jakee

But the capability of the Russian military is not. And that's still Ukraine fighting with one hand tied behind its back, since the best long range weapons are still to be supplied. Soon Ukraine will be able to deny Russia the use of Crimea altogether without even having to cross the Dnipro. That's what the money is buying. By the way, Ukraine never promised to win the war this year. They've been very careful to caution the west that the advance would not be like the 2022 counteroffensive that happened before Russia constructed any defensive lines. You're either lying again, or just tragically misinformed. In this case I'll go for the latter.

It be impossible to make a bigger mess than you already have. I'm not going to start a new thread because you're clearly too scared of admitting you were wrong anyway. It was relevant in the last thread, because that's where you chose to say the thing I'm challenging. It's relevant to this thread, because it's a stick you're hitting Biden with. Why can't you admit you were wrong?

They also need to weigh up the needs of the present moment vs the future of all House business. McCarthy could maybe have seen the Dems step aside as you say - but he deliberately snubbed them. Similarly, any other 'less evil' Speaker will still preside over an obstructionist house that gives nothing to the Dems unless there are solid concessions negotiated first by one who realises his party is no longer the majority.

Because they're winning, which means the money is buying results. Why would we stop?

Ask the Commander of the Black Sea Fleet.

Why? It's relevant to this thread because you can't bash Biden for stealing the election if you can't "mathematically" prove he stole the election. Van Buren got more votes the second time around and lost. That's a fact. Your statement was wrong, because you never bothered to check. You just made it up. So, what have you got?

This seems like it's going to be the case no matter who gets chosen. And as Trump points out above - maybe that's because there really isn't a single unified Republican party anymore. There is at least the Maga party and the traditional GOP / RINO party (depending on your point of view), and they no longer appear to have very much of a connection with each other. In that case, the Democrats actually have a plurality in the House, and could easily argue that Hakeem Jeffries is the front runner for Speaker. The traditional GOP, who will sooner or later have to come to terms with being a small minority party in this House, just need to decide who to join a coalition with - the Maga crazies who hate them or the grown up Democrats who'll work with them.

Facts in the same way that "No President up for re-election ever lost when they got more votes second time around" is a fact. Which means it's really something you just made up. Ready to talk about that yet?

Err - also kudos to the San Fransisco TSA for doing such a sterling job...

There's a bit in there that really demonstrates the extremist views that are taking over the GOP now. [Nikki Haley] was asked by Tapper for her thoughts about DeSantis having said that while the people of Gaza are not all Hamas, “they are all antisemitic” and “none of them” believes Israel has the right to exist. Haley responded that many Gazans don’t want to be ruled by Hamas, just as many Iranians oppose the regime that governs them, and the US should continue to distinguish between terrorists and civilians. Both Trump and DeSantis savagely attacking Nikki Haley for saying that not everyone in Gaza hates Jews. If you're not willing to racially stereotype every single inhabitant of an entire city you can't be part of the club anymore.

During a 90-minute meeting at the Vatican on Friday, Pope Francis told President Joe Biden that he was “happy” that Biden was a “good Catholic” and that Biden should keep “receiving Communion,” according to multiple reports. https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisakim/2021/10/29/heres-what-happened-at-the-biden-pope-meeting-at-the-vatican/?sh=11e68e394576 Yeah, that was savage!

And you said no president up for re-election ever lost despite getting more votes the second time around. Want to admit you just made that up now?

Oh no, that's another lie. You were just trying to distract from the fact that you refuse to admit the lie I called you on despite the fact that you know I'm right and you know you were lying. You lied about what your source said, and selectively quoted from it to make it appear that you lie was true. Why not just admit it? It wasn't even an important point being discussed.

Yeah - but as pointed out above that’s only because there’s never been a case to rule on. Presidents generally either don’t commit blatant crimes or are smart enough not to get caught. Nixon being the only exception but he was pre-emptively pardoned before it became an issue (and even that is controversial). Really though, I don’t think it was ever in question. I’m not aware of any serious school of legal thought (except from Trump’s true believers) that has ever suggested it was the case. In fact, if anyone really thought it was true why was Nixon offered, and why did he accept, a pardon? Why is there an official Justice Department position on not prosecuting sitting Presidents (for very different reasons) if Presidents couldn’t be prosecuted at all? I think they both clearly show that the default presumption always was that Presidents aren’t monarchs, and can be prosecuted. When Aileen Cannon suggested otherwise while trying to sabotage the FBI’s ability to investigate the documents they seized at Mar a Lago the 3 Conservative judges above her in the appeals court came as close to calling her a fucking idiot as you can get in acceptable legal language.

Scary how quickly in the Trump era this became a genuine defence from his supporters for all kinds of terrible behaviour. “Why are you even talking about that - he does that all the time!”

You posted a link to a survey that very obviously did not say what you claimed it did, and you selectively quoted from it to make it appear that it said what you claimed it did. I even highlighted the bit you lied about - it's literally impossible for you to be able to read and write and not know exactly which bit of dishonesty I was calling you out on. But it's incredible the lengths you'll go to in order to avoid having to admit doing anything wrong. What kind of insecurity is it that makes you behave this way? What are you so afraid of?

Just remember - to him that doesn't sound like irony.

Well that’s obviously not true. If you thought I’d got something wrong you wouldn’t hesitate to attack. The only things you ignore are the things you know you can’t defend.

You know who you’re talking to there, right? So why are you saying ‘they’ instead of ‘you’? I had you flat out lying about the content of the source you were trying to use to prove your point and you just ignored it. Now you’re just ignoring that Slim’s only tactic in any discussion is to attack the messenger. So why are you agreeing with him that it’s a ‘they’ problem? Why don’t you have the intellectual honesty to point out the bad behaviour of people you think are on your side instead of just the other side?

Seem like the smoking gun in that article is that James Biden failed to secure Middle Eastern investment for the businesses he was representing. So yeah, that’s terrible for Joe Biden. Everyone knows the President whose family doesn’t make billions from the Saudis is the corrupt one.

Apparently the answer is it’s the natural consequence of extreme gerrymandering. Now that a significant portion of the R side of the House run in artificially created completely one-sided districts they have absolutely no need to appeal to the majority of the American people - or the majority of people in their State or even their local area. In fact, the election they have to win isn’t the election - it’s the primary. And who can be bothered to come out and vote in the primary of a district where the overall election result is a foregone conclusion? Mostly the hardcore of the party. After all that it is actually an electoral hindrance - if not outright career suicide - for many House GOP representatives to give any hint of anything but the most extreme and divisive right wing positions.

Shooting something down with a surface to air missile is not hard. The missile literally does the job for you. Figuring out what you’re aiming at and whether or not you should shoot at it is the hard bit - hence why the Russians keep shooting down their own planes too. So they don’t ‘make the wreckage crash’ anywhere else because why would they? They were too stupid to know they were shooting down a civilian airliner. This is all ludicrously obvious stuff, by the way.

Jerry, the Feds are going after Trump. The Mar a Lago classified documents case is a Federal case and he has been indicted by a Federal prosecutor on 40 Federal felony charges. He is a Federal criminal defendant, currently released on licence, with a trial date set in Federal court. The Jan 6th case is the same - he has been indicted on 4 Federal felony charges with a trial date set. If he breaks his gag order badly enough he could even be recalled to jail before the trial.

Also, Trump’s main defence (in the Federal election case too) is ‘advice of counsel’. As in, he believed in good faith that lawyers were telling him to do things that were legal, so he did. So if Powell goes on the stand and is her wacko self - that still helps the prosecution. And Trump’s team will have a very fine line to walk to try and attack her testimony for being unbelievable, dishonest and crazy - because they’ve still gotta convince several juries that Trump did believe her and genuinely thought her knowledge of the law was better than any of the lawyers employed by the White House.

Unbelievable. Well, hopefully she won’t be able to resist misbehaving with investigators and/or on the stand.