U.S. Politics: The Biggest Trade in WNBA History

[EnglishALT]

Also if you want to bring up the Freedom Caucus as the voice of reason you can just **** off right away. They're worse than just about anyone in government because their only goal is to destroy it.

Woah Woah that was unwarranted, I only said "Congressional Republicans wanting to hold him in contempt or impeach him because of it" which is what some Republicans have floated.

 

[bobjr]

Then don't use it as a defense of why it should be ended implicitly? Shockingly it is a huge issue that needs to be dealt with correctly, and it should end when it needs to end, and Mueller was picked for the job for a reason. People like the House Freedom Caucus is why the Michigan Medicare thing happened, and it's disgusting that disabled and elderly people are getting punished for ideology over common sense and basic human decency.

 

[EnglishALT]

Then don't use it as a defense of why it should be ended implicitly? Shockingly it is a huge issue that needs to be dealt with correctly, and it should end when it needs to end, and Mueller was picked for the job for a reason. People like the House Freedom Caucus is why the Michigan Medicare thing happened, and it's disgusting that disabled and elderly people are getting punished for ideology over common sense and basic human decency.

I wasn't using it as a excuse for why it should be ended early? My belief actually stems from Rudy Giuliani's statement about wishing to resolve the whole thing in the next few weeks. I apologize for not including that and causing confusion.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...s-legal-team-to-help-end-russia-investigation

However it would be nice to go a week on here of posting with out being told to "**** off right away" or being called evil, ignorant, or any other name calling just for having differing beliefs.

 

[Swordsman4]

LMAO, I've known Swordsman4 for about a year now, and I can confirm that he has no interest in being refuted. I've argued with him about Global Warming, racism, sexism, and a whole host of other things; he has not and cannot provide evidence for his beliefs, or even come up with an argument besides "u wrong idiot, science says so" without saying which science. It's frankly not worth my time.

However, you expect me to engage him in good faith? What has he done to earn that? And by the same token, what have you done? You're honestly concern trolling about tone now, so I don't know how to talk to you besides saying, republicans are monstrous.

and aren't you the one stereotyping all abrahamic faiths now? not all christians, muslims, and jews preach against homosexuality, but you really seem to think they do

All true Christians preach against all sin. Understand that.

You never once have refuted anything I said and respond in bland platitudes about how conservatives are ignorant.

Try again.

 

[EnglishALT]

All true Christians preach against all sin. Understand that.

You never once have refuted anything I said and respond in bland platitudes about how conservatives are ignorant.

Try again.

Christians are also not supposed to judge others, forgive our enemies, and turn the other cheek. If you want to act like a Christian maybe not engage in lobbing insults.

 

[Skiks]

All true Christians preach against all sin. Understand that.

You never once have refuted anything I said and respond in bland platitudes about how conservatives are ignorant.

Try again.

Alright I'll bite.
Neither did you unless I missed a post. Is your position that climate change isn't real? Or that not all conservatives are anti-science. Also since the climate change deniers don't understand how it works thats why the name changed. You don't want that much snow in spring. So regardless we should do something about pollution. Or do you like the air that china had?
As for you christian bit. You are right they are suppose to as advice. They are not suppose to be a judge. Unless you wish to take the role of God himself.

 

[Pikachu52]

Trump has said they will counter sue for access to the server that the Democrats denied the FBI access to. So far David Axelrod, Congressional Rep Jackie Speier, and at least two Democratic big money donors have said this is a bad idea for Democrats.

I don't see how Trump can "countersue" for that. Neither he nor any other defendant has suffered and injury because of the DNC to hand over the server to the FBI.

Presumably he means his legal team is going to try to obtain that on discovery.

And in any case, Trump can't dictate how that lawsuit will run given he isn't named as a defendant.

Certainly there is a lot of glee in rightwing commentary and comments about what might be uncovered if the lawsuit moves to the discovery phase. Personally I would say the defendants have more to worry about if matters move to discovery, as it would essentially open up and independent quasi-investigation that Trump can't shut down unlike the Mueller investigation. And the DNC and their lawyers will be aware of what their potential liabilities are going to be when they filed. If they were willing to file anyway I'd hedge my bets they're far less vulnerable than commentators on the right tend to think.

Interestingly enough we've been here before. As Rachel Maddow covered on her show, the DNC sued Nixon's campaign over the watergate break-in. That was initially met with scorn and mockery but the allegations involved eventually led to the resignation of President Nixon and, the case being settled. For all intents and purposes the DNC won that lawsuit.

 

[EnglishALT]

I would say the difference here and with watergate is that the Trump team has spent over a year turning things over to Congress and the Justice Department. Is there honestly anything in discovery that would come up that the other two haven’t seen? On the other hand getting ahold of the server allows for investigation into anything the Democrats have wanted to hide away, which considering they would not let the FBI see it, could be substantial.

 

[Zora]

I'm just gonna leave this here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...hn-podesta-deny-cia-and-fbi-access-dnc-serve/

"[The FBI] got the forensics from the pros that [the DNC] hired which -- again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute," Comey said.

"The DNC coordinated with the FBI and federal intelligence agencies and provided everything they requested, including copies of DNC servers," Watson said. She added that the copy contains the same information as the physical server.

Edit: for those who don't want to click the link, the claim "Did John Podesta deny CIA and FBI access to DNC server, as Donald Trump claims?" is rated as false. I haven't heard for any denial to FBI server before now, so I'm assuming this claim is a fact-check of the DNC server claim above.

 

[EnglishALT]

I'm just gonna leave this here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...hn-podesta-deny-cia-and-fbi-access-dnc-serve/



Edit: for those who don't want to click the link, the claim "Did John Podesta deny CIA and FBI access to DNC server, as Donald Trump claims?" is rated as false. I haven't heard for any denial to FBI server before now, so I'm assuming this claim is a fact-check of the DNC server claim above.

Of course the key word here is sensitive information, what the FBI does with such sensitive information that may or may not be criminal can be entirely different with what the GOP chooses to do with it once they get their hands on the server.

 

[bobjr]

I have to respect the FBI for being consistent at least. Remember when the GOP didn't want Reagan elected because he got divorced once, but they carried his Alzheimer's ridden body for 2 terms. Now we have a president who's admitted to raping one wife, is on his third wife, and pressured the second to have an abortion, which I'm totally for but the party isn't.

 

[EnglishALT]

I have to respect the FBI for being consistent at least. Remember when the GOP didn't want Reagan elected because he got divorced once, but they carried his Alzheimer's ridden body for 2 terms. Now we have a president who's admitted to raping one wife, is on his third wife, and pressured the second to have an abortion, which I'm totally for but the party isn't.

Can you point me to your sources saying Reagan had Alzheimer’s in office, or that Trump has admitted to raping his wife? Or pressured his second wife to have an abortion?

 

[chess-z]

Snopes says that it's unproven that Ronnie Raygun had Alzheimer's in office, but presidential aides have said that he did have episodes while in office, so, you know, you coulda googled it.

Which you can also do vis a vie Donald Trump and his history of sexual misconduct.

 

[EnglishALT]

Snopes says that it's unproven that Ronnie Raygun had Alzheimer's in office, but presidential aides have said that he did have episodes while in office, so, you know, you coulda googled it.

Which you can also do vis a vie Donald Trump and his history of sexual misconduct.

I did google and as you said it ended up being unproven, and as the article on Snopes states it is most likely false due to the test he took after his accident in 1990, and the life expectancy of a person with Alzheimer’s.

I also did some quick googling and could not find any mention of Trump admitting to raping his first wife, or pressuring the second to have an abortion. Which is why I have asked for a source.

 

[chess-z]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

my ****ing guy

 

[bobjr]

I mean Trump never outright said he raped his wife, but he admitted to forcing himself on her in their divorce. It's also when we found out he kept a copy of Mein Kampf next to his bed for whatever reason. The second is more of an open secret considering Tiffany gets jack compared to the other siblings. Like that's just one of his horrible sex crimes too.

Also Alzheimer's isn't a constant thing, a lot of people just have episodes. But that's a bad quality for a U.S. President.


http://minorjive.typepad.com/hungryblues/images/08Reagan.jpg Also Reagan comic.jpg.

 

[EnglishALT]

I mean Trump never outright said he raped his wife, but he admitted to forcing himself on her in their divorce. It's also when we found out he kept a copy of Mein Kampf next to his bed for whatever reason. The second is more of an open secret considering Tiffany gets jack compared to the other siblings. Like that's just one of his horrible sex crimes too.

Also Alzheimer's isn't a constant thing, a lot of people just have episodes. But that's a bad quality for a U.S. President.


http://minorjive.typepad.com/hungryblues/images/08Reagan.jpg Also Reagan comic.jpg.

I seem to remember his ex wife saying he raped her in testimony during the divorce but not Trump. Again it would be nice to have a source or two since these seem to be wild accusations you are throwing out.

As for the Alzheimer’s, again I point to the life expectancy after diagnosis which is 8 to 10 years, which is in line with Reagan, who died about 10 years after diagnosis. For Reagan to have it bad enough in the 80s to show signs, that were subsequently missed by 4 trained doctors, would put him on the very extreme end of the life expectancy chart.

 

[chess-z]

Wild accusations? Looks like someone didn't read the wikipedia article./

 

[EnglishALT]

Wild accusations? Looks like someone didn't read the wikipedia article./

Bobjr in his first post said he admitted to raping his wife, and then said Trump did not out right say it, he said he pressured his second wife to have an abortion, and then says it is more like an open secret instead of providing a source.

He topped it off by saying Reagan had an Alzheimer’s riddled body, and then walked it back to just “episodes”.

So yes unless your “Wikipedia” article can provide where Trump admitted to raping his wife, or that he pressured his wife to have an abortion. Then I will continue to refer to them as wild accusations.

Edit: from your own Wikipedia article about the alleged rape of his first wife: Donald said the allegation was "obviously false"

How is that admitting to anything?

 

[Baba Yaga]

When you have 16 different accusers, is non admission of guilt that relevant? The statistical likely hood all of them are money grubbing, attention seeking ho's is pretty slim. The hyperbole is for effect, please don't quote me clarifying you didn't use those words. The point is: calling them "wild" accusations is in...poor taste, to say the least. Tack in the comments about pussy grabbing and his daughter, anyone viewing his accusers with hard skepticism needs to check themselves.

Let's not forget he was going to go to trial for the rape of a 13 year old until she and her family dropped charges in the face of threats from his supporters.