Mr. GOH! Posted August 4, 2016 Report Share Posted August 4, 2016 They're not looking to boot Trump, they're afraid he'll drop out on his own so they're starting to make contigency plans. The thinking is that trump is both unstable and prone to walking away from failures (see his many bankruptcies). It's all madness, to be sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted August 4, 2016 Report Share Posted August 4, 2016 If the RNC believe that Trump was ever president material it will be true. Feelings and beliefs are equal to facts you know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted August 4, 2016 Report Share Posted August 4, 2016 It would be hilarious if he dropped out after the deadline to get a new candidate on the ballot. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted August 7, 2016 Report Share Posted August 7, 2016 As folks have said on Twitter they should bring him to term. (anyway if it's not a legitimate presidency the US has ways of shutting that whole thing down). Also Hillary(and social media team) seems to be on fire of late. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted August 8, 2016 Report Share Posted August 8, 2016 Rumor has it a group of Republicans are going to back a former CIA officer and congressional aide, Evan McMullin, as a third-party alternative to Trump. I honestly can't decide if I think such a candidate would take more votes away from Trump or from Clinton. My gut says Trump, but part of me wonders if McMullin won't provide another alternative for disenchanted Republicans who might have considered voting for Clinton. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted August 8, 2016 Report Share Posted August 8, 2016 Maybe it's gonna turn out like it's the Prestige. "Julia couldn't even undo a simple knot. Sad". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 In other news todays big "what did he say now" Trump implied shooting Hillary was an option. (he is aware that statistically if he was to become president it'd be a very likely action taken against him right?) Secret Service "is aware of comments made today". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted August 13, 2016 Report Share Posted August 13, 2016 Peter Serafinowicz is being pretty good with his Trump stuff (though here he starts to sound a bit like Spongebob) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted August 18, 2016 Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/08/18/justice-department-says-it-will-end-use-of-private-prisons/?postshare=9221471534255226&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.8b2d11636d73 So the phasing out of private prisons is a thing on the federal level now. It's the right move. Now we need state and local to follow suit. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted August 18, 2016 Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 It's the right thing to do. But, yeah, state-level private prisons are more corrupt and corrupting and should be outlawed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saturnine Tenshi Posted August 20, 2016 Report Share Posted August 20, 2016 Why have they been allowed to exist unchecked for as long as they have? Money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted August 20, 2016 Report Share Posted August 20, 2016 There's this bizarre idea in the US that private contractors can do a better job at providing government services than actual government agencies can, and that they can do it for cheaper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted August 20, 2016 Report Share Posted August 20, 2016 We had G4S providing security for the 2012 olympics, turns out they were shit and lied about what they could do, so ended up with the army coming to help cover the shortfall. And yet G4S are still given billions each year to do all sorts of government operations (including prisons too) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted August 21, 2016 Report Share Posted August 21, 2016 Private state prisons are very deeply entrenched in state politics. Votes and money; law-and-order voters like them and the prison companies donate a lot to campaigns. Some have given kickbacks to judges for sentencing people (often teens) to specific private programs and prisons. Closing prisons or converting them to government-run costs money and jobs, too, and a lot of states are struggling with their budgets in this era of heavy GOP control of most states. California's system is probably the biggest and among the worst, even though it is a very Democratic state. however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted August 24, 2016 Report Share Posted August 24, 2016 Nigel Farage to join Donald Trump to talk about Brexit. Which hasn't actually happened yet n Farage was last seen applying for german citizenship, and before that was seen leaving UKIP. Could be interesting shit show if you're in the states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted August 24, 2016 Report Share Posted August 24, 2016 I think most of us are Trumped out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted September 21, 2016 Report Share Posted September 21, 2016 tbh at first I figured this'd be a generic "go vote" thing, impartial and all but it's definitely leaning towards one candidate One of these guys played a president on TV so you should certainly listen (he's a pretty good president on TV..from the bits I've seen. I've heard it's a good show, my Step-dad really enjoyed it). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MetalCaveman Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted September 30, 2016 Report Share Posted September 30, 2016 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/28/senate-obama-veto-september-11-bill-saudi-arabia So I'm to understand your guys just fucked up the delicate balance of "things states shouldn't do to other states". A sort of legal MAD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted October 3, 2016 Report Share Posted October 3, 2016 I get in theory why they wouldn't want to be seen to be voting "against 9/11 families" but this is stupid. Are they planning to bring SA to a court, sue them and then have them pay money? How would you even enforce that? You'd go to SA with your Supreme Court Writ saying "You owe me all the dollars." and they would say... "No thanks, we'll keep them." and then what? The US Gov't offsets it against any debt owed to SA and pays the victims, and then SA says, "Well, USA just defaulted on its debts." and then the whole promissory note, currency thing falls apart... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted October 3, 2016 Report Share Posted October 3, 2016 No, you get an order to garnish funds held by SA in accounts with companies that operate in the US and then take that to the financial institution and they give you SA's money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted October 3, 2016 Report Share Posted October 3, 2016 Yeah iirc this is the same plan for getting Mexico to build the wall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted October 3, 2016 Report Share Posted October 3, 2016 (edited) Yes, the courts can make and enforce all sorts of orders that would have a serious effect on Saudi's business relations with U.S. companies. But it is very dumb to give the judicial branch a major role in international relations between the US and foreign states as it undercuts the executive's necessary power to manage those relations (and the legislative's comparatively minor role in the same). The law will be modified so that any such lawsuits will have to be approved, essentially, by the executive more than the current law already does (that is, currently the executive can put those suits on hold indefinitely if it claims to be working on resolving the a lawsuits' claims diplomatically). Edit: and, of course, the tit-for-tat possibility of allowing foreign suits against sovereign states is enormous. Edited October 3, 2016 by Mr. GOH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted October 3, 2016 Report Share Posted October 3, 2016 Oh yeah, the law is colossally stupid, and doing what I outlined would be a terrible idea, I was just answering the question of how it would work if we proceeded under it as is. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted October 3, 2016 Report Share Posted October 3, 2016 (edited) I didn't think so; just amplifying your point. Edited October 3, 2016 by The Ghost of Mr. GOH! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.