RonPaulyShore [none/use name]

Removed by mod

i’ve been calling him r-slur don since day one.

Having NATO soldiers being absolutely decimated, would certainly calm the bloodlust of the Western masses.

Uh, or it whips the Western decisionmakers into a frenzy and gives pretext for a wider conflict.

There’s no way defamation damages are worth the reputational and legal risk. And even if they were, Boeing would’ve moved to kill him earlier then.

Again, if they needed him dead to avoid very incriminating facts entering the record, presumably they’d do it before two days of depos.

Dude was sick and spited Boeing on his way out.

In a country that should really be in NATO if they’r had any balls for that matter

Huh I wonder if Ukraine and the West considered having Ukraine join NATO before the SMO? Did anyone consider that lmao.

Not to pile on you, but whether or not his domestic efforts are sufficient or at least worth holding ones nose, his treatment of Palestine is disqualifying to anyone w half a brain.

But apart from the moral question, which you evidently couldn’t be bothered by, if it’s such an easy choice, why is he polling so badly? It’s simple: he’s a bad candidate. He’s polling dreadfully in what should be another easy Dem win, he’s universally seen as being illequipped for the job (humiliations in Afghanistan (frankly one of few his unambiguous Ws), Ukraine, and now Palestine, with the Court, w Texas, ceding the immigration issue to Republicans, cant string two sentences together)-- why are you wasting energy caping for him? The Dems have enough time to replace him. You’d avoid these pitiable indignities.

I think she was 23, and he was 38 at the time.

Wow that’s just like being a paedophile.

Being able to subject yourself to unlimited pornography is good actually.

If Boeing killed him they would’ve done so before two full days worth of testimony.

Are you doing this pro se? Can you speak to someone who does legal aid (housing)?

ya i, cleverly or so i thought, squirrelled away enough money this year at the new job to cover me for a years of worth of (weekly? semi-weekly? i probably split the difference) psychotherapy appointments, which it appeared, despite what i think is pretty good health insurance, to require a non-deminimis copayment per appointment. free money, fuck the tax man, fund the the fsa. but, as it turns out, any telehealth behavioral apppointments are actually free on my plan, and i see my therapist by telehealth, so it’s all actually free, and so now ive earmarked thousands of dollars for the fsa which i now i have no plan for and only a small fraction will rollover at the end of the year.

so! will i get in a terrible car accident or be diagnosed with a terrible disease and be able to put that money to good use? or will i just buy the most expensive pair of oliver peoples glasses at the end of year, or buy a room full of diapers in a desperate attempt to prove to my ex i’m now reliable and responsible and good at money and planning (this being an unfortunate exception). time will tell!

Good Luck!

They did hwat with the hospitals? – y’all white people be different.

you shouldn’t want a bunch of half-assed document crimes

sure but this concerns the soft-coup shit, which i think should should be seen (and i think mostly is still seen) as serious.

the dems sat on their hands on this shit for years (how is AZ looking into this now lol) to make sure that Trump would be the nominee and the prosecutions would be in time to sink the republicans in the general. whether or not that was a smart play remains to be seen, but I think the forum undersells how poor the dems/biden might fare against a non-Trump candidate. in retrospect dems should’ve started the clock at least a bit earlier, obvs.

honestly it would be way cooler if more people made symbolic gestures in support of Palestine.

sorry sweety, the Palestinians should’ve realized it’s cringe. btw, have they read Settlers?

I have other things I could say but they’re illegal to say

You want well-meaning people who wear kuffyehs to be killed? 🤡

Seems like a very poor textual reading of the clause – if there was a requirement for enacting legislation, it would obviate the stipulation that the bar to hold office could be removed by legislative supermajority. (Like, why would the text say the bar could be ignored if you had 2/3 majority, when you could also just ignore the bar w/a bare majority?)