Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

116th Congress - Episode 3: Impeach the Motherf**er

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • MissThundercat
    replied
    Re: 116th Congress - Episode 3: Impeach the Motherf**er

    In case he is... it's not like we're automatically going to welcome him into the fold. Same thing with Kevin Spacey.

    Leave a comment:


  • Handyman
    replied
    Re: 116th Congress - Episode 3: Impeach the Motherf**er

    I was wondering why that was trending earlier...

    Leave a comment:


  • Deutsche Gopher Fan
    replied
    Re: 116th Congress - Episode 3: Impeach the Motherf**er

    https://www.fitsnews.com/2020/06/05/...ave-a-problem/

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Re: 116th Congress - Episode 3: Impeach the Motherf**er

    Originally posted by LynahFan View Post
    The first clue was when Rand started, “No, see, when we LYNCH negroes, what we do is....”
    Don't exaggerate. He didn't call them negroes. He called them depreciation-qualifying farm equipment units.
    Last edited by Kepler; 06-05-2020, 02:10 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • LynahFan
    replied
    Originally posted by Handyman View Post
    You think that is why Rand went on his rant? You might be right about the bill (I havent read it) but there is about .000000001% chance that is why Rand was saying what he was saying and I know you are smart enough to know that.
    The first clue was when Rand started, “No, see, when we LYNCH negroes, what we do is....”

    Leave a comment:


  • rufus
    replied
    Originally posted by Handyman View Post
    You think that is why Rand went on his rant? You might be right about the bill (I havent read it) but there is about .000000001% chance that is why Rand was saying what he was saying and I know you are smart enough to know that.
    That makes one of us.

    Leave a comment:


  • SJHovey
    replied
    Re: 116th Congress - Episode 3: Impeach the Motherf**er

    Originally posted by Handyman View Post
    You think that is why Rand went on his rant? You might be right about the bill (I havent read it) but there is about .000000001% chance that is why Rand was saying what he was saying and I know you are smart enough to know that.
    I don't know what Rand's motives are, and frankly I didn't even read any stories that detailed his complaints. I just heard that he was objecting to passage of a law that would make lynching a federal crime, and my first thought was "what???" Why would anyone oppose that. Seemed like a strange hill to defend.

    So that caused me to google the text of the bill, and frankly my response then became "w t f." What does this thing even do? It certainly doesn't say that it's against the law to take a rope and hang someone with it.

    But as for Rand's motives, I have no idea, and frankly, I'm not that interested in his motives. I just think it'll be interesting when a prosecutor stands up and claims the defendants lynched three African Americans, and then the jury finds out that what really happened is that the defendants conspired to deny access to housing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Handyman
    replied
    Re: 116th Congress - Episode 3: Impeach the Motherf**er

    Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
    The bill under debate has an element of BS to it.

    The bill adds a new section, section 250, to the US Code that defines federal civil rights crimes. The new section, section 250, is labeled as "lynching."

    So what does this new "lynching" section do, or how is it defined? Basically it's defined as conspiring with another person to violate one of those federal civil rights crimes that are already on the books.

    But the federal civil rights crimes encompass a broad spectrum of acts, including interference or intimidation related to voting, education, housing, etc... If some idiot attempts to intimidate or interfere with the right to vote due to that person's race, it's a crime, but I don't think anyone would say that victim has been "lynched." So, does conspiring to do it with another person turn it into a lynching?

    Furthermore, there is already a conspiracy element associated with the federal civil rights crimes. It's section 241. Do we need another, just so we can call it lynching?

    To me it does seem to cheapen the definition of lynching, which is a heinous part of our history.

    Maybe I'm reading the bill wrong, but I don't think so.

    Here are the federal civil rights crimes currently on the books, and here is the text of the bill under debate (you have to scroll down to read section 250).
    You think that is why Rand went on his rant? You might be right about the bill (I havent read it) but there is about .000000001% chance that is why Rand was saying what he was saying and I know you are smart enough to know that.

    Leave a comment:


  • ScoobyDoo
    replied
    Re: 116th Congress - Episode 3: Impeach the Motherf**er

    Originally posted by Jimjamesak View Post
    I’ve stated this before but Murkowski gets elected because she draws centrist Dem voters and enough righties who grumble but stick with the team.

    Now, her centrist support is eroding because of her dealings with Trump and impeachment and her right support is eroding because of Trump.

    Any decent Dem candidate, of which I can think of two or three, can clean up with 45% and win.
    I hope so. She could have shored up her Dem base if she hadn't gone Susan Collins on the bit.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jimjamesak
    replied
    Originally posted by BassAle View Post
    that's good news! Any chance she loses the primary and runs in the general as a write in again?
    *shrug* depends on how the primary goes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jimjamesak
    replied
    Originally posted by Rover View Post
    She can always try waving to the peasants more at Anchorage airport in order to boost her popularity.
    You think she flies she commercial?

    Leave a comment:


  • Rover
    replied
    Re: 116th Congress - Episode 3: Impeach the Motherf**er

    Originally posted by BassAle View Post
    that's good news! Any chance she loses the primary and runs in the general as a write in again?
    She can always try waving to the peasants more at Anchorage airport in order to boost her popularity.

    Leave a comment:


  • BassAle
    replied
    Re: 116th Congress - Episode 3: Impeach the Motherf**er

    Originally posted by Jimjamesak View Post
    I’ve stated this before but Murkowski gets elected because she draws centrist Dem voters and enough righties who grumble but stick with the team.

    Now, her centrist support is eroding because of her dealings with Trump and impeachment and her right support is eroding because of Trump.

    Any decent Dem candidate, of which I can think of two or three, can clean up with 45% and win.
    that's good news! Any chance she loses the primary and runs in the general as a write in again?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jimjamesak
    replied
    Originally posted by BassAle View Post
    They’ll be a Trump *** licker
    I’ve stated this before but Murkowski gets elected because she draws centrist Dem voters and enough righties who grumble but stick with the team.

    Now, her centrist support is eroding because of her dealings with Trump and impeachment and her right support is eroding because of Trump.

    Any decent Dem candidate, of which I can think of two or three, can clean up with 45% and win.

    Leave a comment:


  • BassAle
    replied
    Originally posted by Jimjamesak View Post
    I, for one, will welcome our new Senator.
    They’ll be a Trump *** licker

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X