jakee

How can you be both the buffer and the 2%? And remember that Trumo constantly describes himself as a really really smart guy and says the constitution gives him the power to do whatever he wants. How is he not the figurehead of the 1%?

Sure, but criminal cases against Trump for tax fraud, bribery, his charity stuff and whatever the hell else aren't specifically designed to piss the other side off, they're designed to hold him to account for criminal behaviour - just like they should be for everyone else. Thinking that having been president puts him on some higher level than the normal people where his reputation is now more important than the law is flat out wrong, IMO, and toxic for the prospects of integrity in office for the future.

That doesn't follow. All the congressional investigations and press conference back biting is one thing, the justice system is another. Letting the president get away with real crimes simply because he's the president is far more corrosive than the possibility that pursuing those crimes can be spun as some kind of partisan action. And that stands especially now that Trump is eclipsing Nixon with his constant proclamations that he can do literally anything he wants, and is immune from consequences for anything that he has done or might do. For all your sakes he needs to be proven wrong.

What on earth does that have to do with any Coronavirus vaccine?

He’s not talking about practice conflicts in which both the real China and the real USA participate. They’re talking about US war games between simulated US and Chinese forces. Sandbagging would utterly defeat the point.

Isn't that Ron Howard?

The French blue water navy is about the same size as the UKs still in terms of carriers, subs, destroyers, frigates and air power. They've currently got a new class of nuclear attack submarines under construction on a €10Bn contract. They're not out of the game.

There is no microchip. It's malicious trolling by people who want to watch the word burn and laugh at how they've manipulated you into welcoming it.

Once again, how long will the line of over 100M people on one day in November be? You can use all the 'maths' you want to prove how unfeasible it is to process that many people in a short time but I guarantee you'll always be relying on an erroneous assumption somewhere, since we already know that processing that many people in an even shorter time is feasible, because we do it.

So on one side the anti Trumper's 'distract' by posting evidence, and on the other side you do it by posting links while lying about what's in them. Who to trust...?

Ummm, I think you've got Muhammed and the mountain the wrong way round. Bill wasn't suggesting putting the whole of Wuhan on trains to where the testers are. Call me crazy if you want, but you might find it easier to bring the testers to where they're needed instead.

Fun fact, later this year the USA is going to get somewhere around 140M people to stand in line in only 1 day and they don't need to be bribed with food or anything.

3.5 million doctors? Each doctor can only test one third of a person per day?

And you will deny it, no matter what the evidence. How often is it proven to be untrue? What testing targets has the US managed to hit? By the way, doesn't it occur to you that you are exactly describing your own behaviour in the wake of, for instance, the Trump injection and UV light comments? You said that someone else had told him they would be researched, but that wasn't true. You said it was actually a good idea to research the things he suggested, but that wasn't true either. You said even if it was a silly idea off the top of his head that he only said it to try and provide hope, but Trump himself denied that. Then when you ran out of denials and defences you simply pivoted to distracting from it by falsely claiming that the media and posters here were deliberately and malisciously claiming he had said something different, and you clung onto that lie until the bitter end. I don't think I've seen anyone else on any side of an argument twist as much as that before. Maybe Rush, but it's too hard to figure out what he means from post to post to say for sure. Oh no Turtle, it's better than that. We don't need a cure, we don't need a vaccine. Coronavirus will just go away all on its own, except maybe a few flareups in the fall. So what do you say, do you want to defend that in the same way you defended bleach and really strong UV light?

Wendy said that, Kallend didn't. Kallend also specifically said that Covid isn't like the flu - meaning that what he said and what Westerly said tally up pretty much perfectly. Also, to me Wendy saying she'd wait until the second round by no means puts her among the anti-vaxxer league.

Here as in on this site? Kallend and Wendy both just said they would get the Covid vaccine.

Then you must be fine with the fact that you've made it clear you think the civil rights act nearly destroyed the US. Don't really get why you're grumbling then.

Oh wow, you still don't get it. You argued that anyone who thought the US wasn't close to collapse in '68 must think that assassinations aren't just good, but they need to happen. I really have no idea what world that comes from, but if you want to keep advancing that argument you're going to have to accept that the same thinking means you must be opposed to civil rights.

You tried to say that Olof supported assassinations - something neither of you had even mentioned - because he said '68 wasn't so bad. If you want to stick to that argument you're going to have to accept that it applies equally to you, and if you think '68 was so bad you must be opposed to the civil rights act, even though you hadn't mentioned it and there was no indication you were talking about it. I'm not trying to paint you as a racist, I;m trying to paint you as a guy who is using absurdly bad logic.

But that did ultimately give us Under Siege, so it was totally worth it.

So you believe the civil rights act brought the country to the verge of collapse?

Haha, right. An anonymous conspiracy of such awesome power that they can... write a letter. That deep state sure is scary!

And when has that lead to you reconsidering a specific position that you had advanced on the basis of your bias? Even when you were absolutely convinced that Joe Biden must have done something corrupt in Ukraine that you had zero evidence of (behaviour you would have roasted anyone else for if the subject was a Republican), even when you admitted that you thought he was corrupt because of your bias, yuo still refused to retract or reconsider any part of your absolute judgement that he was involved in Ukrainian corruption. So what's the point? It seems like you only fight your bias when it doesn;t matter anymore. I mean great, you seem to have re-evaluated your opinion of Obama... now that he's no longer in charge. You claim not to be a Trump supporter... but defend him against almost every specific criticism that is levelled at him. You claim to be trying to work towards the centre... but said to Bill you're purposefully posting more to the right just because of antagonism towards people you perceive as posting to the left. So again, what does it matter to admit your bias when it doesn't change the arguments you post or the sides you take? It reminds me once years back when Ron was on his 'Obama dividing America' kick and I asked him for any example of any policies he thought Republicans in Congress should compromise on in the name of unity and he said 'Nothing'. Same situation, if he was pro unity only in as much as everyone had to unify around him, in what meaningful way was he really pro unity?

In what way did he use it? The logical conclusion being what, that he thinks he is black? Did Morrison think he was black? Of course not. So then the issue is what did Morrison actually mean when she said it, and was that opinion warranted? And if you think any politician is going to start getting into deconstructing complex metaphors in order to shoot down something said about him that people are taking as a compliment then you are living in a fantasy land. And by the way, it wasn't an accolade in the first place.

He should be. From WaPo Prosecutors must make decisions based on facts and law, not on the defendant’s political connections. When the department takes steps that it would never take in any other case to protect an ally of the president, it betrays this principle. Indeed, the department chose to assign these matters to a special counsel precisely to avoid the appearance of political influence. For the attorney general now to directly intervene to benefit the president’s associates makes this betrayal of the rule of law even more egregious.... ...I say this. If the department truly acted because of good-faith commitments to legal positions, then where is the evidence of those commitments in other cases that do not involve friends of the president? Where are the narcotics cases in which the department has filed a sentencing memorandum overruling career prosecutors? Where are the other false-statements cases dismissed after a guilty plea? There are none. Is that because the only cases in the United States that warranted intervention by department leadership happened to involve friends of the president? Of course not. This kind of political interference in the criminal justice system is a full blown constitutional crisis. Once you take that genie out of the bottle and get away with it you can't put it back. The US might need to decide whether it wants to elect a president for 4 years or a king for 4 years, because Trump says it's the latter.