I really don't want another shutdown right now, please.
In response to Trump's SOTU, New Mexico governor pulls national guard from the border.
Strangely, even conservatives seemed impressed with the SOTU response speech by Stacy Abrams.
Strangely, even conservatives seemed impressed with the SOTU response speech by Stacy Abrams.
Conservatives only respond to strength, for better or worse. It has become VERY apparent that Donnie isn't the tough guy he pretends to be and that he can't/won't deliver them anything in the short term. Hence it's in vogue for them to be a little dismissive of Two Scoops until he actually DOES something.
This shouldn't be confused with abandonment. They still have a dog in the fight and they will do everything they can to ensure ether he or someone else like him survives until 2020 and then they'll sue for peace like they did after the Bush administration. "Hey... forget about investigating our crimes or we'll do the same to you, forever." Fuck that shit. This shit started with Nixon and it's about time to make an example of someone to keep it from happening again.
Seems Trump and Congress are reaching a border deal. I was thinking he would just spend money on more personnel for that "human wall" spin take but no, it's still for a physical barrier, albeit a smaller one.
Moron.
At least I can maybe get a full paycheck in two weeks.
Moron.
At least I can maybe get a full paycheck in two weeks.
"Here's $50. Go buy yourself a nice Lego set."
Right, forgot that one. But honestly once we do the third one, the others won't require emergencies to be declared.
You have to remember that Impeachment is essentially the Nuclear Option when it comes to politics. You do it when you have no other options, and you also realize that there will be fallout if you use it.
And, that there has been little successful use of Impeachment in the past also detracts from its usage.
And, that there has been little successful use of Impeachment in the past also detracts from its usage.
I get that impeachment has quite a stigma attached, especially when it means voting to impeach someone from your own party, because that means having to admit you were wrong about something, but I figured there would at least be some kind of censure by now.
And the longer this charade is allowed to continue (and it’s been out of the closet for going on for what, almost three years now?), the more obvious it becomes that the people being served by these particular politicians aren’t “The People,” if you get what I’m saying. Yet whenever elections roll around, the voters either haven’t been paying attention, or else they get voted in with, “Well you may have screwed over me and mine, but at least you aren’t one of those Other guys.”
—Patrick
And the longer this charade is allowed to continue (and it’s been out of the closet for going on for what, almost three years now?), the more obvious it becomes that the people being served by these particular politicians aren’t “The People,” if you get what I’m saying. Yet whenever elections roll around, the voters either haven’t been paying attention, or else they get voted in with, “Well you may have screwed over me and mine, but at least you aren’t one of those Other guys.”
—Patrick
figmentPez
Staff member
Is it really, though? It's one of the very few ways of holding the President accountable for their actions. Should we really be considering it to be a nuclear option? Impeachment is just a fancy form of indictment. It's built into the constitution. This is an expected course of action with rules and order. It's not nuclear. It's not a horrific act that is an order of magnitude above and beyond the normal functioning of the government. It's not something that will leave the political landscape irrevocably scarred for decades to come. Presidents have been impeached, it did not render Washington radioactive. I realize that charging the President with crimes is a serious thing, but we should not shy away from doing so when there is overwhelming evidence that heinous crimes have been committed.
GasBandit
Staff member
GasBandit
Staff member
Land, they may or may not, depending on what eminent domain says their land is worth, and how much they support building the wall.
But guns? They'd definitely pull a Cliven Bundy Kaioken Times Four for those.
I mean, they didn't even bat an eye when Trump said "Let's just grab the guns first, then worry about due process."
This fake declaration of national emergency is literally the government overreach and act of tyranny that supposed they stockpile guns to protect against. And yet half of the same people who say that will stand up and cheer that Trump is "owning the libs".
This fake declaration of national emergency is literally the government overreach and act of tyranny that supposed they stockpile guns to protect against. And yet half of the same people who say that will stand up and cheer that Trump is "owning the libs".
GasBandit
Staff member
That's not the context of Blots' assertion though. He said that since Trump is trying to (illigitemately, I agree) use a declared emergency to build the wall, that he looks forward to the next democrat pres using the same tactic to get rid of guns.
THAT definitely would be a stuck-on-stupid way to cause armed civil unrest.
Easy enough to fix. Rather than declare a State of Emergency in order to confiscate all guns, just confiscate those that are NOT held by registered Democrats. Problem solved, right?
--Patrick
Last edited:
Nah even if they did, the gun nuts would say they still want to and it's a lie and her emails.
It never will, as long as mass shooting events tend to occur in traditionally left leaning institutions and more frequently in cities. As unpopular as it may seem, gun control as an issue exists for a sane reason: people ARE getting massacred for stupid, regressive reasons and the main reason nothing is being done is politically and economically motivated. That a minority of people want fire arms for self defense is irrelevant; the main obstacle is that gun manufacturing is one of the few "assembly line" style jobs that pay well that has remained in the US and these locations are often the only well paying work in their communities for people without college educations (for instance, Lima, OH wouldn't be a town anymore without the M1 Abrams tank manufacturing facility. It's the reason we still make them despite no one wanting them anymore). It's the coal problem, but with guns.
You want gun control? Bring industry to those communities again. Yes, it's a pipe dream, but a lot of gun fetishization revolves around them being the only "good" American domestic product left (in the eyes of Republicans anyway) that they can both afford to own and participate in the creation of. No, this won't stop the guys who fap to their guns from doing so but it will turn the heads of a lot of communities that vote the way they do for economic reasons.
Alternatively, get some Silicon Valley type to disrupt the gun industry by developing a competent biometric gunlock. We have the tech for these and laws in place to make them mandatory in some states, but basically everyone in the gun industry has agreed not to do it because it would destroy gun sales.
I remember after one of the school massacres, a gun store owner in either Virginia or Maryland advertised that he was selling smart ID guns in addition to his regular stock, and he got BOMBARDED by death threats for "helping push the anti-gun agenda".
Edit: It was Maryland. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...mart-guns-after-threats-idUSBREA410SD20140502
GasBandit
Staff member
Last edited:
Dave
Staff member
It was a joke when Obama was nominated...and won. Even he was dismissive.
GasBandit
Staff member
I'd been saying it back at least as far as when Yasir Arafat won.
The Peace prize is. I'd argue that the other prizes (while still somewhat political) at least honor individuals who made an advancement in important scientific fields.