Donald Trump For President

[sidewaysil80]

Originally Posted by gbaby2089

lol. Great long term big picture thinking.

Deregulation theory seems to be working and tax plan put more money in my pocket. Gains are gains, when/if the economy starts going down I’ll reassess but for now I’m happy and with 3% growth on the horizon I don’t know what “big picture” concern I should have.

[exitspeed]

Originally Posted by gbaby2089

Conversely, how many liberals took your guns again? I'll wait.

Thanks for being patient.

http://www.wfmynews2.com/mobile/arti...m/83-535867699

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boul...-considers-ban

http://fox59.com/2018/04/08/indianap...s-in-the-city/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...nes/495781002/

I could paste more but this is easier.

http://bfy.tw/HY4O

[RalliartRsX]

Originally Posted by exitspeed

Thanks for being patient.

http://www.wfmynews2.com/mobile/arti...m/83-535867699

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boul...-considers-ban

http://fox59.com/2018/04/08/indianap...s-in-the-city/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...nes/495781002/

I could paste more but this is easier.

http://bfy.tw/HY4O

I am not sure how you are equate all 5 of those cases to liberals. Reading through, here my quick notes (P.S all the information can be found within the first few sentences of each on of your postings.......)

1) No name town in IL (I had to dig to find it being Deerfield, IL lol). In this case, it wasn't a "liberal" taking away "your" guns, it was an entire town that introduced the bill which moved through council. Vote was passed unanimous 6-0 by board of trustees. So no, not a liberal taking away your guns......
Isn't this how the voting process is suppose to occur?? As far as I am concerned, this follows the letter of the law and is exactly how bills and debates are supposed to occur. Also, town in IL, no affect on you......

2) NOT passed as of yet. It is literally a reading of the introduced bill. And again, this went through a 5 hour long hearing, with arguments from BOTH sides. Again, BOTH SIDES. not just liberals foaming at the mount. And again, this is following the process to the T of the law and how it should be done. I will quote a text that appears within the first two lines of the story. Also, Boulder is pretty evenly split down the middle; 33% liberals, 33% Dem, 33% Rep due to the rising Millennial population, the old guard but also the Military/Air base. So again, not liberals trying to take away YOUR guns in a state you do NOT live in.......

The Boulder City Council on Thursday night unanimously passed on first reading an ordinance that bans the sale and possession of certain firearms defined as assault weapons.

The council adjourned following a more than five-hour-long meeting where nearly 150 people signed up to speak for and against the proposed ordinance, which would also prohibit high-capacity magazines and bump stocks, a device that allows a semi-automatic weapon to be fired more like a fully automatic rifle. By the end of the evening, about 111 people actually spoke, according to Councilmember Sam Weaver.

3) Again, nothing is passed. Duke (a Indianapolis councilman) "introduced a resolution". Its not law yet and no member of an Indiana City councilman is allowed to pass a bill. Only to introduce it.......He is however a Democrat, but not necessarily a liberal. There IS a difference. In a little reading, he also supports labor unions. So yeah, he could very well be a liberal....

4) Again, all the information is within the first paragraph. A federal judge UPHELD, not INSTITUTED the current ban. Ban was in place before liberals were a thing........

A federal district court judge in Boston has upheld the state's ban on assault weapons – AR-15 semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines – finding that the issue is not a constitutional matter but one for each state to determine on its own politically.

So in each of your case, if you just read past the first few sentences, none of these would have supported your point of view......

So no, in all 4 or your postings does it state a liberal is trying to take away your guns.

Also, I would like to point out the hypocrisy of your post. Theoretically speaking mind you, but the same underlying concept prevails. If you have a bill/idea/etc to introduce extended magazine 9mm piston, wouldn't it be fair to also go through the same process to argue your case?? How is it different that someone else is arguing against your stance?? Do you see the hypocrisy in your post??

In 3 of the 4 cases above, people are moving to introduce a bill they see is a solution to school violence and not a direct shot at taking away your guns. If you legally own and "operate" your weapons, what does it matter to you anywho?? You are a law abiding gun owner correct??
IJS.

[exitspeed]

Originally Posted by RalliartRsX

I am not sure how you are equate all 5 of those cases to liberals. Reading through, here my quick notes (P.S all the information can be found within the first few sentences of each on of your postings.......)

1) No name town in IL (I had to dig to find it being Deerfield, IL lol). In this case, it wasn't a "liberal" taking away "your" guns, it was an entire town that introduced the bill which moved through council. Vote was passed unanimous 6-0 by board of trustees. So no, not a liberal taking away your guns......
Isn't this how the voting process is suppose to occur?? As far as I am concerned, this follows the letter of the law and is exactly how bills and debates are supposed to occur. Also, town in IL, no affect on you......

2) NOT passed as of yet. It is literally a reading of the introduced bill. And again, this went through a 5 hour long hearing, with arguments from BOTH sides. Again, BOTH SIDES. not just liberals foaming at the mount. And again, this is following the process to the T of the law and how it should be done. I will quote a text that appears within the first two lines of the story. Also, Boulder is pretty evenly split down the middle; 33% liberals, 33% Dem, 33% Rep due to the rising Millennial population, the old guard but also the Military/Air base. So again, not liberals trying to take away YOUR guns in a state you do NOT live in.......




3) Again, nothing is passed. Duke (a Indianapolis councilman) "introduced a resolution". Its not law yet and no member of an Indiana City councilman is allowed to pass a bill. Only to introduce it.......He is however a Democrat, but not necessarily a liberal. There IS a difference. In a little reading, he also supports labor unions. So yeah, he could very well be a liberal....

4) Again, all the information is within the first paragraph. A federal judge UPHELD, not INSTITUTED the current ban. Ban was in place before liberals were a thing........



So in each of your case, if you just read past the first few sentences, none of these would have supported your point of view......

So no, in all 4 or your postings does it state a liberal is trying to take away your guns.

Also, I would like to point out the hypocrisy of your post. Theoretically speaking mind you, but the same underlying concept prevails. If you have a bill/idea/etc to introduce extended magazine 9mm piston, wouldn't it be fair to also go through the same process to argue your case?? How is it different that someone else is arguing against your stance?? Do you see the hypocrisy in your post??

In 3 of the 4 cases above, people are moving to introduce a bill they see is a solution to school violence and not a direct shot at taking away your guns. If you legally own and "operate" your weapons, what does it matter to you anywho?? You are a law abiding gun owner correct??
IJS.

I feel like posting just to see how much of your day I can waste. Thanks for the dissertation that still shows guns are being banned.

Also, I don’t own a single gun. IJS.

Keep assuming guys. You’re like 0 for 10 right now. Lol.

[RalliartRsX]

Ok Exitspeed.

Since you refuse to read my dissertation I will ask a couple quick questions below (or I recommend you actually read your own posted articles). Also, do not cast stones as you as well are playing the hypocrite as you labeled me as a "liberal" without knowing me, but I digress......

All I said was "you are a law abiding gun owner correct??" which escalates my prior sentence statement........But again, I digress and will move on from the "assumptions" argument.

Questions: You said in your earlier posts that unless it begins to affect you, you are maintaining status quo, correct?? So with that said, the ban on guns NOT IN YOUR STATE or which does not affect you (since well, you know, you do not own a gun) shouldn't be of your concern correct?? So which is it then??

You don't own a gun, but oh shit, the liberals are taking away our guns (which I wont even mention the fact that NONE of your articles posted necessarily supports your stance, but anyways.........)! Liberals are the reason we cant have nice things......but you don't own a gun, so why do you care in which case some of these ordinances were already in place, so why do you care?? How can a liberal take away something.....that was already "taken away"?? How does that make even remote sense??

I still just do not get your argument at times You keep talking out of both sides of your mouth.......

And I am glad to waste my day learning about actual stories and forming proper informative arguments. Iam no gun owner, and in all honesty, I do not have a stance one way or another. I just simply do not have enough information (outside of school shootings) to form a proper stance in my eyes.

However, I am glad reading and critical thinking is considered a waste of your time. I am perfectly OK with that.

[Future240]

Gun control is popular with both sides now. While there is a left bias for control it is not just liberals.


https://www.cincinnati.com/story/new...ans/488783002/


and lets not forget the potus himself on bump stocks.


https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...an-bump-stocks


I am a law abiding gun owner and I support tighter controls, like better background checks but not all out banning. Prohibition has never worked.


This thing of seizing guns of people who are considered a threat is a knee jerk policy reaction. That is lacking of due process and is ripe for abuse.


I get it. We wont to keep guns out of the hands who misuse them. The left and the right need to come together on this and hash out a plan that has data behind it. No knee jerk, trying to get elected policy making.


Perhaps with the cdc (finally) being allowed to due a study, we can see the problem behind this and come up with a better plan. Mental health for instance seems a good place to start.

[RalliartRsX]

Good post Future.

In the cases of school shooting, in a majority of those cases, the weapon was purchased legally, so yeah. Its tough if you live in a state where gun ownership is legal and you have zero priors (not even a speeding ticket).

Last I checked, the LAS Vegas shooter just loved to gamble........and he lived in Vegas so red flag not found.

As far as all the illegal weapons in circulation, that's a whole can of worms I simply am not able to discuss as I really don't have an answer to how to combat that. Bad guys don't follow laws

[gbaby2089]

Originally Posted by RalliartRsX

Good post Future.

In the cases of school shooting, in a majority of those cases, the weapon was purchased legally, so yeah. Its tough if you live in a state where gun ownership is legal and you have zero priors (not even a speeding ticket).

Last I checked, the LAS Vegas shooter just loved to gamble........and he lived in Vegas so red flag not found.

As far as all the illegal weapons in circulation, that's a whole can of worms I simply am not able to discuss as I really don't have an answer to how to combat that. Bad guys don't follow laws

He's going to talk about all of the shootings in Chicago & say how their gun laws don't work.

Completely ignoring the free for all that is gun ownership in both Wisconsin & Indiana, aka less than an hour from the city.

[Future240]

Originally Posted by gbaby2089

He's going to talk about all of the shootings in Chicago & say how their gun laws don't work.

Completely ignoring the free for all that is gun ownership in both Wisconsin & Indiana, aka less than an hour from the city.

You bring up another point. Prohibition in one state but not the other, might as well be no prohibition (see Colorado and weed) as people will find a way.


No one knows the exact right answer. I wish our represented leaders would stop bickering and finger pointing and come together to address the problem.


But instead its much easier to please your base by blaming the other side.

[exitspeed]

Originally Posted by RalliartRsX

Ok Exitspeed.

Since you refuse to read my dissertation I will ask a couple quick questions below (or I recommend you actually read your own posted articles). Also, do not cast stones as you as well are playing the hypocrite as you labeled me as a "liberal" without knowing me, but I digress......

Pretty sure I never called you a Liberal or anything other than your screen name (if I even did that) in this thread. I could be wrong, but off the dome, I don't believe so.

Originally Posted by RalliartRsX

Questions: You said in your earlier posts that unless it begins to affect you, you are maintaining status quo, correct?? So with that said, the ban on guns NOT IN YOUR STATE or which does not affect you (since well, you know, you do not own a gun) shouldn't be of your concern correct?? So which is it then??

Originally Posted by RalliartRsX

You don't own a gun, but oh shit, the liberals are taking away our guns (which I wont even mention the fact that NONE of your articles posted necessarily supports your stance, but anyways.........)! Liberals are the reason we cant have nice things......but you don't own a gun, so why do you care in which case some of these ordinances were already in place, so why do you care?? How can a liberal take away something.....that was already "taken away"?? How does that make even remote sense??

You're pretty much asking the same question, "It doesn't effect me so why should I care" in which I'll say, I'm not gay, but I believe they should have the right to get married. I've never had an abortion but I believe women should have the right to have an abortion. It's a right. I may want to go buy an assault rifle tomorrow. If I do, I don't want to turn around and find out I have to hand it over or face hefty fines.

I'm FOR more common sense gun control, but common sense doesn't mean ban scary weapons or all "semi automatic" fire arms which is ridiculous. Like Future said stricter laws are popular right now and I'm for them. I'm also in the boat that gun laws won't do a god damn thin for mass shootings or the every day gun violence like we see here in Milwaukee.

Again though, lets have a REAL conversation about it and pass things that might actually work. I don't know what that is exactly, but I'm not a law maker.

Originally Posted by RalliartRsX

I still just do not get your argument at times You keep talking out of both sides of your mouth.......

[/QUOTE]

I definitely do. I'm a person. Not a label like you keep trying to use and paint me with. I'm a white male who TYPICALLY votes Republican, but also lean Libertarian and center left on many social issues. My life experiences have lead to my beliefs. I do not believe them just to spite you or anyone else.

What I'm very tired of though are two things:

1. The hatefulness and anger coming from everyone who doesn't agree with Trump (in this thread and the country). It's nasty and unproductive. You don't have to agree with everything he says or does, God knows I sure the fuck don't. But to be so vile against anyone who disagrees with you politically is just awful.

2. Holding Tump to a different standard than we held other presidents. I get Obama isn't the President anymore, but he still WAS the president. He LIED. On countless occasions. Whether they were intentional or not is not relevant. And if you weren't calling out Obama at the time that you shouldn't have so much angst about Trump.

I'm not going to keep rambling on and on about this stuff, but let me just say I want to see what actually happens. 3 months ago the media had Trump Tweeting us into a nuclear war. Now here we are with Trump having an unprecedented meeting with Kim Jong-il to discuss nuclear disarmament. It hasn't happened yet, but no one has even gotten this far with it. So lets give it a chance.

That's how I feel about all of it.

The tax changes have been great. Granted my wife and I are "high income" earners, but the tax changes have been fantastic for us. And not just fo a guy on a forum, but for a FAMILY with three special needs kids. It's a big deal to us. Seriously.

/rant

[gbaby2089]

Originally Posted by exitspeed

What I'm very tired of though are two things:

1. The hatefulness and anger coming from everyone who doesn't agree with Trump (in this thread and the country). It's nasty and unproductive. You don't have to agree with everything he says or does, God knows I sure the fuck don't. But to be so vile against anyone who disagrees with you politically is just awful.

2. Holding Tump to a different standard than we held other presidents. I get Obama isn't the President anymore, but he still WAS the president. He LIED. On countless occasions. Whether they were intentional or not is not relevant. And if you weren't calling out Obama at the time that you shouldn't have so much angst about Trump.

So we shouldn't hold Trump to the standard that Trump held Obama to?

Remember him saying the POTUS wasn't a citizen? That he's a Kenyan Muslim & therefore not worthy of our trust?

Remember him saying he'd never take a day off or golf in office?

Remember him calling the electoral college a disaster for American democracy?

Remember when he called for people to march on Washington?

Remember when he said "Are you allowed to impeach a president for gross incompetence?" during Obama's second term in office?

Remember when he said "It’s Thursday. How many people have lost their healthcare today?" and then worked to take healthcare from millions of Americans (but failed because he doesn't know the art of the deal)?

Remember when he said, "Barack Obama has a record low 39% Gallup approval rating. Why so high?" but has struggled to ever break that number?

Remember when he said, "ATTN: @HillaryClinton - Why did five of your staffers need FBI IMMUNITY?!" but multiple of his staffers have been arrested, had offices raided, etc.?

How about when he said, "Why is @BarackObama spending millions to try and hide his records? He is the least transparent President--ever--and he ran on transparency," yet has offered even less transparency?

I was not a huge fan of Obama. In hindsight I'm even less a fan of Obama.

But next to Trump, yeah, he was something. If nothing else he gave folks hope, misplaced or not, he gave people something to believe in. A mixed race dude from an immigrant father & a single mom raised largely by his grandparents was elected President of the US. He preached inclusion & betterment for all (whether he practiced that, eh not so much). He was replaced by a fossil of a bygone era, a racist, misogynist who preaches hate, flails wildly at all triggers & engenders scandal with his every move.

We aren't holding Trump to a different standard than previous presidents.

We hold Trump to the same standard we've held every other president too.

He is just incompetent in this position.

inb4 liberal tears comment.

[Phlip]

Originally Posted by gbaby2089

So we shouldn't hold Trump to the standard that Trump held Obama to?

Remember him saying the POTUS wasn't a citizen? That he's a Kenyan Muslim & therefore not worthy of our trust?

Remember him saying he'd never take a day off or golf in office?

Remember him calling the electoral college a disaster for American democracy?

Remember when he called for people to march on Washington?

Remember when he said "Are you allowed to impeach a president for gross incompetence?" during Obama's second term in office?

Remember when he said "It’s Thursday. How many people have lost their healthcare today?" and then worked to take healthcare from millions of Americans (but failed because he doesn't know the art of the deal)?

Remember when he said, "Barack Obama has a record low 39% Gallup approval rating. Why so high?" but has struggled to ever break that number?

Remember when he said, "ATTN: @HillaryClinton - Why did five of your staffers need FBI IMMUNITY?!" but multiple of his staffers have been arrested, had offices raided, etc.?

How about when he said, "Why is @BarackObama spending millions to try and hide his records? He is the least transparent President--ever--and he ran on transparency," yet has offered even less transparency?

I was not a huge fan of Obama. In hindsight I'm even less a fan of Obama.

But next to Trump, yeah, he was something. If nothing else he gave folks hope, misplaced or not, he gave people something to believe in. A mixed race dude from an immigrant father & a single mom raised largely by his grandparents was elected President of the US. He preached inclusion & betterment for all (whether he practiced that, eh not so much). He was replaced by a fossil of a bygone era, a racist, misogynist who preaches hate, flails wildly at all triggers & engenders scandal with his every move.

We aren't holding Trump to a different standard than previous presidents.

We hold Trump to the same standard we've held every other president too.

He is just incompetent in this position.

inb4 liberal tears comment.

Who hurt you, little snowflake?

[exitspeed]

I don’t think he’s incompetent in the position. I think he’s unconventional and hard to watch.

It’s not the end of the world though and we will see how the next 3 years goes. I’m optimistic. That’s just the attitude I chose to have. Trust me I would have much rather voted for Rubio or Walker.

[gbaby2089]

Originally Posted by exitspeed

I don’t think he’s incompetent in the position. I think he’s unconventional and hard to watch.

It’s not the end of the world though and we will see how the next 3 years goes. I’m optimistic. That’s just the attitude I chose to have. Trust me I would have much rather voted for Rubio or Walker.

You live in Wisconsin & say that about Scott Walker?

Oh goodness.

Have you not seen the ways in which he's tried to undermine the sanctity of elections in this state?

[Phlip]

Originally Posted by gbaby2089

You live in Wisconsin & say that about Scott Walker?

Oh goodness.

Have you not seen the ways in which he's tried to undermine the sanctity of elections in this state?

Let us count the ways...

"laser-like focus" on jobs, promising 250k, didn't happen.
[link]

Mismanaging the money and not tracking the jobs not being created with the funds. Taken to task in audits for this.
[link]

Remember the Lincoln Hill School for Boys?
Apparently Walker doesn't, or just didn't give a fuck.
[link] [link]

Safe levels of chemicals in the air, food and drinking water? Fuck that!
[link]

Matter of fact, to hell with drinking water. It is a privilege to be paid for, not a right.
[link] [link]

"Support our troops." Nope, not them either.
[link]

Those people who were wronged in the mortgage crisis? Fuck them, the state needs that money to replace all the available federal funds he turned down.
[link]

Matter of fact, let's just take ALL the moneys from where they belong and put them wherever the fuck ever we want!
[link] [link]

But hey, it is all so he can keep his friends and family fat with Cronyism and nepotism.
[link]

Scott Walker gives not a mad prison assfuck about the people of Wisconsin, he apparently is more concerned with himself and those who might keep him in power. Beyond the weather, I am cool with never having lived there.

[RalliartRsX]

gbaby well said. The standards haven't changed. It's just that trump (literally) insights hate. See race riots in Charlottesville which one girl was killed. nuff said.......

Soooo.....does trump's lawyer need.....his own lawyer??

[RalliartRsX]

Originally Posted by exitspeed

I don’t think he’s incompetent in the position. I think he’s unconventional and hard to watch.

It’s not the end of the world though and we will see how the next 3 years goes. I’m optimistic. That’s just the attitude I chose to have. Trust me I would have much rather voted for Rubio or Walker.

trump is VERY incompetent in his position. As a sitting president, you MUST, no ifs and buts, MUST know the Constitution back to front, up and down. No question, no "standards", no unit of measure. As a president, that is a requirement.

The fact that he could not call out a single sentence is standing definition of incompetence. he is the president after all.....

P.S Scott Walker is a shit show. See above.....

[gbaby2089]

Originally Posted by Phlip

Scott Walker gives not a mad prison assfuck about the people of Wisconsin, he apparently is more concerned with himself and those who might keep him in power. Beyond the weather, I am cool with never having lived there.

It is a beautiful place a few months each a year.

But most of the residents honestly couldn't tell you Vladimir Lenin from Vlade Divac.

We shouldn't forget about Walker gutting the Department of Natural Resources & fighting against holding special elections to fill positions vacated by departing republicans.

But at least he spent billions of taxpayer dollars to 'woo' a shady Chinese company with a history of subhuman conditions.

[Phlip]

So we're just gonna ignore this raid on the Cohen's offices?

I figure there is some high level fuckery afoot to go to the HIGHLY unconventional and even more highly difficult task of getting a warrant for such a search instead of a subpoena.
It not dissimilar from them NOT being able to search your lawyer if they think you might have told him you were selling dope, but FULL able to do so if there was probable cause to think that said lawyer was holding your dope for you.
In short, that means they have reason to think that there is some shit that Cohen has done something too. Either Cohen will sing like everyone before him or will be (perhaps has been) paid to sit in prison while this plays out after being held in contempt.

[RalliartRsX]

Originally Posted by RalliartRsX

Soooo.....does trump's lawyer need.....his own lawyer??

Originally Posted by Phlip

So we're just gonna ignore this raid on the Cohen's offices?

I figure there is some high level fuckery afoot to go to the HIGHLY unconventional and even more highly difficult task of getting a warrant for such a search instead of a subpoena.
It not dissimilar from them NOT being able to search your lawyer if they think you might have told him you were selling dope, but FULL able to do so if there was probable cause to think that said lawyer was holding your dope for you.
In short, that means they have reason to think that there is some shit that Cohen has done something too. Either Cohen will sing like everyone before him or will be (perhaps has been) paid to sit in prison while this plays out after being held in contempt.

Way ahead of ya Phlip. Please, do try to keep up

But yes, I tend to agree. To sign off on a raid just based off a couple paid of playmates?? Yeah, they have bigger fish to fry.

All news sources are saying "search for payoff of women". But judging by how calculated this whole investigation has been carried out (remember, Manaforts Office was raided months before any word got out! I mean, the raid occurred (literally) miles from a major airport and no one had a clue!), something's a brewing out back. The AG had to sign off on it, so yeah........

Then there is the whole Attorney-Client privilege thing. No lawyer, much less the AG, would sign off on any raid knowing full well Cohen could exercise his A-C right and not say a word.
Something is spooky about this raid and I do not think any of the news sources have the full story. But like sheep, everyone is running the "breaking news"........

All this while fox news is (literally) talking about sex crazed pandas hahahahah!

I think Cohen needs to call a lawyer........

[Phlip]

Originally Posted by RalliartRsX

Then there is the whole Attorney-Client privilege thing. No lawyer, much less the AG, would sign off on any raid knowing full well Cohen could exercise his A-C right and not say a word.
Something is spooky about this raid and I do not think any of the news sources have the full story. But like sheep, everyone is running the "breaking news"........

All this while fox news is (literally) talking about sex crazed pandas hahahahah!

I think Cohen needs to call a lawyer........

Yeah, the "nothing to see here" approach won't work with something that HAS to have the magnitude of this, just for all it takes for something like this to even be allowed to go forward.

[exitspeed]

Well this seems like fun, but I'll hard pass from here on out. Think I've said that before.

[gbaby2089]

Thanks for being open minded & willing to educate yourself on something you don't agree with on the surface.

Oh...

[exitspeed]

Originally Posted by gbaby2089

Thanks for being open minded & willing to educate yourself on something you don't agree with on the surface.

Oh...

Well gee I didn’t realize this thread was the worlds foremost news source. Lol.

Look I get it. You’re right. I’m wrong. You’re enlightened and I’m just a dumb Republican.

Maybe I can join in again after I become all knowing like you folks.


ps this elitist attitude is part of the reason Trump is president right now. People are tired of it.

[SimpleS14]

The recent FBI raid is very interesting indeed. Prosecutors need to have a solid case of probable cause to a judge and get approval across the upper ranks of the DOJ & FBI. It's not an action that was taken lightly, especially when it's an attorney that's being raided in THREE locations.

What's also interesting is that this was not orchestrated by the Special Counsel, but rather the public corruption's team in the U.S. Southern District of NY. That's very telling since it means that no matter what happens with the Special Counsel, Cohen is in some serious legal jeopardy. Trump can absolutely pardon him, but the NY AG will mostly file a case of their own which Cohen is not shielded from. NY state laws are pretty serious when it comes to finance crimes.

I also think should the Special Counsel get fired, there will still be an ongoing investigation and they can be farmed out to the U.S. District of DC and Eastern District of VA. Trump tries to execute pardons, then you have state AG's just waiting to file a case.

This is an absolute legal mess, but very interesting to see how it all plays out.

[RalliartRsX]

Simple, yep.

This isn't just some play bunny pay off story like every stinking news source is running with. The AG doesn't sign off on such a warrant and unless something is brewing.

Key; this wasn't initiated by Mueller. Holy shit.........all sorts of angles converging in on this.

[Phlip]

Originally Posted by exitspeed

ps this elitist attitude is part of the reason Trump is president right now. People are tired of it.

Wrong...
You could only have made this claim if he had won the popular vote and had some kind of claim of a mandate of his policy.
Instead, the fact of the matter is that he used dogwhistle politics to foment and normalize the bigotry of people in former slave states. Before anyone starts withe "omg, slavery is over" thing, please remember that the weighting of the electoral college "gave" a little something to former slave states in giving them heavier electoral representation.
[link]
The will of the majority of America is not being represented at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Neither are the interests

[gbaby2089]

Originally Posted by exitspeed

ps this elitist attitude is part of the reason Trump is president right now. People are tired of it.

No it isn't. He's president because the backwards states that contribute little to the economy & hold a minority of the population voted heavily in his favor. Even in states that he won, go to the urban areas, where the jobs & people actually live and what happens? Oh, Trump voters are very rare.

But yeah, he'll make those coal towns great again.

Originally Posted by Phlip

Wrong...
You could only have made this claim if he had won the popular vote and had some kind of claim of a mandate of his policy.
Instead, the fact of the matter is that he used dogwhistle politics to foment and normalize the bigotry of people in former slave states. Before anyone starts withe "omg, slavery is over" thing, please remember that the weighting of the electoral college "gave" a little something to former slave states in giving them heavier electoral representation.
[link]
The will of the majority of America is not being represented at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Neither are the interests

BOOM.

[exitspeed]

Water is wet.

[flartius]

Originally Posted by gbaby2089

No it isn't. He's president because the backwards states that contribute little to the economy & hold a minority of the population voted heavily in his favor. Even in states that he won, go to the urban areas, where the jobs & people actually live and what happens? Oh, Trump voters are very rare.

But yeah, he'll make those coal towns great again.



BOOM.

So what you're saying is only the urban population matters, and to be apart of a party that claims to be inclusive to all if someone doesn't align with your view they are 'backwards'?