Zorral Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 3 hours ago, Corvinus said: You sure he didn't write it? Misspelled words, bad syntax. Yeah, it's more polished than his tweets. Like Gertrude said, probably polished up, a bit, by someone else. There aren't misspelled words. It has paragraphs! It's organized and stays on point so somebody else wrote it. But it's so petty and stupid and snarky in just his own way that ya that's him -- his sentiments. Imagine the temper tantrums, thrown furniture and all the rest when Pelosi sent that letter telling him to provide the SOTU as a letter, and how the media laughed and laughed and laughed and declared Pelosi a lot smarter and better strategist than he is. He thinks he scored and knocked her into the dirt. I would like to know who endured and survived the last few days of his screaming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 19 minutes ago, Zorral said: Only now you're worried? Have you been on Mars for the last few decades? In a cave. With his eyes shut and his fingers in his ears. :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 39 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Perhaps, a presidential primary? I'm already tired of this. I don't feel like playing today, sincere apologies. Suffice to say that the first thing I did when I got my new job title was start putting some of my generous raise away for donation after the primaries. But if it's O'Roruke then I'm taking a trip to Rome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 9 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said: I'm already tired of this. I don't feel like playing today, sincere apologies. Suffice to say that the first thing I did when I got my new job title was start putting some of my generous raise away for donation after the primaries. But if it's O'Roruke then I'm taking a trip to Rome. You have yet to offer a rational reason why losing one election automatically means you cannot win a Presidential election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 13 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said: I'm already tired of this. I don't feel like playing today, sincere apologies. Suffice to say that the first thing I did when I got my new job title was start putting some of my generous raise away for donation after the primaries. But if it's O'Roruke then I'm taking a trip to Rome. Looks like Rome might be the poorer for Jace not gracing it with her presence in 2020. I can categorically guarantee that O'Roruke will not win the Democratic primary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted January 18, 2019 Author Share Posted January 18, 2019 23 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said: But if it's O'Roruke then I'm taking a trip to Rome. Well, the individual limit is $2,700. Sounds like a pretty lame trip to Rome. Or are you gonna donate to PACs? Anyway, Trump's aggregate approval is at 39.9% at 538 right now, the lowest it's been since last February except for one day in September. His disapproval is at 55.2, the highest it's been since last January. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 I can’t stop lmao! Cohen saying Trump directed him to fix on-line polls in his favor. Mr. ‘Fake News Fake Polls’ was trying to fake a couple of stupid on-line polls. There truly are not only tweets to show what a liar and hypocrite he is there are campaign statements to show what a liar and hypocrite he is. He could fix an on-line poll, but how the fuck, he said to himself, do the other guys fake the CNN/NBC/ABC etc etc polls. I’m sure he had someone working on it. eta: I meant to add that the guy Cohen hired to do the faking is an employee at Jerry Falwell’s Christian university. CNN had fun showing Falwell saying ‘No’ when asked if there was anything Trump could do to make him lose Falwell’s support. Lol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 33 minutes ago, DMC said: Well, the individual limit is $2,700. Sounds like a pretty lame trip to Rome. Or are you gonna donate to PACs? Not gonna do PACs but I was planning to spread the budgeted amount between the Dem nominee and down ballot races that looked promising. In and out of my locality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 Whistleblowers are good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 4 hours ago, Mr Fixit said: For all the endless problems around us, from climate change to rising political instability, the US really takes the cake these last several years. Have you been to the UK Politics thread recently? I think that even despite this shutdown, they still take the cake. Trump's presidency has turned out to be pretty tame whereas Brexit is the gift that keeps on giving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 1 hour ago, DMC said: Well, the individual limit is $2,700. Sounds like a pretty lame trip to Rome. Or are you gonna donate to PACs? Anyway, Trump's aggregate approval is at 39.9% at 538 right now, the lowest it's been since last February except for one day in September. His disapproval is at 55.2, the highest it's been since last January. Hey I actually just confused myself greatly because I was trying to confirm my earlier considerations about donating. I have been labouring under the belief that the $2,700 limit was per candidate. But I just took another look at the FEC donations page and now I'm wondering if I was wrong about being able to spread the wealth as I was planning. Can you help me out on this one? I'm at work for a while now so my cognitive abilities will be extremely dampened until I've appropriately balanced my blood with alcohol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted January 18, 2019 Author Share Posted January 18, 2019 15 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said: Can you help me out on this one? It's per candidate per election. So you can donate the max for the same candidate in the primary and then in the general (if she wins the primary, obviously). State laws vary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 7 minutes ago, DMC said: It's per candidate per election. So you can donate the max for the same candidate in the primary and then in the general (if she wins the primary, obviously). State laws vary. Thanks, that's what I had thought. Just confused myself. Fucking sobriety. Maybe I should crack a bottle if rubbing alcohol like Mallory Archer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 8 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said: I have been labouring under the belief that the $2,700 limit was per candidate. But I just took another look at the FEC donations page and now I'm wondering if I was wrong about being able to spread the wealth as I was planning. There used to be a limit on the total as well, but the Supreme Court struck it down back in 2014: Quote The limits capped at $48,600 the amount an individual could spend on contributions to candidates, plus $74,600 total on contributions to political parties and committees. The court did not disturb the limit on how much an individual may contribute to a specific candidate, currently $2,600 per election. But Roberts said an individual should be able to contribute that amount to as many candidates as he chooses. “An aggregate limit on how many candidates and committees an individual may support through contributions is not a modest restraint at all,” Roberts wrote. “The government may no more restrict how many candidates or causes a donor may support than it may tell a newspaper how many candidates it may endorse.” The $2600 became $2700 because of inflation and, if you so desired and had sufficiently deep pockets, you could give that much to every House and Senate candidate in a competitive race as well as your preferred presidential candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 43 minutes ago, Mexal said: Whistleblowers are good. Whoah. Yeah, there are probably plans in Miller's office for a catapult to send them back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 1 minute ago, Martell Spy said: Whoah. Yeah, there are probably plans in Miller's office for a catapult to send them back. Catapults are the most practical way of getting over a wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 8 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said: Catapults are the most practical way of getting over a wall. You can't get over the wall, you can't get under it. And you don't even see it before you run into, because it's invisible so that the border patrol can see the drugs coming from other side. If you could see it though, it'd be big, gold, and beautiful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted January 18, 2019 Author Share Posted January 18, 2019 12 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said: Maybe I should crack a bottle if rubbing alcohol like Mallory Archer. Just make sure to drink the entire bottle - once you open it it goes bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 This is a big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 Yes, just watching this on CNN right now and it is a big thing. Directing a person to lie to Congress is a criminal offense. And the story says that some WH lawyers helped prepare Cohen for his testimony, so they may be looking at felony charges as well. eta: And, of course, obstruction of justice. eta2: And the lawyers being interviewed are saying that even using the narrowest definition of Obstruction of Justice possible, it’s clearly Obstruction of Justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.