wolfriverjoe

Interesting thought (not mine, I came across it elsewhere): The DOJ policy about Indicting the President is just that. Indictment. Issuing charges. Not trial, not conviction, not imprisonment. In no way, shape or form is it 'immunity', as tRump seems to want it to be. Since tRump is no longer President, the indictments are within that policy (as would be any more that come out). So, as long as he's been indicted, he should still have to stand trial, be sentenced if found guilty and serve that sentence, even if he could possibly win the 2024 election. No. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Very different concept. The presumption of innocence means he can be released on bail. He can appear in court in normal clothing, not the bright orange prison jumpsuit. He is officially addressed as 'the accused' or 'the defendant' instead of 'the criminal' or 'the spy'. Most importantly, the prosecution has to prove his guilt. He doesn't have to prove his innocence (that part is the 'presumption')

Who, other than the Trumpanzee morons, are suggesting THAT? The idea that because he used to have a particular job (that he was fired from) should exempt him from consequences for breaking the law (and some rather serious laws at that) is utter bullshit. If he did what he's accused of (and it sure seems like he did), he needs to suffer the consequences. The idea that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL basically says that no one is above the law. The DOJ policy that an unimpeached President cannot be indicted is abhorrent. There are quite a few high ranking government folks that have gone to prison (State Governors, Congressional Representatives, ect). Pretending that the President is different is just flat out wrong.

It's a pretty poor quality image, but I see all of the turrets in place, nothing on fire, no big holes. I'm thinking they aren't 'destroyed' or 'in pieces'. But misleading posts and misinterpreted pictures are par for the course from 'some folks'.

Putler will have to beg the RVC for peace in Russia. He has no way of stopping them from marching (or driving) to Moscow.

They just want to have something to 'fight back' against the idea that tRump is going to prison. They will latch onto ANYTHING that discredits Biden. Classic 'what about-ism'.

Well, I came across the basis for the accusation of Biden taking a bribe. Trump's own DOJ stooges decided it wasn't 'supported by facts'. Heather Cox Richardson yesterday. https://www.facebook.com/heathercoxrichardson

Well, Bobo is pretty good proof that failure to properly educated kids on sex and reproduction has consequences. She's going to be a grandmother at 36. And since you are so adamant about 'proof', where's the proof that Biden took any money? Where is there even a valid story about it (RT and Fox don't count)?

Both of you are pretty blatantly ignoring the fact that the main groups that want to ban all abortions also want to ban birth control and sex education. It's a lot harder to 'not become pregnant' when the means and knowledge to prevent it are highly restricted.

Classic 'cherry picking'. You are choosing to only see the times he makes mistakes or stumbles, while ignoring the vast majority of the time where he's coherent and lucid, moving with grace and balance.

Well, to be fair, those things (along with blatant racism & bigotry and Homophobia/trans-phobia) were already 'acceptable' to that 'sizeable fraction of the population.' Trump just made it so that they felt ok voicing that sort of shit in public.

Abso-fucking-lutely hilarious that his lackey was in charge of the DOJ for FOUR YEARS and never charged Hilary with anything. Almost as if she... Never committed a crime. Well, they'll all be in prison. Maybe in the same prison. His supporters can cheer him on there. And he can ignore them there, too.

It's almost like the people proposing those bans don't know what's ACTUALLY IN THE BIBLE.

That's the really funny part. Putler is pretty much silent on it. He can't admit that the RVC & LSR are having success. Or that the Russian army is impotent against them. He's condemned the 'terrorist' drone attacks on Moscow, but the rest of the world laughed at that, given what Russia has done in Ukraine. Anything he says or does will be 'the wrong thing'. It's kind of along the same lines as what the Russian army can do. If they move troops from Ukraine to Belograd to stop the insurgents, they leave parts of Ukraine vulnerable. If they don't, they leave Russia vulnerable. Given their absolute shit logistics, trying to move stuff around would be just plain silly. They CAN'T move enough supplies for their troops in Ukraine. The idea that they'd be able to move a significant amount of force out of Ukraine to defend Belograd is ridiculous.

Nah. He'll just be in favor of passing laws against teaching any history that 'makes straight people feel uncomfortable'. You know, kinda like Florida is passing laws about teaching history. There's a meme out there something like: The people that threw rocks at Ruby Bridges for trying to go to school are passing laws to prevent their grandchildren from learning about them throwing rocks at a little girl trying to go to school.

Yup. The RVC & LSR have taken control of some parts of Belograd. Rather than trying to retake those areas, the Russians have just left. The cops and local authorities ran away. No army units have responded. So there's wide spread looting. No supplies, no gas, no trains, no nothing. And, of course, the Russians have responded with artillery. Shelling their own cities to deny them to the insurgents. So not only is Russia the 2nd most powerful army in Ukraine, it seems to be the 2nd most powerful army in... Russia.

As long as it's put in a pocket and left there until after landing, it's not. I know a DZ that sends people out to the landing area for the last jump. Case of beer in the UTV to hand to landing jumpers. Every once in a while, it seems like a jumper who didn't come anywhere near the 'beer distributors' ends up with a beer in his (or her) hand.

What 'infirmities'? Please be specific. He tripped over a sandbag that was in a bad spot on the floor. He has a stutter. Foolish and ignorant people ridicule that sort of thing and claim its a 'sign of dementia'. If anyone actually pays attention to the things he says and does, it's pretty clear he's in full control of 'his faculties'. Did you see the part of the State of the Union address where he sparred with the Rs about their intent to destroy Social Security? I can't find it with a quick search, but I came across a video recently of Biden discussing his stutter, how it's affected him and what he's done to overcome it (and the stigma). Again, if you think he is suffering from dementia, you are fooling yourself.

Right. The 'difficult' was somewhat tongue in cheek. This sort of 'firehouse talk' is not ok. Ever. Both for the reasons you stated, and also because it's virtually impossible to separate the 'firehouse talk' part from the actual practice of the people when on duty. In the aftermath of the Michael Brown shooting in Missouri, the subsequent investigation into the police found a LOT of 'informal' racism. And a lot of institutional racism by the police towards the citizens. Go figure.

Why? To commemorate the first former president going to prison? Or as a 'true crime' collectible when he gets convicted of fraud?

By that point, EVs will be so established, that the main people 'celebrating' this will be classic car owners/collectors. I would expect that the tech will evolve enough that most of the other advantages of ICE cars will be diminished. Gas would have to be REALLY cheap (or electricity really expensive) for EVs to be cheaper to run than ICE cars Especially when you include maintenance in 'operating costs' (not just the price of the gas to run it).

Nazis & KKK. Admittedly, they fall under 'bigots', 'racists', 'book burners' and 'the poorly educated'. But they're their own group of 'very fine people'.

And ruin his perfect record?

Facts? He don't need no stinkin' facts.

2 things. #1 - Despite the majority calling for new regulations, it's not likely to happen. The Ds hold onto a slim majority in the Senate, and they don't have one in the House. Do you really think the 'Freedom (from reality) Caucus' wouldn't do anything and everything to prevent any new gun laws? And many of the elections that the Ds won were by slim margins. Trump lost GA by around 20k votes. Wisconsin wasn't much different (I'm not super up to speed on the margins in other states, but IIRC, many were pretty close. The Ds know full well that they'd lose a fair amount of 'on the fence' voters if they passed new gun laws. #2 - You propose mirroring the NFA with military style semi-autos. Look up the 1939 Miller decision by the SC. It pretty much overturned the NFA. It was never fully put into precedent (or actually got rid of the NFA) because the new trial that was ordered for Miller never happened. It's a really odd set of circumstances, but the decision is there. Do you REALLY think the current SC would allow any significant new gun restrictions to stand? I simply cannot see them allowing an expansion of the NFA to include semi-auto rifles to stay in effect. I'm not discussing the need for new laws, or the merits of them. Just the reality that it isn't going to happen soon.

Well, how was Trump supposed to sell them to the Saudis, and the Russians, and the North Koreans if he didn't make copies of them.