Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?

[Cooked Crack]

 

10 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

Most life insurance policies won't pay out in case of suicide for two years. That's a pretty standard clause. He probably had this policy for years, was having a hard time paying large premium on it, was sick, and decided to cash out. He didn't want the policy to lapse.

Thanks for the knowledge. Not trying to get caught up all in conspiracy mode.

[BornaSkinsFan83]

10 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

Most life insurance policies won't pay out in case of suicide for two years. He probably had this policy for years, was having a hard time paying large premium on it, was sick, and decided to cash out. He didn't want the policy to lapse.

Not related to this but I was actually talking to someone about this yesterday and maybe you can provide the answer: How do life insurance companies treat an "accidental drug overdose"? Depending on the answer, that would seem to be the way to go if you wanna kill yourself but are worried about the life insurance. 

[LadySkinsFan]

13 minutes ago, BornaSkinsFan83 said:

Not related to this but I was actually talking to someone about this yesterday and maybe you can provide the answer: How do life insurance companies treat an "accidental drug overdose"? Depending on the answer, that would seem to be the way to go if you wanna kill yourself but are worried about the life insurance. 

 

I don't have the answer to that. I'm guessing the autopsy/toxicology tests would tell the tale. 

 

[BornaSkinsFan83]

1 minute ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

I don't have the answer to that. I'm guessing the autopsy/toxicology tests would tell the tale. 

 

 

Yeah that's the thing, I'm not sure how they determining an accidental OD vs an intentional OD with an autopsy or lab tests. And this is an actual thing (accidental or intentional) that's going to just get bigger and bigger as our government continues to completely and totally **** the bed in the war against addiction so just curious how insurance companies are handling it. Plus work too. 

 

But anyway, this isn't something anyone here is concerned with, especially in this thread, so sorry to hijack. Getting back to more important matters...

 

**** Russia

[tshile]

I would assume that blood results show a range of accidental and a range of intentional

 

I bet intentional way over do it because they don't know what they're doing

 

Think: whole bottle of pills vs one or two too many and no one around to notice and help.

 

If you're smart enough to make it look like an accidental overdose, then I would imagine there's no way to tell. 

 

Edited July 13, 2017 by tshile

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

1 hour ago, BornaSkinsFan83 said:

Is alcoholic a slur now? 

I don't know about that but generally I would consider it unwise to hire alcoholics who continue to drink for positions such as lawyer to the POTUS or Redskins GM.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[visionary]

 

[LadySkinsFan]

Because he's in it up to his neck. 

[BornaSkinsFan83]

24 minutes ago, tshile said:

I would assume that blood results show a range of accidental and a range of intentional

 

I bet intentional way over do it because they don't know what they're doing

 

Think: whole bottle of pills vs one or two too many and no one around to notice and help.

 

 

 

Yeah I thought about that and think there's gonna be obvious cases where it's suicide. But with addicts? I don't know. Most of them are riding that overdose line every time they get high. They know where it is. They know what they're doing.

 

And then you have to factor in tolerance and as far as i know, there's no way to measure that in an individual. That's like with Kurt Cobain conspiracy theories, they say "oh there's no way he could have this much heroin in his system and still be conscious enough to pull the trigger." And I don't remember the exact figures, but anyone who has any experience with heroin is saying uh no, that's a strong but standard shot for an everyday user. (not making any of this up btw.)

 

I'd hate to see someone get cheated out of his parents life insurance policy because they developed an addiction from pain management treatment and it went too far (or whatever). And you know that's some grimey **** that an insurance company would do. 

 

Can a life insurance company nullify a policy after the fact because the person didn't disclose a medical issue? Then say said addiction was said issues and **** em like that?  Besides suicide, what can put the brakes on a life insurance claim? 

 

But for real, none of this matters so please nobody take time to go look up anything. Just shooting the **** with a coworker and got curious. 

 

 

But yeah, I'm so tempted to push a REMEMBER PETER SMITH conspiracy theory. Especially when Fredo has retweeted **** like this... 

 

 

And super especially after Seth Rich. (actually went by his murder scene over the weekend. Don't get me started. Ftr I was in the neighborhood. Not a complete weirdo.) But no, I'm not going to drool on myself and post Remember Peter Smith **** on my FB wall. Why? Because I don't give a **** about Peter Smith dying and I have respect for myself and don't want to pretend to be a ****ing idiot. Crazy concepts, I know. 

[BornaSkinsFan83]

10 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

I don't know about that but generally I would consider it unwise to hire alcoholics who continue to drink for positions such as lawyer to the POTUS or Redskins GM.

 

I mean the post you quoted was talking about morons and idiots and you kinda just substituted alcoholic for those so I was just wondering. 

 

You know it's the common wisdom is that once an alcoholic always an alcoholic. Even if they haven't touched it in, say, 50 years. I don't necessarily agree with that myself but that is the popular opinion, especially amongst the whole 12 steps/Anonymous community. So when do you think it's safe to hire an alcoholic? 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 14, 2017 by visionary

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

4 minutes ago, BornaSkinsFan83 said:

 

I mean the post you quoted was talking about morons and idiots and you kinda just substituted alcoholic for those so I was just wondering. 

I'd have to go back and look at it but that was not my intent. I was referring to the report about trumps lawyer being an alcoholic.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

30 minutes ago, BornaSkinsFan83 said:

TWEET: President Clinton fired his FBI director on July 19th, 1993, The Day before Vince Foster was found dead in Marcy Park.

Don Jr retweeted that.

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/donald-trump-jr-promotes-tweet-linking-firing-of-clintons-fbi-director-to-vince-foster-death/article/2622815

[tshile]

Maddow cracked me up tonight:

"How do you find a lawyer like this?! Much less a whole stable of them?!!"

 

[Cooked Crack]

The RNC paying legal fees for Trumpworld's Russia entanglements sounds idiotic. If a criminal conspiracy did take place do you really want to paying to defend these guys? Can't really distance yourself from Trump at all. Going to end up on the wrong side of history.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Cooked Crack

[tshile]

*trump Jr releases email showing he enthusiastically accepted meeting with Russian agent to get info on clinton*

 

This will go down as the day things turned real bad for trump

 

*trump lawyer theaters random dude who sends email in insane and wildly stupid and knuckledragging way*

 

Uh

Well

 

I give up.

 

[Larry]

7 hours ago, dfitzo53 said:

I do believe that some conservatives hold (fiscal conservatism) more dearly than almost anything else, there just isn't a candidate to really carry out that vision.

 

 

I will mention once again:  

 

The last time a Republican President left office with a smaller deficit than his predecessor, that President was Eisenhower.  

 

The last time a Democrat President left office with a larger deficit than his predecessor, the President was FDR.  

 

 

---

 

7 hours ago, visionary said:

Also says he wont't remove sanctions on Russia without getting something in return.

 

 

I could totally believe that.  

 

"Something in return" like a hotel in Moscow with his name on it.  

 

Edited July 14, 2017 by Larry

[Larry]

6 hours ago, haithman said:

If we know they house spys there why do we even entertain giving it back to them? I mean are these guys just this blatantly evil?

 

I don't have a problem with giving them back.  

 

I'm not crusading to do so, but I'm not going to be outraged if it happens, either.  

 

Yes, they were using diplomatically-protected property for spying.  All countries do that, to a greater or lesser degree.  And I feel like we kinda need to tolerate that, because it's in our interest for other countries to tolerate us doing it.  

 

Now, if there's some reason why these particular places were particularly offensive, then sure.  Consider it the real estate equivelant of "PNG"ing somebody.  

[Larry]

5 hours ago, PF Chang said:

Is there anyone in Trump's orbit who does not seem like a complete moron... I mean, this is the lawyer for the ****ing PRESIDENT and he seems to have the maturity of a kid in middle school. 

 

Well, there was an article saying that Trump was having trouble hiring good attorneys to defend him.  

 

The quote that stuck in my head was "He doesn't pay and he won't listen."  

[Skinz4Life12]

I just heard that it was on June 21st that Kushner had to amend his SF86.....jesus, that feels like 3 months ago the way this story has been developing..

 

the fact that he originally tried to hide this meeting that he was included in is pretty disturbing. how has his clearance not been revoked at a minimum? 

 

Edited July 14, 2017 by Skinz4Life12

[dfitzo53]

24 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I will mention once again:  

 

The last time a Republican President left office with a smaller deficit than his predecessor, that President was Eisenhower.  

 

The last time a Democrat President left office with a larger deficit than his predecessor, the President was FDR. 

 

I want to make sure my point is clear, because I think I'm being misunderstood.

 

I don't believe that any politician, at least any politician anywhere close to the mainstream, actually lives out conservative principles.  However, I do think there are conservative voters who would tell you they believe fiscal responsibility should be the government's main priority.  (My dad is one.)

[Larry]

As to the questions about What Trump Knew?  

 

I seem to remember somebody in this thread at least claiming that the timeline goes something like:  

 

Natasha requests meeting to discuss deal for dirt on Hillary.  

 

A couple of days later, Trump announces a major press conference, at which we will reveal major dirt on Hillary.  

 

A few days later, the meeting takes place.  (Trumpies all say no deal was made.)  

 

A few days later, Trump cancels the press conferences, but says that major dirt on Hillary is still coming.  

 

The RNC Convention.  Trump campaign successfully gets GOP to remove the plank in their platform that advocated the US selliing weapons to the country Russia is invading.  

 

Less than a week later, the day before the DNC Convention, Wikileaks is given the DNC emails.  

 

Seriously?  Trump didn't know about the negotiations that didn;t result in an agreement?  Cause it sure looks to me like he knew about the topic of the meeting before it even happened, knew more details about what his payoff was going to be, after the meeting, deliveref on his end of the deal that he claims wasn't made, and got paid for it.  

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Of course he knew. This is all so obvious. The only thing that gave me pause is how obvious it all is. Like, if Trump was colluding with Russia, he would at least try to hide it, right? Instead he just kisses Putin's ass and bends our country over for Russia every single chance he gets.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[skinny21]

2 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:

The RNC paying legal fees for Trumpworld's Russia entanglements sounds idiotic. If a criminal conspiracy did take place do you really want to paying to defend these guys? Can't really distance yourself from Trump at all. Going to end up on the wrong side of history.

And pay for the pleasure... yep.  

[skinny21]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

As to the questions about What Trump Knew?  

 

I seem to remember somebody in this thread at least claiming that the timeline goes something like:  

 

Natasha requests meeting to discuss deal for dirt on Hillary.  

 

A couple of days later, Trump announces a major press conference, at which we will reveal major dirt on Hillary.  

 

A few days later, the meeting takes place.  (Trumpies all say no deal was made.)  

 

A few days later, Trump cancels the press conferences, but says that major dirt on Hillary is still coming.  

 

The RNC Convention.  Trump campaign successfully gets GOP to remove the plank in their platform that advocated the US selliing weapons to the country Russia is invading.  

 

Less than a week later, the day before the DNC Convention, Wikileaks is given the DNC emails.  

 

Seriously?  Trump didn't know about the negotiations that didn;t result in an agreement?  Cause it sure looks to me like he knew about the topic of the meeting before it even happened, knew more details about what his payoff was going to be, after the meeting, deliveref on his end of the deal that he claims wasn't made, and got paid for it.  

 

Think you got it right there, though I can't recall the "dirt is still coming bit".   You may well be right, but that's even more damning than I recall considering that Wiki dump.

 

  Here's my deal - he called the press conference for a reason (he was going to spill some dirt on HRC) - so there's reason to believe it was either stuff from Don Jrs. meeting, or he thought he was getting info from Wikileaks.  So, the conference was cancelled either due to lack of info received at the meeting with the Russian lawyer, or (presumably) because someone convinced him that it would be better optics to let Wikileaks do the 'unveiling'*.  (if it was just a matter of maximum damage - releasing day before the DNC convention - he still would have been the one to divulge the info)

 

 

 

* there's also a chance that 1) Wikileaks didn't want to give the info to Trump (why would anyone believe that?) or 2) the info was deemed insignificant to live up to the planned press conference.  Either way - DTJ or Wiki - (ridiculous to deny both) Trump knew something, which is coordinating.  Given how the Intelligence community views WIkileaks, both of the above deal with coordinating with Russia... though he likely pleads ignorance to the Wiki/Russia connection.  

 

 

In the long run, I wonder if Trump's avoidance of details saves his bacon.  If the **** really hits the fan, the irony might be that he gets off due to psychological issues.