|
paperwind posted:If she has literally just exited the gate then she's in the secure area of the airport. That's not in the secured area of the airport.
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 18:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:05 |
|
|
Committee Democrats: "I dunno this all looks like a bunch of made-up bullshit to me" Rudy Guliani: "HOW DARE YOU MOCK MY EFFORTS!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 18:43
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:Direct drastic action on the part of the body politic is necessary, but violent actions will fail. There is nothing inconsistent in my stance, and I have been advocating the same approach for over a year now. So please explain how you think a general strike will work when based on your own words the entire government and military and police force are not merely corrupt but seeking active excuse towards violence and a civil war. If the elections are rigged what does a general strike do, make them magically unrig it themselves? I am in favor of a general strike but I am not arguing that everything is lost. You are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 18:43
|
|
|
ryde posted:That's not in the secured area of the airport. Welp. She (and any other high profile Democrats running for POTUS or otherwise) really needs to get some bodyguards given how riled up the chuds are getting with Trump's inflammatory rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 18:45
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Is it just me or does Warren have scarily little physical security there? Did she just walk off a commercial flight? primary candidates aren't afforded secret service protection until way later in the race; iirc bernie got his around the time of the new hampshire primary in 2016 if a candidate does have security its hired out by the campaign
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 18:45
|
|
|
Hiro Protagonist posted:I think right now I need someone to tell me Trump isn't likely to be reelected, because I'm down right terrified at this point that he can do anything and still win. If you want to feel a little better, remember that impeachment is starting, his approval is trending down, the economy is on the verge of becoming an albatross around his neck, and it's becoming increasingly likely he has an undeniable psychotic episode on live video. None of this makes it certain he'll lose, but compared to where we were in, say, 2017, it's a big improvement. If you want to feel a lot better, take a long break from this thread and the news.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 18:46
|
|
|
Hiro Protagonist posted:I think right now I need someone to tell me Trump isn't likely to be reelected, because I'm down right terrified at this point that he can do anything and still win. We can't tell you that. I think he'll lose, but I'm definitely not certain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 18:46
|
|
|
The level of US political security is already loving absurd. We definitely don't need more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 18:46
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The level of US political security is already loving absurd. We definitely don't need more. Did you not just watch the video of a bunch of loving lunatics chasing and hounding a 70 year old woman?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 18:48
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The level of US political security is already loving absurd. We definitely don't need more. Gonna disagree with you there. We shouldn't need more, but we have a huge rightwing domestic terror problem that's only getting worse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 18:48
|
|
|
Hiro Protagonist posted:I think right now I need someone to tell me Trump isn't likely to be reelected, because I'm down right terrified at this point that he can do anything and still win. trump is significantly behind any of the three main democratic contenders in ohio, a state that swung so hard republican most people wrote it off for 2020 basically all data suggests that trump is an underdog in 2020. unfortunately "underdog" does not mean "no hope foregone conclusion" like it ought to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 18:49
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:We can't tell you that. It is not certain. However he narrowly eeked a victory in 2016 and that was a far more Grey Area Trump as far as most people were concerned. He can still win but only if he loses no ground
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 18:49
|
|
|
haveblue posted:If you want to feel a lot better, take a long break from this thread and the news. Yeah, may have to do that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 18:49
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The level of US political security is already loving absurd. We definitely don't need more. Username and post combo breaker
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 18:49
|
|
|
Trump's reelection seems less likely then his election in 2016. So not great, but not terrible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
We don't need more political security in absolute terms, but in relative terms compare the lack of security for Warren and the staggering amount of security for the sitting president.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Did you not just watch the video of a bunch of loving lunatics chasing and hounding a 70 year old woman? America does not need more cops.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 18:52
|
|
|
FBS posted:have y'all never seen actual Christianity before today I've seen it practiced seriously, rarely under these kind of trying circumstances. Most of the time it's Christmas and Easter kind of stuff or ignorant hate. Christianity when practiced seriously is extremely difficult to follow. I remember talking to my former pastor and his personal theory was that about 1 to 2% of people were practicing correctly, or at least approximating something correctly when asked about doctrinal stuff. And not in a tribal "I'm practicing the right way everyone else is wrong" sort of way, but just that it's really hard to do seriously. The rest of the right wingers and evangelical and cultural and whatever flavor of Christianity crowd made serious compromises or gave into ignorance and hate or bought into the false hope of wealth through the prosperity gospel. In its current form, most "Christians" are unable to produce what we would consider as culture and so they're on a long decline into cultural death and irrelevancy. They have power, but only use it to inflict cruelty, reinforcing their authoritarian values and the hatred of them by others. There has been talk for a long time about the Constantine model of Christian living, of retreating into enclaves and recently on Chapo there was an interview about reports of abandoning liberal democracy altogether taking root because it's no longer empowering them. Not even pretending to take their forms, but just straight up abandoning them to try and seize power. Too little, too late. Christianity is a culture and it's on a pretty precipitous decline into irrelevancy because they can't adapt to the new culture. Or more likely don't want to in most cases. Ice Phisherman fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Oct 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 18:52
|
|
|
Rosalind posted:We don't need more political security in absolute terms, but in relative terms compare the lack of security for Warren and the staggering amount of security for the sitting president. Well, that's a terrible comparison. We have an entire agency dedicated to
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 18:52
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:Trump's reelection seems less likely then his election in 2016. So not great, but not terrible. 3.6 roentgen
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 18:52
|
|
|
Nazzadan posted:Username and post combo breaker Security is a sweet gig if you like naps.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Maybe if instead of jaunting about with a small army of thugs the President had to dodge an egg every so often we wouldn't have a cavalcade of senile geriatric fucks running the country. You're ignoring all of the context around this. Wing wing nut jobs are an absolute threat to anyone on the left that holds a federal office and the lack of security for them is staggering. Sure, it'd be funny to see an egg tossed at Trumps dumb face, but the other side of that hypothetical is a democratic senator, congressperson, or candidate being gunned down in a mass shooting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 18:54
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:Eh. Cruz and Rubio are cut from the same, formless cloth. They'd toe the party line, and I would be legit shocked sober if they didn't. evilweasel posted:Cruz would absolutely vote against Trump in a secret election but there's no chance in the world he'd vote to remove in a public one. No Safe Word posted:Personally probably yes, publicly hell no he's a loving party stooge the whole way. No question. A good point. I should have said that Cruz would WANT to vote against trump so bad but would totally toe the line. Brony Car posted:Warren's still glowing from all that loving she gets from Marine bodybuilders. So real talk, I did NOT know she was in her 70s. I thought she was like in her 50s. Without trying to be weird about female politician's looks, I hope I look that good at 70s 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 18:54
|
|
|
Rosalind posted:We don't need more political security in absolute terms, but in relative terms compare the lack of security for Warren and the staggering amount of security for the sitting president. That's because 4 US Presidents have been assassinated, and many more attempts have been made. It's not a theoretical danger.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 18:55
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:Well, that's a terrible comparison. We have an entire agency dedicated to Yes and some of that agency's budget should instead be going to protect major presidential candidates. I know candidates already get Secret Service protection at some point in the process, but I think the point that I and other people in this thread are making is that it's very scary to see Warren essentially unprotected given the amount of right wing terrorism in the US.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 18:55
|
|
|
hidden_msg posted:So real talk, I did NOT know she was in her 70s. I thought she was like in her 50s. Without trying to be weird about female politician's looks, I hope I look that good at 70s If she becomes President, she'll look like a withered corpse in 4 years time. It's really aging.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 18:56
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:You're ignoring all of the context around this. Wing wing nut jobs are an absolute threat to anyone on the left that holds a federal office and the lack of security for them is staggering. Sure, it'd be funny to see an egg tossed at Trumps dumb face, but the other side of that hypothetical is a democratic senator, congressperson, or candidate being gunned down in a mass shooting. There would be a lot fewer mass shootings if more politicians were seriously concerned about getting mass shot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 18:57
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:That's because 4 US Presidents have been assassinated, and many more attempts have been made. It's not a theoretical danger. yeah if you had a one in ten chance of being murdered and a much higher chance of being the target of attempted murder, you'd be pretty loving interested in having security there isn't a similar level of risk for candidates for a nomination, but once that risk elevates then you get security - Obama, for example, got early secret service protection because of racists
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 18:57
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:If she becomes President, she'll look like a withered corpse in 4 years time. It's really aging. I strongly doubt anyone likely to win in 2020 will be able to run in 2024. Good thing AOC will be of age by then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 18:58
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:I don't think there is any scenario where elected GOP members can turn on Trump. I think that only one would be if bunk mentality really sets in and he becomes paranoid and belligerent enough to turn on the GOP party/Senate Republicans. Not likely, but he has 0% loyalty to the party, and he's shown before that he can get incredibly angry at people who are actually on his side and are actively trying to help him, but you know just not to the point of publicly admitting that they would like to go off and do crimes with him, like he would so very much like them too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 18:58
|
|
|
Rosalind posted:Yes and some of that agency's budget should instead be going to protect major presidential candidates. I know candidates already get Secret Service protection at some point in the process, but I think the point that I and other people in this thread are making is that it's very scary to see Warren essentially unprotected given the amount of right wing terrorism in the US. That's the problem--there are literally thousands of candidates for president. Most won't get more than a few dozen votes, if that. You can't protect everyone; so the process narrows it down to the major parties' anointed candidates (or those showing drat Good Cause for concern; I think Obama got some early protection IIRC). Unfortunately, the problem with RW stochastic terrorism is that while you can reliably predict an incident within a given general timeframe, it's incredibly hard to predict what and where (or even who) would be targeted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 18:59
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:I've seen it practiced seriously, rarely under these kind of trying circumstances. Botham Jean's brother hugging Amber Guyger yesterday was an example of this and it says something that the response to it in the zeitgeist was either "He's a bigger man than I" or righteous indignation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 18:59
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:You're ignoring all of the context around this. But that's how we get such useful and thought provoking opinions!
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 18:59
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:I strongly doubt anyone likely to win in 2020 will be able to run in 2024. Good thing AOC will be of age by then. if you get elected to one term, you run for your second unless (a) you die or (b) your first term is such a disaster you will lose your primary
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 18:59
|
|
|
Here’s how UBI is going in Stockton: https://twitter.com/bryanranderson/status/1179788202808246272?s=21 Tl;dr they spend it on necessities, only 2% of recipients are not actively looking for work, less than 1% is spent on tobacco or alcohol
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 19:00
|
|
|
pacerhimself posted:https://mobile.twitter.com/nvgop/status/1179530407919775744 Oh no, those 8 boomers and their assisted living nurses seemed really upset!
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 19:00
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:God forbid they should have to live like the rest of us. You're stupid as gently caress if you don't think Elizabeth Warren, Ilhan Omar, AOC or any other number of dems don't have a serious fear every day about any of the number of credible threats made against their lives. And them being scared wouldn't do poo poo about gun control because the NRA still controls the party with power right now, not to mention they're all already pro gun control, which is the very cause of many of the death threats. Just what the gently caress dude?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 19:00
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:So this is the latest angle to smear me with eh? Can't be bothered to engage with my arguments so just insinuate that I am trying to incite violence. This is a poo poo probation. PJJ has had to respond to this exact attack like 20 times and despite being a little snippy, she did so again in good faith here. Calling for peaceful, disruptive protest is not the same as calling for random murder and it's super lovely that people keep lobbing that accusation with no repercussions. If I have to eat a 6er here to make this point I'll do so- you don't have to agree with PJJ to not be an antagonistic dick to her. Just ignore and move on, preferably without accusations of incitement to violence, which in this day and age, is a serious loving allegation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 19:01
|
|
|
hidden_msg posted:A good point. I should have said that Cruz would WANT to vote against trump so bad but would totally toe the line. I mean, when you just have passionate love affairs with 24 year old marine/ bodybuilders all day, it keeps you young
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:05 |
|
|
Sorry, is Rudy actually saying the allegations in the documents he gave Pompeo were unproven, or is that NBC providing clarification? Because the former is absolutely believable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 19:04
|
|
