You'd be better off blaming the hopeless Republicans at the primaries if you want to blame someone other than Trump. It was so pathetic that even tollbooth guy - unfit for trust in any office - was a leading contender for a while.
When the Trump abscess is lanced, all this rot will be cleaned out and they all go to prison
That's how it would go in a movie. Sadly writing that way about reality just comes across as naive. Just because you can't see it getting worse (and it's going to get a LOT worse before Trump is dragged out, probably in eight years) doesn't mean that deeply entrenched systemic corruption is going to be almost completely cleaned up after a few ringleaders are jailed.
OK then. Any-fucking-where. The above poster is in blatant denial of very recent history and anything that covers the issue mentioned will do. I think Snopes has a thing on the ice age claims and may be a good starting point for the incredibly lazy (as is wikipedia).
Wow! Those journalists can do anything - even cutting edge science! If you think that just give up your job and let a journalist do it.
Outside of a TIME magazine article thrown together by a hack to provide "balance" you've got nothing. I'm a little disappointed that with that low an ID that you are not old enough to remember that the article was seen as utter bullshit at the time. I'm not quite old enough to get it first time but hit a huge pile of Scientific American back issues in my teens to make up for it, and there was no ice age bullshit in that, only TIME where a journalist out of his depth printed bullshit so that there would be the excitement of something opposing the mainstream view.
You are clearer, but still not correct. The courts do have jurisdiction over the president, as long as there is some relevant law
There has been a lot about this in the international press recently. I suggest you look at some of it and you will find that unfortunately I am correct and this has been discussed frequently ever since Trump went into the primaries. It's one of the reasons that some people with a clue (who wrote about it at the time) were so terrified of the chance of someone like Trump getting near the White House. Even people on the "right", despite being rather fond of authoritarianism, were upset when Obama came to power because of how untouchable a President is.
It was debated by SCOTUS in the process of the Watergate proceedings, but never actually decided
That's kind of a massive clue that he's immune until unprecedented steps are taken.
It's a wonder the security is anything less than water tight
You still haven't worked out much about how Trump has operated his businesses yet after all this time? Competency is optional but a flashy outer appearance is mandatory.
I now wonder if a real criminal conviction will put Trump in prison
Not while he is President - kind of a flaw in the system at the moment.
So all those weirdos who pretend to be colonials at political events rejoice - you've got yourself a King who is above the law - so that's a worse situation than the King that George Washington fought against. So long as enough Senators are on his side he's untouchable.
Not as such, but even the crimes she didn't commit that you are accusing her of are trivial compared with what Trump is getting up to now. I really don't understand why you still think Trump is on your side. Even Ann Coulter knows better than that now and I would expect you to be brighter than her.
Yes but it's a very ugly "Washington Swamp" one. Just dragging him in front of the Senate gets nothing done if the Republican Party still want him to be President. The flaw in the system is that he can do anything and get away with it so long as the numbers are on his side. It's not as if he can be dragged in front of an actual court.
Like it or not, you've effectively got an untouchable King so long as there are enough Senators that would prefer him there.
I support a more limited, less intrusive federal government
So why vote for an authoritarian like Trump who is pushing for more intrusion? The wall alone should have been a bit of a clue that expansion instead of limitation was on the agenda.
he's just simply going to start shedding supporters
Already happening. Ann Coulter, author of "In Trump We Trust" and other cheerleading for the guy is starting to express opposition to him. He may also be losing the support of Rupert Murdoch.
You forgot the loans. All perfectly legal if he pays them back but illegal as hell if those Russian financers decide to forgive them for services rendered.
Ah yes - "end of history" and all that shit. It is shit because people who were in the middle of all that history you think is irrelevant are calling the shots in some places today.
I am not a Trump supporter
I didn't say you were. Kind of interesting to see that denial come from nowhere.
Here's a little thing to ponder "end of history" boy - Putin (whose KGB history you've decided is irrelevant) has Josef Stalin's library in his office (with copious notes by Stalin inside every volume) and shows it off to visitors. By that he certainly doesn't want to ignore history. Now take Israel - are you seriously going to suggest that the government there is going to ignore history?
We are still in the middle of a pile of ongoing shit that makes it so that Israel is not ready to cuddle up to as close an ally of Assad's Syria as Putin is. You Dad should have told you a bit about things like that when you were growing up.
Slashdot Mirror
You'd be better off blaming the hopeless Republicans at the primaries if you want to blame someone other than Trump.
It was so pathetic that even tollbooth guy - unfit for trust in any office - was a leading contender for a while.
That's how it would go in a movie.
Sadly writing that way about reality just comes across as naive.
Just because you can't see it getting worse (and it's going to get a LOT worse before Trump is dragged out, probably in eight years) doesn't mean that deeply entrenched systemic corruption is going to be almost completely cleaned up after a few ringleaders are jailed.
Give up on the drugs dude!
OK then.
Any-fucking-where.
The above poster is in blatant denial of very recent history and anything that covers the issue mentioned will do. I think Snopes has a thing on the ice age claims and may be a good starting point for the incredibly lazy (as is wikipedia).
Seriously?
Wiki-fucking-pedia.
Wow! Those journalists can do anything - even cutting edge science! If you think that just give up your job and let a journalist do it.
Outside of a TIME magazine article thrown together by a hack to provide "balance" you've got nothing. I'm a little disappointed that with that low an ID that you are not old enough to remember that the article was seen as utter bullshit at the time. I'm not quite old enough to get it first time but hit a huge pile of Scientific American back issues in my teens to make up for it, and there was no ice age bullshit in that, only TIME where a journalist out of his depth printed bullshit so that there would be the excitement of something opposing the mainstream view.
It was already so splintered that a cuckoo like Trump could come in from the outside and take over the nest.
There has been a lot about this in the international press recently. I suggest you look at some of it and you will find that unfortunately I am correct and this has been discussed frequently ever since Trump went into the primaries. It's one of the reasons that some people with a clue (who wrote about it at the time) were so terrified of the chance of someone like Trump getting near the White House. Even people on the "right", despite being rather fond of authoritarianism, were upset when Obama came to power because of how untouchable a President is.
That's kind of a massive clue that he's immune until unprecedented steps are taken.
People still do that?
The real question IMHO is how things got so bad that this question with such an obvious answer is even being asked :(
You still haven't worked out much about how Trump has operated his businesses yet after all this time? Competency is optional but a flashy outer appearance is mandatory.
And the courts, ever since Magna Carta. Trump isn't subject to any court.
I thought I was clear on that point. Was I clear enough this time?
An amusing thing is how many people are searching for "impeach" on google:
https://trends.google.com/tren...
Not while he is President - kind of a flaw in the system at the moment.
So all those weirdos who pretend to be colonials at political events rejoice - you've got yourself a King who is above the law - so that's a worse situation than the King that George Washington fought against. So long as enough Senators are on his side he's untouchable.
Not as such, but even the crimes she didn't commit that you are accusing her of are trivial compared with what Trump is getting up to now.
I really don't understand why you still think Trump is on your side. Even Ann Coulter knows better than that now and I would expect you to be brighter than her.
Yes but it's a very ugly "Washington Swamp" one.
Just dragging him in front of the Senate gets nothing done if the Republican Party still want him to be President. The flaw in the system is that he can do anything and get away with it so long as the numbers are on his side.
It's not as if he can be dragged in front of an actual court.
Like it or not, you've effectively got an untouchable King so long as there are enough Senators that would prefer him there.
Yes, it's something to give us a nice warm fuzzy feeling while a screaming manchild is playing chicken with nukes.
So why vote for an authoritarian like Trump who is pushing for more intrusion? The wall alone should have been a bit of a clue that expansion instead of limitation was on the agenda.
Already happening. Ann Coulter, author of "In Trump We Trust" and other cheerleading for the guy is starting to express opposition to him. He may also be losing the support of Rupert Murdoch.
It's not Democrats doing this.
There was an election remember and they took a hit into irrelevancy.
You forgot the loans.
All perfectly legal if he pays them back but illegal as hell if those Russian financers decide to forgive them for services rendered.
Fighting for people that matter.
Got a billion dollars?
Then you matter and Trump is going to fight for you against those that don't.
It is shit because people who were in the middle of all that history you think is irrelevant are calling the shots in some places today.
I didn't say you were. Kind of interesting to see that denial come from nowhere.
Here's a little thing to ponder "end of history" boy - Putin (whose KGB history you've decided is irrelevant) has Josef Stalin's library in his office (with copious notes by Stalin inside every volume) and shows it off to visitors. By that he certainly doesn't want to ignore history. Now take Israel - are you seriously going to suggest that the government there is going to ignore history?
We are still in the middle of a pile of ongoing shit that makes it so that Israel is not ready to cuddle up to as close an ally of Assad's Syria as Putin is.
You Dad should have told you a bit about things like that when you were growing up.
Damn - so you didn't understand and I have to explain it to you.
Access to memory on a remote machine is a great deal faster than access to disk when network speed is not the limiting factor.
I thought it was kind of obvious to anyone who would want to comment on this article but it appears I was wrong.
And that's only per socket! Imagine 8TB and 128 threads!