The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
Do you think that the incumbent Dems will get beaten by other "fresher" Dems or by another party.
If by another party, and of course I mean by a Republican, will they cry voter fraud?
If replaced by someone else in their party or by a Republican or even by some other party, do you think anything will change in the House of Representin'?
If it does change, will it be better or worse?
Why does the electricity not fall out of the outlet when nothing is plugged into it?
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,041
Total Cats: 6,607
It has never worked.
Thus, Bannon is an idiot.
Bannon was also claiming executive privilege and finally stated he would comply with the J6 committee only after Trump wrote him a letter allowing him to testify -- about 2-3 weeks ago. Again, this didn't make it to the jury.
(Helping Chinese billionaires launder money in order to purchase the US Presidency is also dumb, especially when you have that big of a target pained on your back, but that's not strictly relevant here.)
Cool hair, though.
I'm assuming everyone in the country is getting lower gas prices. By me, they seem to be down about $.80 from the peak. Go ahead and call me an ignorant conspiracy nut, but something tells me this trend will follow through to November just in time for the elections so that lo and behold, the Dems can pound their chest they brought gas prices down from historic highs. Naturally, they did nothing to raise them, but everything to bring them down. So I wonder, how low do you gentlemen think this will go? I'm guessing about $2.50/gal. Anyone else share this sentiment?
Science is so tricky to figure out.
https://twitter.com/justin_hart/stat...46470533656583
also Fauci :
https://twitter.com/disclosetv/statu...36959839264769
masks proven not to work. science: we should have masked harder.
lockdowns proven not to work. science: we should have locked down harder.
vaccines proven not to work: science: we should mask and boost harder.
https://twitter.com/justin_hart/stat...46470533656583
also Fauci :
https://twitter.com/disclosetv/statu...36959839264769
masks proven not to work. science: we should have masked harder.
lockdowns proven not to work. science: we should have locked down harder.
vaccines proven not to work: science: we should mask and boost harder.
There is a very short list of people id catch a charge for walking up and punching in the nose.
Fauci is #1
The "I do not recognize the legitimacy of this tribunal" defense has been tried many times before.
It has never worked.
Thus, Bannon is an idiot.
Claiming executive privilege when you'd already been forcibly ousted from the White house three and a half years prior to the alleged criminal conduct for which you are being investigated is also dumb.
(Helping Chinese billionaires launder money in order to purchase the US Presidency is also dumb, especially when you have that big of a target pained on your back, but that's not strictly relevant here.)
Cool hair, though.
It has never worked.
Thus, Bannon is an idiot.
Claiming executive privilege when you'd already been forcibly ousted from the White house three and a half years prior to the alleged criminal conduct for which you are being investigated is also dumb.
(Helping Chinese billionaires launder money in order to purchase the US Presidency is also dumb, especially when you have that big of a target pained on your back, but that's not strictly relevant here.)
Cool hair, though.
And...California can now use up to 15% ethanol in standard gas, and ethanol is taxed at a different rate than standard gas, is that being taken into account? And if ethanol is about 110 Ron, are the gas companies using the same 87/89/91 mixes, or are they using lower grade fuel in anticipation of the ethanol bump?
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,041
Total Cats: 6,607
On the first part, yes, you're right. Here's a correct photo:
On the second part, I'm honestly going in a few different directions with that.
In terms of pure facts: you are saying (and I completely believe you here) that a person who was not the President instructed a person who had formerly been a member of the former-President's buddy club, long after both of them were no longer in any sort of Federal office, not to testify as to things which occurred three and a half years after he was separated from employment at the White House, on the basis of Executive Privilege.
So... does this mean that the plan to rectify the purported fraud of the 2020 presidential election was hatched during the first six months of the former President's term in office, in 2017?
On the second part, I'm honestly going in a few different directions with that.
In terms of pure facts: you are saying (and I completely believe you here) that a person who was not the President instructed a person who had formerly been a member of the former-President's buddy club, long after both of them were no longer in any sort of Federal office, not to testify as to things which occurred three and a half years after he was separated from employment at the White House, on the basis of Executive Privilege.
So... does this mean that the plan to rectify the purported fraud of the 2020 presidential election was hatched during the first six months of the former President's term in office, in 2017?
On the first part, yes, you're right. Here's a correct photo:
On the second part, I'm honestly going in a few different directions with that.
In terms of pure facts: you are saying (and I completely believe you here) that a person who was not the President instructed a person who had formerly been a member of the former-President's buddy club, long after both of them were no longer in any sort of Federal office, not to testify as to things which occurred three and a half years after he was separated from employment at the White House, on the basis of Executive Privilege.
So... does this mean that the plan to rectify the purported fraud of the 2020 presidential election was hatched during the first six months of the former President's term in office, in 2017?
On the second part, I'm honestly going in a few different directions with that.
In terms of pure facts: you are saying (and I completely believe you here) that a person who was not the President instructed a person who had formerly been a member of the former-President's buddy club, long after both of them were no longer in any sort of Federal office, not to testify as to things which occurred three and a half years after he was separated from employment at the White House, on the basis of Executive Privilege.
So... does this mean that the plan to rectify the purported fraud of the 2020 presidential election was hatched during the first six months of the former President's term in office, in 2017?
When you consider that this was a joke of a farce of a miscarriage of justice, the Bannon non-trial was simply a side show. Two tier justice ain't justice. Not being able to face your accuser is not justice. No cross-examination? No justice. No equal representation, no justice. If you want to nit-pick Bannon, you completely, TOTALLY missed the point.
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
being a science-denier may be criminal offense.
Joe Biden has been implicated in payments for international sex trafficking. And his DOJ and FBI has been hiding the evidence for years. But Trump was mean!!!!
Joe Biden has been implicated in payments for international sex trafficking. And his DOJ and FBI has been hiding the evidence for years. But Trump was mean!!!!
Last edited by Braineack; 07-27-2022 at 10:32 AM.