USPOL Oct: Trumpelthinskin's spinning wheel: spinning hot takes into gold

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL Oct: Trumpelthinskin's spinning wheel: spinning hot takes into gold

«‹›1588 »

Edmund Sparkler: Jul 4, 2003; For twelve years, you have been asking: Who is John Galt? This is John Galt speaking. I am the man who loves his life. I am the man who does not sacrifice his love or his values. I am the man who has deprived you of victims and thus has destroyed your world, and if you wish to know why you are peris

FactsAreUseless posted:

It's great if you like to get the most alcohol for the lowest prices. It's not great if you like having a wide selection, or if you care about quality, or if you want something local or specialized. But if you just want a giant jug of Kirkland vodka it's fantastic. Oh, also there's a rule that a store has to have a certain square footage to carry hard alcohol, so no starting your own liquor store either.

Yeah, that's right. The law is you have to have a store that's at least 10,000 square feet, I think.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 10:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 3, 2024 01:40

Pope Hilarius II: Nov 10, 2008

Young Freud posted:

The 8-year old is a younger sister of a member. I'm not sure how he contacted her after that.

It's just incredibly strange. I mean I can't imagine a situation where I'd be chatting with someone on a dating site/app and somehow getting in touch with their much younger siblings through that.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 10:35

FactsAreUseless: Feb 16, 2011

Meredith Baxter-Burnout posted:

Yeah, that's right. The law is you have to have a store that's at least 10,000 square feet, I think.

It's been a great way for companies like Costco and Wal-Mart to earn a profit.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 10:35

Edmund Sparkler: Jul 4, 2003; For twelve years, you have been asking: Who is John Galt? This is John Galt speaking. I am the man who loves his life. I am the man who does not sacrifice his love or his values. I am the man who has deprived you of victims and thus has destroyed your world, and if you wish to know why you are peris

call center manager posted:

It's just incredibly strange. I mean I can't imagine a situation where I'd be chatting with someone on a dating site/app and somehow getting in touch with their much younger siblings through that.

You're probably not a pedo then.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 10:37

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

Fun fact: Washington has, by far, the highest tax rate on alcohol. Like, Oregon is in second at $22.74 per gallon, and we pay a whopping $33.54 per gallon.

I guess that's (part of) the cost of having no state income tax though. :eng99:

# ? Oct 18, 2016 10:38

Dr. Arbitrary: Mar 15, 2006; Bleak Gremlin

Meredith Baxter-Burnout posted:

I could be totally wrong but it seems like marijuana has become so mainstream and it's pretty much everywhere that I have a hard time imagining the person who would be adventurous enough to try it but so square that they don't because it's illegal. They totally exist but it just seems like such a weird type of person to me.

That's me, ask me anything. I just try to avoid doing illegal stuff. It sounds like an interesting experience and I look forward to giving it a try once it's legal at the federal level and especially once federal agencies no longer screen against it.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 10:52

edrith: Apr 10, 2013

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/17/498328520/sen-mccain-says-republicans-will-block-all-court-nominations-if-clinton-wins

not that this is a surprise, but this raises some real questions. What if the GOP holds the Senate and, say, RBG and Breyer and Kennedy kick the bucket or retire within the next little while? I'm guessing it'd be impossible to justify holding four vacancies hostage, but then again Republicans are insane and that could of course be thrown back on Clinton with "well why isn't SHE reaching across the aisle by nominating Orly Taitz"

# ? Oct 18, 2016 11:01

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

edrith posted:

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/17/498328520/sen-mccain-says-republicans-will-block-all-court-nominations-if-clinton-wins

not that this is a surprise, but this raises some real questions. What if the GOP holds the Senate and, say, RBG and Breyer and Kennedy kick the bucket or retire within the next little while? I'm guessing it'd be impossible to justify holding four vacancies hostage, but then again Republicans are insane and that could of course be thrown back on Clinton with "well why isn't SHE reaching across the aisle by nominating Orly Taitz"

I have heard that Hillary would be able to make recess appointments, which would only be valid for two years (unsure where this figure came from) but, of course, could be automatically renewed by her, or by subsequent Democratic presidents.

In other words, it would backfire heavily, because it would replace independent SCOTUS justices with term-limited executive appointments, which of course would probably become the new precedent going forwards.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 11:03

Name Change: Oct 9, 2005

edrith posted:

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/17/498328520/sen-mccain-says-republicans-will-block-all-court-nominations-if-clinton-wins

not that this is a surprise, but this raises some real questions. What if the GOP holds the Senate and, say, RBG and Breyer and Kennedy kick the bucket or retire within the next little while? I'm guessing it'd be impossible to justify holding four vacancies hostage, but then again Republicans are insane and that could of course be thrown back on Clinton with "well why isn't SHE reaching across the aisle by nominating Orly Taitz"

My feeling is that McCain will walk this back eventually or allow it to be forgotten about after the election.

E: Actually this has already happened:

quote:

McCain spokesperson Rachael Dean later said that McCain "believes you can only judge people by their record, and Hillary Clinton has a clear record of supporting liberal judicial nominees."

She went on to add that McCain "will, of course, thoroughly examine the record of any Supreme Court nominee put before the Senate and vote for or against that individual based on their qualifications."

# ? Oct 18, 2016 11:05

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

dont even fink about it posted:

My feeling is that McCain will walk this back eventually or allow it to be forgotten about after the election.

He already walked it back.

...that doesn't mean the GOP isn't crazy enough to try it anyways, though.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 11:06

Name Change: Oct 9, 2005

lozzle posted:

He already walked it back.

...that doesn't mean the GOP isn't crazy enough to try it anyways, though.

They can attempt what they like, and if we actually get fewer and fewer justices you will see them struggle to take back Congress in 2018 during what should be an easy pickup for them.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 11:08

Roland Jones: Aug 18, 2011; by Nyc_Tattoo

Nessus posted:

I have heard that Hillary would be able to make recess appointments, which would only be valid for two years (unsure where this figure came from) but, of course, could be automatically renewed by her, or by subsequent Democratic presidents.

In other words, it would backfire heavily, because it would replace independent SCOTUS justices with term-limited executive appointments, which of course would probably become the new precedent going forwards.

Yeah, this combined with the GOP's increasing difficulty with getting the presidency would be really, really bad for them. It'd basically put the Supreme Court under the complete control of the Executive Branch, at least until the Senate and Presidency can work together again. Presumably that level of obstructionism would hurt the GOP's reputation nationally and make them less likely to get reelected, which would presumably solve the issue, but who knows.

It'd also risk that whole thing with the court potentially having too few members and constitutional issues arising, but, well. Other people can explain that better than I can.

Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 11:13 on Oct 18, 2016

# ? Oct 18, 2016 11:09

Peztopiary: Mar 16, 2009; by exmarx

The Court could have one extremely healthy Justice and they'd get to decide all the cases as they liked.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 11:13

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

Nessus posted:

I have heard that Hillary would be able to make recess appointments, which would only be valid for two years (unsure where this figure came from) but, of course, could be automatically renewed by her, or by subsequent Democratic presidents.

In other words, it would backfire heavily, because it would replace independent SCOTUS justices with term-limited executive appointments, which of course would probably become the new precedent going forwards.

This is harder than it looks.

When you appoint a recess justice, that person's career ends. Bam. Their seat in whatever federal court you appointed him or her from has to be filled, so in four to eight years, they're out of work from what was a very lucky position to hold.

Not many people would agree to fill a recess appointment opportunity. Fewer qualified judges would do it.

The GOP would have no problem with appointing a recess judge because they can reach for any hack from arbitrarily-low courts or straight-up politicians with zilch experience in constitutional law. Democrats, though? The integrity factor makes this hard.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 11:20

Pope Hilarius II: Nov 10, 2008

Meredith Baxter-Burnout posted:

You're probably not a pedo then.

That must be the nicest thing people have ever said about me on SA.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 11:22

Islam is the Lite Rock FM: Jul 27, 2007; by exmarx

Peztopiary posted:

The Court could have one extremely healthy Justice and they'd get to decide all the cases as they liked.

B-Rock the Islamic Shock Super-Allah Hussein Obama?

# ? Oct 18, 2016 11:30

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

Islam is the Lite Rock FM posted:

B-Rock the Islamic Shock Super-Allah Hussein Obama?

I think we've found our recess appointment.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 11:33

TheScott2K: Oct 26, 2003; I'm just saying, there's a nonzero chance Trump has a really toad penis.

Meredith Baxter-Burnout posted:

I could be totally wrong but it seems like marijuana has become so mainstream and it's pretty much everywhere that I have a hard time imagining the person who would be adventurous enough to try it but so square that they don't because it's illegal. They totally exist but it just seems like such a weird type of person to me.

I will say if employment drug screens weren't a thing, I think you'd have a lot more users because of that.

It's me, I'm that person. I tried marijuana in college when I was single and carefree and nothing mattered but passing my classes. Now I'm the sole breadwinner for a family, so there's too much to lose by having legal troubles caused by something the government considers a "drug." If it were legal I'd certainly enjoy some after the kid went to bed. We exist.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 11:37

Father O'Blivion: Jul 2, 2004; Get up on your feet and do the Funky Alfonzo

TheScott2K posted:

It's me, I'm that person. I tried marijuana in college when I was single and carefree and nothing mattered but passing my classes. Now I'm the sole breadwinner for a family, so there's too much to lose by having legal troubles caused by something the government considers a "drug." If it were legal I'd certainly enjoy some after the kid went to bed. We exist.

And you'd be better for it.

http://marijuana-uses.com/mr-x/

# ? Oct 18, 2016 11:41

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

AKA Pseudonym posted:

I have a hunch that the concession speech will be given by Pence.

Pretty much. Trump is going to rant about it on twitter while Pence has to be the big boy, again.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 11:53

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Islam is the Lite Rock FM posted:

B-Rock the Islamic Shock Super-Allah Hussein Obama?

SCOTUS isn't in session all the time, right? He could commute. And you can't tell me that a man with a background in Constitutional law, who was also President for eight years, is unqualified.

She could also potentially recess appoint Michelle.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 11:57

Spacedad: Sep 11, 2001; We go play orbital catch around the curvature of the earth, son.

freebooter posted:

Re: GOP downfall, surely it's a split rather than a downfall? It seems to me like a party of rich neoliberal free-marketeers who have realised they can win over uneducated poor people by appealing to racism, culture wars etc. Which is pretty much the same as conservative parties all over the English speaking world, with the obvious difference that in the UK (for example) they're absolutely killing it and ushering in a 1000-year reich, whereas in the US they pushed it too far and nominated an unelectable demagogue (at least in the presidential elections).

From a zoomed out viewpoint Trump really just feels like Tea Party 2.0, or a personality-driven aberration, and next election cycle we're just going to go back to dog-whistling and committee-chosen GOP candidates and the entire Republican establishment will have a stiff drink and pretend this never happened. The only alternative I can see is a split between the Trumpist burn-it-all-down base and the more civilised gently caress-the-poor suit-wearing Rubios and Cruzes, which ushers in decades of Democrat rule, which just seems like too nice an option for the universe to ever allow.

Oh heck no. They're going to get dumber and worse. And it will be because trump and all the people who got behind him will be ginning up poo poo for their right wing fringe media empire.

I fully expect him to try to run again in 2020 and be even more vulgar the next time around. And lose even harder. And learn nothing.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 11:57

edrith: Apr 10, 2013

Nessus posted:

SCOTUS isn't in session all the time, right? He could commute. And you can't tell me that a man with a background in Constitutional law, who was also President for eight years, is unqualified.

She could also potentially recess appoint Michelle.

This is a glorious image, but I was under the impression that Michelle never wants to live in DC ever again after her kids finish school

# ? Oct 18, 2016 11:59

The Angry Bum: Nov 10, 2005

lozzle posted:

Now THIS is one of the better looking Haunted Houses I've seen for Halloween this year.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 12:00

HMS Beagle: Feb 13, 2009

The Angry Bum posted:

Now THIS is one of the better looking Haunted Houses I've seen for Halloween this year.

Unfortunately it won't be haunted until November 9th.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 12:04

Peztopiary: Mar 16, 2009; by exmarx

edrith posted:

This is a glorious image, but I was under the impression that Michelle never wants to live in DC ever again after her kids finish school

She'll nuke us herself if that's the only way to escape the unending hell that is the DC metro area.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 12:06

Sulphagnist: Oct 10, 2006; WARNING! INTRUDERS DETECTED

Peztopiary posted:

The Court could have one extremely healthy Justice and they'd get to decide all the cases as they liked.

Quorum is six Justices although this is defined in law. But it's pretty unlikely that you'd have a Congress that won't confirm any Justices but is able to veto override a law to amend the quorum requirement.

Although I guess you could have the five remaining Justices give a 3-2 ruling that the quorum requirement in US Code is unconstitutional and then you have a proper constitutional crisis in your hands.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 12:06

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

edrith posted:

This is a glorious image, but I was under the impression that Michelle never wants to live in DC ever again after her kids finish school

I am sure Obama would be willing to undertake a commute to SCOTUS sessions and then back to Chicago or Hawaii or wherever he chooses to live full time, if it would be necessary to preserve the Republic and/or destroy the Republicans.

Spacedad posted:

Oh heck no. They're going to get dumber and worse. And it will be because trump and all the people who got behind him will be ginning up poo poo for their right wing fringe media empire.

I fully expect him to try to run again in 2020 and be even more vulgar the next time around. And lose even harder. And learn nothing.

Trump is what, 70? And he's clearly not doing terribly well, leaving aside any questions of *sniff* drug use or *sniff* a demanding *sniff* schedule. He may be dead or incapacitated.

I do agree that the Republicans have lost control of the monster and the white-hot ball of rage isn't going to be content to shift back to the dog whistling.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 12:06

Rodenthar Drothman: May 14, 2013; I think I will continue
watching this twilight world
as long as time flows.

Re: RNC pollwatching from last night (east coast time)

This link has a good rundown of the consent decree, it's modifications, and a pretty good "wtf are you doing, you imbeciles" from the judge in the latest ruling that, no, the decree is staying in place because obviously you can't abide by it already.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 12:16

sebmojo: Oct 23, 2010; Legit Cyberpunk

Has anyone noticed that saying 'rigged' all the time is a way of almost but not quite saying 'friend of the family'.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 12:23

WeAreTheRomans: Feb 23, 2010; by R. Guyovich

AKA Pseudonym posted:

I have a hunch that the concession speech will be given by Pence.

This would be perfect, considering that one of the final moments in Game Change is McCain roasting Palin for even considering making a concession speech as a VP candidate, and how it's held up as an example of Palin's disrespect for the democratic process. Now, it will actually be the decorous option, because Trump is a waste

sebmojo posted:

Has anyone noticed that saying 'rigged' all the time is a way of almost but not quite saying 'friend of the family'.

they sure have

# ? Oct 18, 2016 12:24

sebmojo: Oct 23, 2010; Legit Cyberpunk

WeAreTheRomans posted:

This would be perfect, considering that one of the final moments in Game Change is McCain roasting Palin for even considering making a concession speech as a VP candidate, and how it's held up as an example of Palin's disrespect for the democratic process. Now, it will actually be the decorous option, because Trump is a waste

they sure have

huh

# ? Oct 18, 2016 12:27

Julio Cruz: May 19, 2006

It's dog-whistley as all hell, especially when he's talking about having election overseers in CERTAIN areas.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 12:29

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

sebmojo posted:

Has anyone noticed that saying 'rigged' all the time is a way of almost but not quite saying 'friend of the family'.

Maybe Trump plays Shadowrun.

sebmojo posted:

huh

You also see this in the form of "jerry-rigged", with "jerry" as in what the British called the Germans in World War 2.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 12:30

comingafteryouall: Aug 2, 2011

Julio Cruz posted:

It's dog-whistley as all hell, especially when he's talking about having election overseers in CERTAIN areas.

Good on Trump for not just coming out and telling his voters to not allow blacks or Hispanics to vote.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 12:42

PST: Jul 5, 2012; If only Milliband had eaten a vegan sausage roll instead of a bacon sandwich, we wouldn't be in this mess.

gradenko_2000 posted:

Maybe Trump plays Shadowrun.

You also see this in the form of "jerry-rigged", with "jerry" as in what the British called the Germans in World War 2.

Not quite and jury-rigged is far more commonly used:

jerry-rigged
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jerry%E2%80%93rigged

Jerry-Built
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/211600.html

# ? Oct 18, 2016 12:43

PST: Jul 5, 2012; If only Milliband had eaten a vegan sausage roll instead of a bacon sandwich, we wouldn't be in this mess.

call center manager posted:

It's just incredibly strange. I mean I can't imagine a situation where I'd be chatting with someone on a dating site/app and somehow getting in touch with their much younger siblings through that.

This is pure conjecture with nothing to back it up, but is infinitely more likely than the various 'the CIA/NSA/SIS are behind it all' conspiracy theories pervading Reddit.

Assange uses the dating site to start some form of online relationship with the 22 year old

At some point the 8 year old picks up the phone/tablet that was being used for the communication

8 year old sees explicit video/messages from Assange

Parents find out

Parents freak and report this to the police

Police decide it's not deliberate and don't continue investigation

Parents outraged that the police aren't following up then contact the site over it.

Meanwhile Assange, upset that the dating site has removed their approval of him as their representative/ambassador/whatever complains to friend in the UN about them who's enough of a petty shitbag like Assange to get their accreditation pulled

Dating Site leaks everything

Ohh and then Ecuador find out, confirm via their IT guys that Assange was sending sexually explicit messages via their network and cut his internet access because they doubtless have a strong 'no sexually explicit material via Embassy network' policy.

PST fucked around with this message at 12:57 on Oct 18, 2016

# ? Oct 18, 2016 12:54