Jump to content

US Politics: What goes up, must come down!


Fragile Bird

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Are Trumpy and Ivanka still in India?

Shouldn't they have to be put in quarantine before being allowed back in the country?

They can sit on Air Force One till after the elections, just to be safe.

No, they returned hours ago, early this afternoon I think. No quarantine for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At first you think, "oh good, Trump's a moron and he's handing the problem of the coronavirus off to an adult." Then you read that it's Mike Pence, and you wince and think, "...maybe it's better?" Then you read how Mike Pence handled other issues like HIV outbreaks and you lose all hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

At first you think, "oh good, Trump's a moron and he's handing the problem of the coronavirus off to an adult." Then you read that it's Mike Pence, and you wince and think, "...maybe it's better?" Then you read how Mike Pence handled other issues like HIV outbreaks and you lose all hope.

Don't prayers have actual healing properties?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: the title of this thread.

After shovelling snow for more than two hours, I sat down in my living room and turned on the tv. I was curious to see if the market was still falling. Down 298.

I turned on my laptop and looked up. Down 398. Maybe I misread the first one.

I opened up this thread and looked up. Down 498.

Read some notifications. Looked up. Down 609.

Right now, back to down 490.

eta: only 466 now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fresh news:

Quote

Don't see how a court could condemn the NYT with the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan precedent.

Given that Trump says "there will be more coming" (https://www.nbcnews.com/video/trump-on-new-york-times-libel-lawsuit-there-will-be-more-coming-79504965820) seems this is just a SLAPP (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN8bJb8biZU).
I just don't get the timing though, it seems this is a weird moment to do this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Fresh news:

Don't see how a court could condemn the NYT with the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan precedent.

Given that Trump says "there will be more coming" (https://www.nbcnews.com/video/trump-on-new-york-times-libel-lawsuit-there-will-be-more-coming-79504965820) seems this is just a SLAPP (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN8bJb8biZU).
I just don't get the timing though, it seems this is a weird moment to do this.

He's signalling that if you talk about his sins he will slam you with a lawsuit. He's a billionaire, ya know.

Maybe this is where Bloomberg can step in with his billions. Make an announcement that he will consider defending any person being sued by Trump for libel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Re: the title of this thread.

After shovelling snow for more than two hours, I sat down in my living room and turned on the tv. I was curious to see if the market was still falling. Down 298.

I turned on my laptop and looked up. Down 398. Maybe I misread the first one.

I opened up this thread and looked up. Down 498.

Read some notifications. Looked up. Down 609.

Right now, back to down 490.

eta: only 466 now...

Down over 600 again.

Meanwhile, Zoom, the video conferencing software company, is up 18.5% over the past week. I wonder if anyone has put together a fund yet to invest in the companies likely to benefit from widespread aversion to travel and potential quarantines. Netflix is another company that's up over the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Fresh news:

Don't see how a court could condemn the NYT with the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan precedent.

Given that Trump says "there will be more coming" (https://www.nbcnews.com/video/trump-on-new-york-times-libel-lawsuit-there-will-be-more-coming-79504965820) seems this is just a SLAPP (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN8bJb8biZU).
I just don't get the timing though, it seems this is a weird moment to do this.

You act as though precedent actually matters anymore in a court-system continuously stacked with Trump loyalists. It doesn't. Clarence Thomas himself made the case for ignoring precedent he himself has made when it was the right thing to do-i.e when it's perfectly convenient for him and his biases.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

And in more of The Cruelty is the Point:

Also fucked up this just announced as Trump returns from India where there is violence being committed that is, in all likelihood, enabled by policies like this.

The other fraudsters bit seems as troubling as it is broad:  

Quote

U.S. v. Warsame cases, Nos. 17-cv-5023, -5024, -5025, -5027 (D. Minn.).  Successful civil denaturalizations of four individuals who fraudulently claimed to be a family to gain admission to the United States through the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

He's signalling that if you talk about his sins he will slam you with a lawsuit. He's a billionaire, ya know.

Maybe this is where Bloomberg can step in with his billions. Make an announcement that he will consider defending any person being sued by Trump for libel.

Watch out literally everyone whose ever said anything bad about him in any capacity.

He's coming for Ya.

I wonder if he’ll reignite the Law-suite against Bill Maher pursuant to whether or not Trump is the bastard of a orangutan.

Not sure if even Bloomberg has enough though to fend off all the lawsuits Trump would throw out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Fresh news:

Don't see how a court could condemn the NYT with the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan precedent.

Given that Trump says "there will be more coming" (https://www.nbcnews.com/video/trump-on-new-york-times-libel-lawsuit-there-will-be-more-coming-79504965820) seems this is just a SLAPP (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN8bJb8biZU).
I just don't get the timing though, it seems this is a weird moment to do this.

Deflection. Always deflection. Trump is trying to hide something. Maybe he has polling showing him losing to Bernie. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, maarsen said:

Deflection. Always deflection. Trump is trying to hide something. Maybe he has polling showing him losing to Bernie. 

Considering how much he's been cheering on "Crazy Bernie" in his tweets, I think its more likely he has polling showing him beating Sanders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 

Not sure if even Bloomberg has enough though to fend off all the lawsuits Trump would throw out.

Bah, I’m surprised Trump has a law firm willing to work for him, considering he’s so notorious about not paying bills, and secondly because many good law firms won’t act for Trump because they don’t want to damage their reputations by acting for him.

Whatever law firm filed the law suit is probably the law firm that will file every law suit, if indeed there’s more to come. Bloomberg could do the same, put a law firm on retainer and have them file every defense to every Trump suit.

Trump almost never follows through on his law suits anyway, they’re intimidation suits meant to shut people up, to bully them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Rich having a German try to improve a game based on military tacticians. :lmao:

I thought you learned you can conquer through economics, not warfare.

That's one way to look at it. My approach was more in line with the tradional logic of dictatorships.

Panem et circenses. So more back to life and death feel of the old Roman arena. Thought as an American you'd be appreciative of that, since Rome was a bit f role model for your Republic.

I mean what could satisfy the masses more than Roger Stone or Harvey Weinstein getting their heads smashed in on the fields of the arena, pardon football fields.

And as German, we have more experience with dictatorships.

Alternatively, you could also remove any restrictions on opioids. To borrow from another thinker, you'd literally have (even more) opioids for the masses. So you don't have to rely televangelists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...