealist/realist Obama doctrines but not near full blown neoconservative guns ablazing endless regime change advocate. She’s a policy and governing pragmatist with liberal core values and far too friendly affection for Wall Street and K Street, but not as friendly as her Republican counter parts, nor half as corrupt. She certainly has a reputation for backroom horse trading but I am not sure that is always a bad thing, as you don’t really ever get major policy passed without it. And if the left was as hypocritical as you state the lack of enthusiasm for her candidacy, and the quickness with which she has been pilloried, certainly doesn’t support your argument.

And lol at Republicans being honest with themselves. You need to get out of the Resetera navel-gazing. If Hillary voters are beyond the pale for overlooking her foreign policy record, how in the fuck can you sit there with a straight face and call Trumpkins, that have made rationalizing their messiah's criminal, corrupt, and borderline treasonous behavior a national pastime, forgivable? This presidency is making the Harding administration look like minor league players and it is entirely enabled by a unified complicity made up of their voter base and that bases propaganda arms. Some of you resetera obsessors need some serious perspective adjustments.

Nola

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15134 on: March 07, 2018, 05:01:46 PM »
Anyways, found this interesting:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/about-russia-indictment-robert-muellers-legal-theory-and-where-it-takes-him-next

Basically they have been looking at and breaking down the legal and likely investigative context around Mueller using the "18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States" and why it is likely much more significant than it was initially assumed when the indictments of the Russian hackers broke.


Quote
So why is Mueller’s use of this theory interesting? Because at least in principle, it could do a lot of heavy lifting in terms of others who might be involved—who might have, say, colluded with—this alleged plot. For months, commentators have been talking about “collusion” as though it is something of a puzzle what laws collusion would violate. It wasn’t that long ago that one of us, along with Lawfare’s Susan Hennessey, wrote this piece noting that “collusion, in and of itself and to the extent it took place, is a political problem, not a legal one,” suggesting that the criminal question depends on “the manner of any collusion and how that activity maps onto the criminal code,” and imagining various means of colluding that might imply criminal liability. Suffice it to say that neither we nor anyone else writing at the time had been thinking in terms of §371.

But assume for a minute that the legal theory in this indictment has legs and that Mueller has alleged a viable conspiracy to defraud the United States. To allege that a new conspirator had joined such a conspiracy, Mueller would have to allege only that such a person—presumably a new defendant—had agreed to participate in a scheme of deceit by which the FEC, the Justice Department or the State Department was deprived of its regulatory authority and committed some act in furtherance of the agreement.

Well, hmmm. Who might such a person be?

What about someone who, say, knowingly gave any hacked emails to the Internet Research Agency with the understanding that the troll farm would spread them around key segments of the U.S. voting population? The hacking of the emails, of course, is a separate crime under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. But what about a person or organization who—aware of the Internet Research Agency’s underlying activity—injected information into this allegedly fraudulent media ecosystem? Such a person might be a foreign intelligence actor or might be, say, a nominally independent cutout for such an actor. Under Mueller’s §371 theory, it wouldn’t much matter. As long as this person agreed to take part in the scheme to influence the U.S. election behind the back of the U.S. government and took a step to aid it, that person or entity would be guilty of a crime.

Which brings us to people on this side of the Atlantic—say, people who knowingly facilitated or participated in the distribution of emails through this mechanism or people who knowingly helped guide the activities of Internet Research Agency trolls. Such people might be inside or outside of the Trump campaign or organization. Their specific activities could all be, in and of themselves, perfectly legal. It’s an interesting question whether they would even need to know their interlocutors were Russian, much less acting at the behest of a foreign intelligence actor. As we read Mueller’s theory under §371, as long as they acted knowingly to join a scheme to deceive the U.S. government to frustrate its enforcement authority and took some action in pursuit of that scheme, they too would be guilty.

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15135 on: March 07, 2018, 05:21:19 PM »
Would suggest following Marcy Wheeler, she's generally ahead of the curve on this stuff (and wrote about that particular thing a couple weeks ago). Bob Bauer also got this one.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/02/17/the-conspiracy-to-defraud-the-united-states-backbone-of-the-internet-research-agency-and-manafort-indictments/

https://www.justsecurity.org/52610/charging-mystery-russia-indictments-and-indication-mueller-investigation/

Boredfrom

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15136 on: March 07, 2018, 05:21:25 PM »
Now if you are up for tag teaming her post election shills who insist on settling for gradualism despite the lack of historical policy context that suggests that is the preferable course of action (aside from political feasibility) i'm with you.


It's partly that and partly a character flaw of mine, I hate hypocrisy with the force of a thousand suns. When I hear Trump supporters talk about Trump and admit he's a "ruthless businessman" I don't really have a huge problem with them, they're partly admitting they're supporting an asshole and I dislike that because they're morons but at least they're partly honest with themselves. On the other hand we have liberals that have convinced themselves they're the epitome of morality and justice so when a piece of shit like Hillary is forced on them they have to justify their support so they try to defend her, they're trying to ignore her crimes they're trying to still act holier than thou while supporting such a scumbag while at the same time the scumbag known as Hillary Clinton does the same.

That sets me off, I can take idiots supporting assholes but where I draw the line is when these idiots and the assholes they support are pretending to be nice, benevolent and so on. Plus, you know, she's an actual war criminal.


Dude, you are a huge hypocrite about hypocrisy.

Nola

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15137 on: March 07, 2018, 05:42:21 PM »
Would suggest following Marcy Wheeler, she's generally ahead of the curve on this stuff (and wrote about that particular thing a couple weeks ago). Bob Bauer also got this one.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/02/17/the-conspiracy-to-defraud-the-united-states-backbone-of-the-internet-research-agency-and-manafort-indictments/

https://www.justsecurity.org/52610/charging-mystery-russia-indictments-and-indication-mueller-investigation/

They occasionally mention Wheeler in other pieces - though I never really think to look over at her blog, might start now - either as references or in the case of Susan Hennessy, some back and forth stemming from disagreements they occasionally have, so it wouldn't surprise me if Wheeler and Bauer inspired this piece after Wittes reading both of their pieces you linked(Lawfare did seemingly use the exact same Mueller picture Wheeler has seemingly been using for recent pieces  :doge).

Thanks






kingv

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15138 on: March 07, 2018, 06:49:47 PM »
Did you mean to make that post on RE, or are you talking very specifically to just Jack? Because no one here but Jack defends Hillary as a great person who isn't dirty as hell.

Dirty how?

Sperma Studios-esque

Actually, if she got a perm she’d look a good bit like creampie Cathy.


TakingBackSunday

  • Banana Grabber
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15140 on: March 07, 2018, 07:48:43 PM »
but what about seth rich?
püp



agrajag

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15143 on: March 07, 2018, 10:05:15 PM »
Jesus Christ this guy
« Last Edit: March 07, 2018, 10:14:27 PM by agrajag »

Joe Molotov

  • I'm much more humble than you would understand.
  • Administrator
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15144 on: March 07, 2018, 10:13:13 PM »
It’s understandable. Sometimes you need to do some email shit, and it’s like “ugh, this is a pain, I don’t want to do this” so you put it off and put it off, then you finally just do it and it takes like 5 minutes and you don’t know why you didn’t just do it earlier.
©@©™

agrajag

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15145 on: March 07, 2018, 10:15:29 PM »
It’s understandable. Sometimes you need to do some email shit, and it’s like “ugh, this is a pain, I don’t want to do this” so you put it off and put it off, then you finally just do it and it takes like 5 minutes and you don’t know why you didn’t just do it earlier.

Or you go on five different tv shows and throw a tantrum for the whole world to see only to sober up and change your mind the next morning

Joe Molotov

  • I'm much more humble than you would understand.
  • Administrator
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15146 on: March 07, 2018, 10:29:58 PM »
Life comes at you fast.
©@©™

Nola

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15147 on: March 07, 2018, 11:09:42 PM »


 :trumps


team filler

  • filler
  • filler
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15149 on: March 07, 2018, 11:27:57 PM »
(Image removed from quote.)

 :trumps
how does this compare to obummer or any other recent president?
*****

Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15150 on: March 07, 2018, 11:37:30 PM »
(Image removed from quote.)

 :trumps
how does this compare to obummer or any other recent president?

More than 2x the typical rate.

Nola

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15151 on: March 07, 2018, 11:42:26 PM »
(Image removed from quote.)

 :trumps
how does this compare to obummer or any other recent president?



Quote
As of Jan. 20, the one-year anniversary of Trump's inauguration, turnover in top-level White House positions was off the charts, double that of President Ronald Reagan's first year and more than triple the rate of President Barack Obama's first year. Since then, there has been turnover in another six senior-level positions that Tenpas tracks.

Thats just measuring senior staff though. And Trump is only at 13 months, the other presidents are being measured after 2 years. Even with a handicap Trump is blowing past everyone.

....Trump did promise he wouldn't lose.  The best turnover, the best.

Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15152 on: March 08, 2018, 12:25:50 AM »
I'm in Dan Lapinski's district now.

 :takei

Atramental

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15153 on: March 08, 2018, 07:22:42 AM »
Who?

Skullfuckers Anonymous

  • Will hunt bullies for fruit baskets. PM for details.
  • Senior Member

kingv

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15155 on: March 08, 2018, 10:27:40 AM »
https://m.dailykos.com/stories/1747422

Sarah Huckabee Sanders is clearly trans.

Article is not important, but she looks like that dude on transparent in the picture.

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15156 on: March 08, 2018, 10:41:14 AM »
https://m.dailykos.com/stories/1747422

Sarah Huckabee Sanders is clearly trans.

Article is not important, but she looks like that dude on transparent in the picture.
:beli

take this kind of shit somewhere else breh
010

Joe Molotov

  • I'm much more humble than you would understand.
  • Administrator
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15157 on: March 08, 2018, 11:56:29 AM »
She doesn't look trans, she just looks like Mike Huckabee.
©@©™

kingv

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15158 on: March 08, 2018, 12:09:17 PM »
Shockingly so, IMO . Like I get that people’s kids look like them. But she looks JUST like him.

I should’ve just said “like a Huckabee”

 :stahp

Boredfrom

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15159 on: March 08, 2018, 12:26:35 PM »
The video game round table is going to be such a shit show. And GG still bitching about journos.

D3RANG3D

  • The Bore's Like Bot
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15160 on: March 08, 2018, 12:34:30 PM »

agrajag

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15161 on: March 08, 2018, 12:35:53 PM »
She doesn't look trans, she just looks like Mike Huckabee.

She looks like John Candy dude

Boredfrom

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15162 on: March 08, 2018, 12:44:34 PM »
(Image removed from quote.)

If Jack ends being there is going to be a meltdown in both Ree and KiA.

Joe Molotov

  • I'm much more humble than you would understand.
  • Administrator
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15163 on: March 08, 2018, 12:47:37 PM »
(Image removed from quote.)

Fire up your sexbox, and turn on Resident of Evil Creek because Jack is back, baby. Jack is back.
©@©™

Great Rumbler

  • Dab on the sinners
  • Global Moderator
dog

Skullfuckers Anonymous

  • Will hunt bullies for fruit baskets. PM for details.
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15165 on: March 08, 2018, 01:34:30 PM »
If Jack Thompson is there, is there any chance of a special appearance by Hillary Clinton?

kingv

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15166 on: March 08, 2018, 01:49:12 PM »
She doesn't look trans, she just looks like Mike Huckabee.

She looks like John Candy dude

More uncle buck than wagons east imo.

Nintex

  • Finish the Fight
  • Senior Member
« Last Edit: March 08, 2018, 03:00:37 PM by Nintex »
🤴

team filler

  • filler
  • filler
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15168 on: March 08, 2018, 03:02:22 PM »
https://m.dailykos.com/stories/1747422

Sarah Huckabee Sanders is clearly trans.

Article is not important, but she looks like that dude on transparent in the picture.
*****

Nintex

  • Finish the Fight
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15169 on: March 08, 2018, 03:16:11 PM »
https://twitter.com/CNN/status/971838855946080258

Manafort still insists he's not guilty.  :rejoice


Your daily reminder that the United States elected human 4chan for president
🤴

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15170 on: March 08, 2018, 04:04:22 PM »
010

Nintex

  • Finish the Fight
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15171 on: March 08, 2018, 04:06:18 PM »
https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/971847516017709056

Trump just imposed his tariffs after holding a dumb speech even for Trump standards.  :trumps
🤴

nachobro

  • Live Más
  • Senior Member

Boredfrom

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15173 on: March 08, 2018, 04:15:43 PM »
Well, at least is not going to fuck us to hard here in Mexico. But then again, what is the point of it to begin whit if there is exemptions.

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15174 on: March 08, 2018, 04:25:32 PM »
Guessing the market isn't going crazy because of the Canada+Mexico exemptions but apparently Trump had some reckless comments about NAFTA negotiations and leverage. We'll see tomorrow.
010

Brehvolution

  • Until at last, I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin upon the mountainside.
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15175 on: March 08, 2018, 04:29:49 PM »
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/377404-dems-uranium-one-informant-provided-no-evidence-of-wrongdoing-by
Quote
A confidential informant billed by House Republicans as having “explosive” information about the 2010 Uranium One deal approved during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of State provided “no evidence of a quid pro quo” involving Clinton, Democratic staff said in a summary of the informant’s closed-door testimony obtained by The Hill on Thursday.

In February, staff from three panels — the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the Intelligence Committee — interviewed William Douglas Campbell, a confidential informant to the FBI during its investigation and prosecution of former Russian official Vadim Mikerin.

So this whole thing was a lie?  :thinking
©ZH

Boredfrom

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15176 on: March 08, 2018, 04:30:48 PM »
Guessing the market isn't going crazy because of the Canada+Mexico exemptions but apparently Trump had some reckless comments about NAFTA negotiations and leverage. We'll see tomorrow.

That still worries me. But he has the big problem that the Mexican president cannot afford looking weak either, regardless of stuff like this. People here are going to eat him and his party alive if they let Trump "a win".

Nintex

  • Finish the Fight
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15177 on: March 08, 2018, 04:47:36 PM »
Guessing the market isn't going crazy because of the Canada+Mexico exemptions but apparently Trump had some reckless comments about NAFTA negotiations and leverage. We'll see tomorrow.

That still worries me. But he has the big problem that the Mexican president cannot afford looking weak either, regardless of stuff like this. People here are going to eat him and his party alive if they let Trump "a win".
He's the president of fucking Mexico, which is ran by drug cartels.

He's already weak.  :doge
🤴

Boredfrom

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15178 on: March 08, 2018, 04:52:15 PM »
Guessing the market isn't going crazy because of the Canada+Mexico exemptions but apparently Trump had some reckless comments about NAFTA negotiations and leverage. We'll see tomorrow.

That still worries me. But he has the big problem that the Mexican president cannot afford looking weak either, regardless of stuff like this. People here are going to eat him and his party alive if they let Trump "a win".
He's the president of fucking Mexico, which is ran by drug cartels.

He's already weak.  :doge

 :doge

You guys are not exactly blameless from many problems that Mexico has. People  here already blamed NAFTA for everything, so a shittier NAFTA is not going to get people happy here.

Nintex

  • Finish the Fight
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| The Nunberg Trials
« Reply #15179 on: March 08, 2018, 04:54:33 PM »
Guessing the market isn't going crazy because of the Canada+Mexico exemptions but apparently Trump had some reckless comments about NAFTA negotiations and leverage. We'll see tomorrow.

That still worries me. But he has the big problem that the Mexican president cannot afford looking weak either, regardless of stuff like this. People here are going to eat him and his party alive if they let Trump "a win".
He's the president of fucking Mexico, which is ran by drug cartels.

He's already weak.  :doge

 :doge

You guys are not exactly blameless from many problems that Mexico has. People  here already blamed NAFTA for everything, so a shittier NAFTA is not going to get people happy here.
Our Tulip trade is pretty one sided but I don't think the Dutch have caused many of the problems Mexico faces today.

Although in some sense we did trade a box of cigars for Manhattan with the natives and then sold it to the British   :idont


https://twitter.com/pdmcleod/status/971852656741371904

 :dead
🤴