Trump has now officially asserted Executive Privilege in regards to the unredacted Mueller Report. You know, the one that totally exonerates him. Any student of history knows Executive Privilege is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Ha! We might yet see an attempted impeachment. Oh the drama. I'm still not sure I want to see a President Pence, but if Trump is ousted that'll open up the primary field for conservatives I actually like. Believe it or not I'm all for impeaching this doofus as long as it's not a horse-and-pony show political ploy to garner points by the Democrats (meaning at least some Republican Senators would need to get on-board or its a waste of time and effort).
There is zero chance the Senate convicts. That isn't the point. Neither is the long-term political impact on the Democrat's electoral chances. They need to do it because it's the right thing to do. Because if they don't the precedent is lawlessness going forward.
It's sad how people think Hollywood actually reflects reality.
No, i live in a city where some Italian families ruled over about 10 years ago and now that they lost influences by a lot of factors, the city is much more unsafer, dirty, chaotic and a lot of business is closing. 10 years ago, see an homeless was something rare. Now i walk to my college and see dozens of then...
Anyway, how impeachment works on US?
@Balrog99: You've mentioned before that you would prefer Trump to Pence. Why is that? I would have thought Pence would be the less objectionable president on most subjects, both for conservatives and liberals.
Pence is too religious and seems to have a stick up his butt. Not my type of person. Al Gore struck me the same way (minus the religion).
Most predictions put Trump at 30%; not 1%. Only the absolute most extreme predictions put him at just 1%.
It's interesting that the Iranians waited so long to step back from the nuclear agreement. For a very long time, they stuck with the agreement despite Trump unilaterally withdrawing. Maybe that period of patience was able to give them some credibility when trying to ask the EU to make up for Trump's actions by trading oil with Iran in spite of U.S. sanctions.
It's all very funny that we continue to harp on this as nearly anytime I make more than 5 consecutive posts about a topic I am subjected to this same tactic over and over. "What about this subject? Why don't you talk about X?"
There is zero chance the Senate convicts. That isn't the point. Neither is the long-term political impact on the Democrat's electoral chances. They need to do it because it's the right thing to do. Because if they don't the precedent is lawlessness going forward.
I somewhat disagree with this. I understand your point, but equally damning (perhaps more damning) would be the precedent of letting someone like him win reelection despite everything he's done. Impeaching him with the senate voting to acquit would raise his chances of reelection.
As bad as everything he has done is, the chief and most important outcome needs to be that he does not win a second term.
Well regardless of the whataboutism or is Pence ok or not, Trump and Barr and Republicans are involved in a cover up.
The last second executive privilege ploy is a cover up.
There is a cover up going on and there has been since Barr released his intentionally misleading memo after seemingly ending the probe early on top of that.
Constitutional crisis. There is a Republican coup over the Constitution going on right now to cover the sorry butt of the biggest loser in American taxpayer history.
They will sink to any low, make any lie and pretend otherwise but they will do anything but admit they have hitched their wagons to a conman while he drags them beneath the waves.
@Balrog99: You've mentioned before that you would prefer Trump to Pence. Why is that? I would have thought Pence would be the less objectionable president on most subjects, both for conservatives and liberals.
I agree with Balrog99. From my point of view, Trump is undirected. His only agenda is self-aggrandizement, both monetarily and personally. Pence has an Agenda. He seems to truly believe that loyalty to his particular religious organization is more important than loyalty to the US. He also seems to think that using the coercive power of the state to enforce the rules and regulations of that organization is right and proper.
Under Trump, I'm embarrassed, disgusted and frustrated. Under Pence, I would be afraid.
Most predictions put Trump at 30%; not 1%. Only the absolute most extreme predictions put him at just 1%.
It's interesting that the Iranians waited so long to step back from the nuclear agreement. For a very long time, they stuck with the agreement despite Trump unilaterally withdrawing. Maybe that period of patience was able to give them some credibility when trying to ask the EU to make up for Trump's actions by trading oil with Iran in spite of U.S. sanctions.
The Iranians have been quite careful about what they've done - see this report. They're claiming that their current actions still fall within the agreement and, though that may be dubious, that's likely to hold for the short term. We are talking about the short term as Iran has said they will take further action in 60 days if the Europeans don't hold up their end of the agreement.
The Iranians do have a strong argument that, while they have been in compliance with the agreement, the remaining parties have not. The agreement was to end sanctions and the US pulling out and reimposing sanctions means that the original intentions of the agreement are no longer being fulfilled. The Europeans have set up a new trading system to bypass US sanctions, but that system is currently only available for certain types of goods - and those don't include oil. Allowing trading of oil through that system would certainly exacerbate the dispute between Europe and the US, but if that is not done then it's not obvious why Iran should stick to the agreement themselves.
The examples of North Korea and Iran over the last couple of years would seem to provide a strong argument to other countries to get nuclear weapons as soon as possible, in order to provide a better base for negotiations. The original intention of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was to provide an international mechanism to promote security, but with the US' current dislike of international mechanisms we're moving back to a 'might makes right' position. A nuclear arms race in the Middle East could be just one nasty result of this.
I'm hoping the EU will respond positively. It's important to keep that nuclear program under control, and as long as the Iranians don't break that end of the deal, there's no reason to punish them. The EU and Iran should be able to continue enforcing the deal in spite of Trump's opposition.
Personally, I would prefer a president Pence. I would strongly disagree with him on certain issues, but he is not a personal embarrassment or a criminal from what I can tell. A homophobe is far superior to a white collar criminal; a far-right conservative Christian is far better than a man with no principles at all; a man with wrong ideas is far better than a man with selfish motives. Impeachment would at least mean American institutions wouldn't be actively undermined every other week.
I want a president who doesn't spend half his work day watching TV.
It's all very funny that we continue to harp on this as nearly anytime I make more than 5 consecutive posts about a topic I am subjected to this same tactic over and over. "What about this subject? Why don't you talk about X?"
I'd be surprised if it came to that, maybe, sorta.
I think the FBI and local police have things under control when it comes to vigilante groups at the border. There has been more than enough time for a migrant to be murdered by some gun toting lunatic if was going to happen.
There is good reason why Trump has sent the military down to "protect the border" and it wasn't to protect against the migrants. It was to protect it from his supporters.
That said, it only takes one gun toting lunatic to slip through the cracks to cause a controversy.
A Small Arms Survey paper reported that in India, 2.5 million illegal craft-made guns are manufactured annually. 53,272 were reported to have been confiscated in 2014. The quality of craft-made Indian guns has been improving from simple single shots to semi-automatic handguns.
(...)
The next largest number of privately held firearms is in China, at nearly 50 million! Only 1.4 percent of those are registered. Education and industrialization in China have been increasing. The Small Arms Survey reports that craftsmen in the Songtao Miao Autonomous County in Guizhou province make black market semi-automatic pistols for about $45 each. In the coastal cities, they sell for about $1500.
(...)
Ten percent of the murders committed, in the world, are committed in Brazil. The vast majority of them are committed with illegally owned firearms. There were four times as many murders in Brazil as in the United States, in 2017. Brazil's population is smaller.
https://www.ammoland.com/2018/12/draconian-gun-control-does-not-reduce-gun-numbers-or-homicide-rates/#axzz5nQx6C3WW
I just don't know why people tend to treat government as a type of God. When the government decides to force you to become an soldier, few people complain. But what if an private military company like Black Water do the same? Or what if an criminal group takes out an region and decide to have monopoly on guns? They are not being awful like the government is?
So Georgia is basically attempting to make it illegal to have an abortion after 6 weeks. Not only that, the bill says that if a woman who lives in Georgia even LEAVES Georgia to go to DIFFERENT state to have an abortion, she is subject to 10 years in prison. So if this is their plan, let's go whole hog. If a fetus is going to make women subject to criminal penalties at 6 weeks, then let's also do the following:
1.) Make the father start child support payments at 6 weeks
2.) Make it so you can claim the fetus as a dependent on your taxes at 6 weeks
3.) If a undocumented immigrant is found to be 6 weeks pregnant, you clearly CAN'T deport them because they are now carrying a US citizen inside of them.
4.) Start counting the 6 week old fetus on the census.
Because it any of the pro-life crowd objects to any of this, then their arguments are horseshit. I know for a fact @ThacoBell would be fine with these stipulations being added. I'm not so sure about the majority of Republican lawmakers or voters.
Let's go all the way. Let's add some stuff.
Financial assitance for pregnant women. This would include:
a) Food support.
b) Insurance
c) Medical care (for the full duration of pregnancy and include follow up after care for a period of time after the birth)
d) Psychological evaluation and support during and after the pregnancy (postpartem depression is a very real thing. Doubly so if FORCED to carry a child to term)
e) Gym membership (After all, the woman's body was wrecked by the pregnancy)
f) Child support from the government in instances of the father not able to pay support. (missing, dead, in prision, etc)
This would all be zero cost to the mother. If the parents don't want the child, and the government is going to force them through the whole pregnancy, then it needs to step in and provide for the children, and pay the parent(s) for their time, pain, and suffering.
As for the child, they would require:
1. Someone to care for them.
2. Housing.
3. Education.
4. Job training eventually.
5. Clothing
(I'm gonna stop here. This list could go on.)
Hmmm, seems like we need to overhaul the adoption system too. Make it more affordable for families to go through the process. At one point, the "return" rate for adopted children was near 50%. Yikes.
Man, this is all really expensive and points out weaknesses in other areas. Its almost like just stopping abortions isn't going to actually save anyone long term. This doesn't even begin to address instances where the abortion may be required to save the mother from catastrophic pregnancy failure. I DO NOT advocate for for forcing anyone to go through all this by force. Education and changing minds is the way to go. People should CHOOSE life for their children, not have the choice forced on them.
I would be all for all of these points being implemented regardless, including @jjstraka34 's above.
*edited to add*
Heck, let's encourage women to spare the child, pay them a stipend (or better yet, a salary) if they choose to carry the child to term instead of aborting them. Pregnancy can ruin a woman's ability to work in some cases, and they would still have bills to pay.
Let's go all the way. Let's add some stuff.
Financial assitance for pregnant women. This would include:
a) Food support.
b) Insurance
c) Medical care (for the full duration of pregnancy and include follow up after care for a period of time after the birth)
d) Psychological evaluation and support during and after the pregnancy (postpartem depression is a very real thing. Doubly so if FORCED to carry a child to term)
e) Gym membership (After all, the woman's body was wrecked by the pregnancy)
f) Child support from the government in instances of the father not able to pay support. (missing, dead, in prision, etc)
This would all be zero cost to the mother. If the parents don't want the child, and the government is going to force them through the whole pregnancy, then it needs to step in and provide for the children, and pay the parent(s) for their time, pain, and suffering.
As for the child, they would require:
1. Someone to care for them.
2. Housing.
3. Education.
4. Job training eventually.
5. Clothing
(I'm gonna stop here. This list could go on.)
Hmmm, seems like we need to overhaul the adoption system too. Make it more affordable for families to go through the process. At one point, the "return" rate for adopted children was near 50%. Yikes.
Man, this is all really expensive and points out weaknesses in other areas. Its almost like just stopping abortions isn't going to actually save anyone long term. This doesn't even begin to address instances where the abortion may be required to save the mother from catastrophic pregnancy failure. I DO NOT advocate for for forcing anyone to go through all this by force. Education and changing minds is the way to go. People should CHOOSE life for their children, not have the choice forced on them.
I would be all for all of these points being implemented regardless, including @jjstraka34 's above.
*edited to add*
Heck, let's encourage women to spare the child, pay them a stipend (or better yet, a salary) if they choose to carry the child to term instead of aborting them. Pregnancy can ruin a woman's ability to work in some cases, and they would still have bills to pay.
You can "return" adopted children?? What, do they have a 6 week trial period??
@jjstraka34 There is (or at least used to be) a trial period. I'm pretty sure its still a thing. Some children end up for adoption old enough to remember their original parents and this makes it harder for them to become attached to the new people they live with. Some "parents" feel that they are owed love simply because they signed a paper, and when things get difficult, they return the child. There has been at least one instance where an attempt at "therapy" to make a bond form between a child and the new parent, ended up horribly killing a little girl.
I've found a few statistics. Adoptions can "disrupt" or "dissolve" depending on how far intot he process you are. A disrupted adoption is when the child is living with the new family, but leaves before the adoption has been fully legally finalized. The older a child is, the more often this occurs. About 10-16% for children over 3, and antwhere from 10-25% for children 10-17.
A dissolved adoption is a fully legally finalized adoption that is ended. So not even a trial period, they can end for a number of reasons. The numbers are a little bit lower, with dissolution rates of children older than 3 about 10% of the time. With dissolution rates of children aged 10-17 being about 25%.
Conservative politicians might not care, but I have little doubt that conservative citizens do care. I know a whole bunch of conservatives who care very dearly about the unborn. @ThacoBell sure as hell does.
The MOST egregious part of the bill is the criminal penalty (up to 10 years) for seeking a legal procedure in other states. Again, the party of limited government and state's rights is essentially saying a resident of Georgia who gets pregnant is then a prisoner of that state for 9 months with NO RIGHT to leave the state and seek the procedure elsewhere.
Since this bill focuses on "the children," in my opinion it doesn't go far enough. Also, a game like Candy Crush isn't marketed towards children, it is still marketed towards 24 - 45 year old females with child like graphics to give the game an innocent look and feel when playing.
There is no way for a company to determine if the end user is actually older than 18 unless they store highly sensitive, personal information like credit card numbers, somewhere on their servers, a risk many people wouldn't take to waste on a free to play game.
I've said it before: if Republicans actually wanted to prevent abortions and save fetuses, they could do it tomorrow. Just make it so that carrying a child to term and dealing with everything involved in doing so is not a burden for women - for their health, for their careers, etc. And put men on the hook for support.
That's it - there would be no more abortions. It's called "incentives," they work and conservatives usually love them.
Sadly, there is more to Abortion than this. Abortions aren't often had for convenience or fun.
They are sometimes medically necessary, can't find a link this second but saw something about a woman pregnant with triplets but one of them had major medical problems and the best thing for the other two would be an abortion of the defective one but no, she lost them all because she couldn't get an abortion.
Also, rape. Rape happens. You wouldn't want a raped women to have a baby from her rapist?
Republicans in Alabama (and elsewhere) would
A bill that provides no exceptions for rape or incest and classifies an abortion a Class A felony in the state is going to be pushed through.
Sadly, conservatives don't actually give a crap about fetuses, or morals, or religion.
Your goddamn right about this.
Here's more context on "Loser Donald" and his more than 1 billion dollar loss over 9 years of taxes that the Times was been able obtain
- No he didn't make make money some years, lose money others. He lost so money every year despite being born on 3rd base with $418 million (adjusted dollars) from his dad
- His losses in 1990 and 1991, exceeding $250M each year, were more than double the next biggest loser according to publicly available information.
- 2 weeks before stock market crash in '87 Trump bought a 282 ft yacht worth 29 million dollars that was later repossessed due to bankruptcy.
- He lost money on casinos that went bankrupt and don't exist anymore - what happened to "the house always wins"
- He ran scams by buying stocks in companies then suggesting (presumably as John Barron) that he was going to buy out the company, which caused investors to buy stock and the price of the shares to go up, at which point he sold his shares for a profit - and he never bought the companies. Eventually, shareholders figured out this scam and didn't artificially increase the stock prices and Trump lost all the gains he'd made on that scam.
- He bragged on twitter yesterday than not paying taxes is "sport". Apparently it's a sport that we can't play because we aren't born with millions of dollars and it's only for him and rich people to not pay taxes.
- So he's bragging either about being totally incompetent or being a tax cheat.
Context is everything. Given that the photo was posted under the headline "Royal baby leaves hospital" and that he was the first mixed race baby to be born into the royal family of a country that is acutely aware of the problems around racism it is hardly surprising that the British Broadcasting Corporation felt that they had no option other than to fire him.
Here we go again. 12 billion in welfare to farmers because of Trump's Chinese tariffs. How long do you think it will be before we start hearing from conservatives about how this just breeds laziness among the farmers and that giving them money doesn't give them any incentive to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and grow another crop that the President (whom most of them voted for) isn't tanking the market for?? Because my guess that day is "never". For the record, this single planned payment is equal to nearly 20% of the food stamp budget for the ENTIRE country for a year:
Comments
There is zero chance the Senate convicts. That isn't the point. Neither is the long-term political impact on the Democrat's electoral chances. They need to do it because it's the right thing to do. Because if they don't the precedent is lawlessness going forward.
No, i live in a city where some Italian families ruled over about 10 years ago and now that they lost influences by a lot of factors, the city is much more unsafer, dirty, chaotic and a lot of business is closing. 10 years ago, see an homeless was something rare. Now i walk to my college and see dozens of then...
Anyway, how impeachment works on US?
The last poll is a bad news for republicans and good news for democrats https://www.theblaze.com/news/trump-2020-biden-sanders-fox-news-poll
But maybe the polls are wrong. Remember, according to the media, Bolsonaro and Trump had less than 1% of get elected.
Pence is too religious and seems to have a stick up his butt. Not my type of person. Al Gore struck me the same way (minus the religion).
It's interesting that the Iranians waited so long to step back from the nuclear agreement. For a very long time, they stuck with the agreement despite Trump unilaterally withdrawing. Maybe that period of patience was able to give them some credibility when trying to ask the EU to make up for Trump's actions by trading oil with Iran in spite of U.S. sanctions.
It's all very funny that we continue to harp on this as nearly anytime I make more than 5 consecutive posts about a topic I am subjected to this same tactic over and over. "What about this subject? Why don't you talk about X?"
Let's stop the false high ground.
I somewhat disagree with this. I understand your point, but equally damning (perhaps more damning) would be the precedent of letting someone like him win reelection despite everything he's done. Impeaching him with the senate voting to acquit would raise his chances of reelection.
As bad as everything he has done is, the chief and most important outcome needs to be that he does not win a second term.
The last second executive privilege ploy is a cover up.
There is a cover up going on and there has been since Barr released his intentionally misleading memo after seemingly ending the probe early on top of that.
Constitutional crisis. There is a Republican coup over the Constitution going on right now to cover the sorry butt of the biggest loser in American taxpayer history.
They will sink to any low, make any lie and pretend otherwise but they will do anything but admit they have hitched their wagons to a conman while he drags them beneath the waves.
I agree with Balrog99. From my point of view, Trump is undirected. His only agenda is self-aggrandizement, both monetarily and personally. Pence has an Agenda. He seems to truly believe that loyalty to his particular religious organization is more important than loyalty to the US. He also seems to think that using the coercive power of the state to enforce the rules and regulations of that organization is right and proper.
Under Trump, I'm embarrassed, disgusted and frustrated. Under Pence, I would be afraid.
The Iranians have been quite careful about what they've done - see this report. They're claiming that their current actions still fall within the agreement and, though that may be dubious, that's likely to hold for the short term. We are talking about the short term as Iran has said they will take further action in 60 days if the Europeans don't hold up their end of the agreement.
The Iranians do have a strong argument that, while they have been in compliance with the agreement, the remaining parties have not. The agreement was to end sanctions and the US pulling out and reimposing sanctions means that the original intentions of the agreement are no longer being fulfilled. The Europeans have set up a new trading system to bypass US sanctions, but that system is currently only available for certain types of goods - and those don't include oil. Allowing trading of oil through that system would certainly exacerbate the dispute between Europe and the US, but if that is not done then it's not obvious why Iran should stick to the agreement themselves.
The examples of North Korea and Iran over the last couple of years would seem to provide a strong argument to other countries to get nuclear weapons as soon as possible, in order to provide a better base for negotiations. The original intention of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was to provide an international mechanism to promote security, but with the US' current dislike of international mechanisms we're moving back to a 'might makes right' position. A nuclear arms race in the Middle East could be just one nasty result of this.
Personally, I would prefer a president Pence. I would strongly disagree with him on certain issues, but he is not a personal embarrassment or a criminal from what I can tell. A homophobe is far superior to a white collar criminal; a far-right conservative Christian is far better than a man with no principles at all; a man with wrong ideas is far better than a man with selfish motives. Impeachment would at least mean American institutions wouldn't be actively undermined every other week.
I want a president who doesn't spend half his work day watching TV.
My comment was not in direct response to you.
Not surprised in the least. LAUGHING about shooting refugees.
I think the FBI and local police have things under control when it comes to vigilante groups at the border. There has been more than enough time for a migrant to be murdered by some gun toting lunatic if was going to happen.
There is good reason why Trump has sent the military down to "protect the border" and it wasn't to protect against the migrants. It was to protect it from his supporters.
That said, it only takes one gun toting lunatic to slip through the cracks to cause a controversy.
https://www.ammoland.com/2018/12/draconian-gun-control-does-not-reduce-gun-numbers-or-homicide-rates/#axzz5nQx6C3WW
I just don't know why people tend to treat government as a type of God. When the government decides to force you to become an soldier, few people complain. But what if an private military company like Black Water do the same? Or what if an criminal group takes out an region and decide to have monopoly on guns? They are not being awful like the government is?
1.) Make the father start child support payments at 6 weeks
2.) Make it so you can claim the fetus as a dependent on your taxes at 6 weeks
3.) If a undocumented immigrant is found to be 6 weeks pregnant, you clearly CAN'T deport them because they are now carrying a US citizen inside of them.
4.) Start counting the 6 week old fetus on the census.
Because it any of the pro-life crowd objects to any of this, then their arguments are horseshit. I know for a fact @ThacoBell would be fine with these stipulations being added. I'm not so sure about the majority of Republican lawmakers or voters.
Financial assitance for pregnant women. This would include:
a) Food support.
b) Insurance
c) Medical care (for the full duration of pregnancy and include follow up after care for a period of time after the birth)
d) Psychological evaluation and support during and after the pregnancy (postpartem depression is a very real thing. Doubly so if FORCED to carry a child to term)
e) Gym membership (After all, the woman's body was wrecked by the pregnancy)
f) Child support from the government in instances of the father not able to pay support. (missing, dead, in prision, etc)
This would all be zero cost to the mother. If the parents don't want the child, and the government is going to force them through the whole pregnancy, then it needs to step in and provide for the children, and pay the parent(s) for their time, pain, and suffering.
As for the child, they would require:
1. Someone to care for them.
2. Housing.
3. Education.
4. Job training eventually.
5. Clothing
(I'm gonna stop here. This list could go on.)
Hmmm, seems like we need to overhaul the adoption system too. Make it more affordable for families to go through the process. At one point, the "return" rate for adopted children was near 50%. Yikes.
Man, this is all really expensive and points out weaknesses in other areas. Its almost like just stopping abortions isn't going to actually save anyone long term. This doesn't even begin to address instances where the abortion may be required to save the mother from catastrophic pregnancy failure. I DO NOT advocate for for forcing anyone to go through all this by force. Education and changing minds is the way to go. People should CHOOSE life for their children, not have the choice forced on them.
I would be all for all of these points being implemented regardless, including @jjstraka34 's above.
*edited to add*
Heck, let's encourage women to spare the child, pay them a stipend (or better yet, a salary) if they choose to carry the child to term instead of aborting them. Pregnancy can ruin a woman's ability to work in some cases, and they would still have bills to pay.
You can "return" adopted children?? What, do they have a 6 week trial period??
I've found a few statistics. Adoptions can "disrupt" or "dissolve" depending on how far intot he process you are. A disrupted adoption is when the child is living with the new family, but leaves before the adoption has been fully legally finalized. The older a child is, the more often this occurs. About 10-16% for children over 3, and antwhere from 10-25% for children 10-17.
A dissolved adoption is a fully legally finalized adoption that is ended. So not even a trial period, they can end for a number of reasons. The numbers are a little bit lower, with dissolution rates of children older than 3 about 10% of the time. With dissolution rates of children aged 10-17 being about 25%.
These numbers vary depending on the individual study, so I've provided a range. I've taken these numbers from a report from 2012.
U.S. Senator Introduces Bill To Ban Loot Boxes And Pay-To-Win Microtransactions
Since this bill focuses on "the children," in my opinion it doesn't go far enough. Also, a game like Candy Crush isn't marketed towards children, it is still marketed towards 24 - 45 year old females with child like graphics to give the game an innocent look and feel when playing.
There is no way for a company to determine if the end user is actually older than 18 unless they store highly sensitive, personal information like credit card numbers, somewhere on their servers, a risk many people wouldn't take to waste on a free to play game.
Sadly, there is more to Abortion than this. Abortions aren't often had for convenience or fun.
They are sometimes medically necessary, can't find a link this second but saw something about a woman pregnant with triplets but one of them had major medical problems and the best thing for the other two would be an abortion of the defective one but no, she lost them all because she couldn't get an abortion.
Also, rape. Rape happens. You wouldn't want a raped women to have a baby from her rapist?
Republicans in Alabama (and elsewhere) would
A bill that provides no exceptions for rape or incest and classifies an abortion a Class A felony in the state is going to be pushed through.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alabama-abortion-law-2019-chaos-on-senate-floor-today-while-state-lawmakers-debate-near-total-abortion-ban-2019-05-09/
Your goddamn right about this.
Here's more context on "Loser Donald" and his more than 1 billion dollar loss over 9 years of taxes that the Times was been able obtain
- No he didn't make make money some years, lose money others. He lost so money every year despite being born on 3rd base with $418 million (adjusted dollars) from his dad
- His losses in 1990 and 1991, exceeding $250M each year, were more than double the next biggest loser according to publicly available information.
- 2 weeks before stock market crash in '87 Trump bought a 282 ft yacht worth 29 million dollars that was later repossessed due to bankruptcy.
- He lost money on casinos that went bankrupt and don't exist anymore - what happened to "the house always wins"
- He ran scams by buying stocks in companies then suggesting (presumably as John Barron) that he was going to buy out the company, which caused investors to buy stock and the price of the shares to go up, at which point he sold his shares for a profit - and he never bought the companies. Eventually, shareholders figured out this scam and didn't artificially increase the stock prices and Trump lost all the gains he'd made on that scam.
- He bragged on twitter yesterday than not paying taxes is "sport". Apparently it's a sport that we can't play because we aren't born with millions of dollars and it's only for him and rich people to not pay taxes.
- So he's bragging either about being totally incompetent or being a tax cheat.
https://www.facebook.com/ontheoffenssive/photos/a.301066003616204/1024060551316742/