Jump to content

US Politics - Breaking the Seal


Mlle. Zabzie

Recommended Posts

Fun fact: Eric T. took a selfie during an interview on some right-wing network. The photo clearly showed his WiFi passwords (taped to some equipment) for Mar-a-Lardo. Wait, there's more: It's 1122334455.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Care to bet they won't try?

Sure, because definitionally/etymologically gerrymandering literally means manipulating the boundaries within a state.  I suppose the GOP may try to break up states to further their disproportionate electoral advantage in the future, but that's not what gerrymandering means. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

Fun fact: Eric T. took a selfie during an interview on some right-wing network. The photo clearly showed his WiFi passwords (taped to some equipment) for Mar-a-Lardo. Wait, there's more: It's 1122334455.

Gosh i hope the internet is not sharing this 

1122334455

number for gosh sakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

 I suppose the GOP may try to break up states to further their disproportionate electoral advantage in the future, but that's not what gerrymandering means. 

And my 11th grade teacher said there was no East or West Dakota. 

Whose' retarded gnow MrS. Greensbourne??? I's waz gust head o dat dem der kurv!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Firebrand Jace said:

And my 11th grade teacher said there was no East or West Dakota. 

Whose' retarded gnow MrS. Greensbourne??? I's waz gust head o dat dem der kurv!

Whenever I go to East Tennessee they still get mad when I try to tell them their true state is Franklin. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, DMC said:

Whenever I go to East Tennessee they still get mad when I try to tell them their true state is Franklin. 

We have the State of Jefferson out west, take that California!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mindwalker said:

Fun fact: Eric T. took a selfie during an interview on some right-wing network. The photo clearly showed his WiFi passwords (taped to some equipment) for Mar-a-Lardo. Wait, there's more: It's 1122334455.

"And change the combination on my luggage"

-President Skroob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Sure, because definitionally/etymologically gerrymandering literally means manipulating the boundaries within a state.  I suppose the GOP may try to break up states to further their disproportionate electoral advantage in the future, but that's not what gerrymandering means. 

You seem to have a higher view of republican sanity than myself.

Something I have seen pop up more and more often amongst far-right pundits: federal senators are to be appointed by the state legislatures. So, you have a state with a D majority, but thanks to gerrymandering, is under the sway of a R minority who really, really do not like being reminded they are a minority. So, the ram through the 'Senator by legislative appointment' and the current SC blatantly overrules any lawsuit to the contrary. Some R states might not be far off from trying something like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ThinkerX said:

You seem to have a higher view of republican sanity than myself.

Nope, just anal about definitions. 

Thinking about it, this one isn't even on me.  It was one of my advisors that got pissed and subsequently pet peeved  about it because Theriault stupidly listed it in his book.  She was like (and this is definitely just paraphrasing from my addled memory), "from 2005 to when it was published he kept on asking me for comments and I was like 'stop conflating what happened in the House & gerrymandering with the radicalization of the Senate - most people are gonna confuse that association.'"  And Sean apparently was like  :dunno: DGAF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

ederal senators are to be appointed by the state legislatures

In the early days of the US -- the Republic era -- they were. essentially.  The voting franchise was very very very limited.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This excited talk I occasionally see about turning Texas blue, centred on Beto O'Rourke's campaigning performance, it seems. Is this realistic hopefulness of hopeless optimism, and what's the likely time-frame, if the former?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Donald Trump’s Tax Returns Revealed By New York Times

President Trump paid only $750 in income tax in the year he was elected president, according to a bombshell report by the New York Times. The investigation by the newspaper also revealed he had not paid taxes in 10 of the 15 years they obtained records for, with his businesses taking on substantial loans and suffering massive losses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

This excited talk I occasionally see about turning Texas blue, centred on Beto O'Rourke's campaigning performance, it seems. Is this realistic hopefulness of hopeless optimism, and what's the likely time-frame, if the former?

I am a prince in Nigeria. If you give me ten thousand dollars American so that I can access my fortune, I shall see you richly rewarded...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

This excited talk I occasionally see about turning Texas blue, centred on Beto O'Rourke's campaigning performance, it seems. Is this realistic hopefulness of hopeless optimism, and what's the likely time-frame, if the former?

Barring Abbott having fucked a boy there is almost no chance of orourke winning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Donald Trump’s Tax Returns Revealed By New York Times

President Trump paid only $750 in income tax in the year he was elected president, according to a bombshell report by the New York Times. The investigation by the newspaper also revealed he had not paid taxes in 10 of the 15 years they obtained records for, with his businesses taking on substantial loans and suffering massive losses.

If it is legal to avoid paying taxes, then one is rather a fool to not take advantage of what the law permits. The law doesn't and shouldn't assume generosity of spirit when it comes to taxation, it should assume that every person, human or corporate, will minimise to the greatest extent legally allowed their tax liability. If people are pissed at the amount of tax Trump and his ilk pay in tax then don't be angry at them, be angry at the law makers who make it possible.

Of course if it is found he or his companies broke laws, then take them for all they are worth. But the fact that it is possible this avoidance may be legal to the extent that substantial investigation and possible prosecution is necessary to prove otherwise is an outrage in itself.

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...