purbeast Posted August 29, 2022 Share Posted August 29, 2022 9 minutes ago, CobraCommander said: Declare him the winner on the last day of the term and then tell him he can’t be president again because he served his two terms, then watch his dumb fat head explode. But he demanded it be IMMEDIATELY!!!! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted August 29, 2022 Share Posted August 29, 2022 27 minutes ago, CobraCommander said: Declare him the winner on the last day of the term and then tell him he can’t be president again because he served his two terms, then watch his dumb fat head explode. Actually, if an incoming POTUS serves less than half the term, they are eligible to run for for a second term. That's the answer to the trick question "How long can one person currently serve as president?" One day shy of 10 years, not just 8 years. 27 minutes ago, CobraCommander said: Declare him the winner on the last day of the term and then tell him he can’t be president again because he served his two terms, then watch his dumb fat head explode. Actually, if an incoming POTUS serves less than half the term, they are eligible to run for for a second term. That's the answer to the trick question "How long can one person currently serve as president?" One day shy of 10 years, not just 8 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted August 29, 2022 Share Posted August 29, 2022 31 minutes ago, purbeast said: LMAO! If we take this to its logical conclusion, then we should actually declare Hillary president since in 2016 just weeks before the election the FBI sent a letter to Congress saying they had new info on her investigation, with full knowledge that it could easily affect the outcome. 1 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 29, 2022 Share Posted August 29, 2022 6 minutes ago, mistertim said: If we take this to its logical conclusion, then we should actually declare Hillary president since in 2016 just weeks before the election the FBI sent a letter to Congress saying they had new info on her investigation, with full knowledge that it could easily affect the outcome. Flaw in your point. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted August 29, 2022 Share Posted August 29, 2022 27 minutes ago, CobraCommander said: Declare him the winner on the last day of the term and then tell him he can’t be president again because he served his two terms, then watch his dumb fat head explode. Actually, if an incoming POTUS serves less than half the term, they are eligible to run for for a second term. That's the answer to the trick question "How long can one person currently serve as president?" One day shy of 10 years, not just 8 years. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted August 29, 2022 Share Posted August 29, 2022 Anyone know where I could find the answer to a trick question about how long a person can be President? 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted August 29, 2022 Share Posted August 29, 2022 Cutting Off Financing for the Next Capitol Insurrection The attack at the Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021, wasn’t cheap. The insurrectionists spent considerable sums to travel to Washington, D.C., purchase weapons and gear, hold events, and, afterward, pay their legal fees. The rally at the Ellipse that immediately preceded the riot at the Capitol cost roughly $500,000, including fees for a concert stage, $100,000 for grass covering, and security structures. The main groups involved in the insurrection continue to operate in the United States and use their funds to stage more events, pay legal fees arising from the riot (and new issues), and support organizational goals—including continued recruitment. While large individual donors are an important source of funds, access to even relatively small amounts of money, often through crowdfunding platforms, allowed plenty of insurrectionists to travel and participate in the attack on the Capitol. As a result, the Jan. 6 attack should not be viewed as a low-cost attack. Instead, the costs were distributed across many participants and donors, all of whom conspired to create a massively disruptive event and attempt to overthrow a democratically elected government—financing that activity with personal, institutional, and organizational funds. Using a combination of open-source materials, news reporting, and some primary documents, this analysis draws together disparate information about how the individuals, influencers, political operatives, and extremist groups and movements financed their activities leading up to, on, and after Jan 6. These sources show that the methods used by the Jan. 6 insurrectionists to organize and finance their activities are similar to those from the broader violent right-wing ecosystem. Understanding how these finance networks function could be used to prevent or disrupt their access to funding in the future. The Jan. 6 insurrectionists raised money through a variety of different methods but primarily through a combination of individual donors, formal and informal crowdfunding campaigns, and self-funding of travel and related expenses. One of the individual donors to the events surrounding Jan. 6 was Alex Jones, who pledged over $100,000 for various events. Jones also arranged for other donors to fund the roughly $500,000 in costs for the Ellipse rally. The three main groups involved in the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol—the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, and the Three Percenters—mobilized their own funding channels to support their actions. Click on the link for the full article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobraCommander Posted August 29, 2022 Share Posted August 29, 2022 3 hours ago, The Almighty Buzz said: Actually, if an incoming POTUS serves less than half the term, they are eligible to run for for a second term. That's the answer to the trick question "How long can one person currently serve as president?" One day shy of 10 years, not just 8 years. We can wait until after his big fat dumb head explodes before we let him know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted August 29, 2022 Share Posted August 29, 2022 (edited) 5 hours ago, purbeast said: 5 hours ago, purbeast said: LMAO! Holy ****. This tweet is real. This dude has lost his ****ing mind ! Edited August 29, 2022 by Rocky21 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forehead Posted August 29, 2022 Share Posted August 29, 2022 1 hour ago, Redskins Diehard said: Anyone know where I could find the answer to a trick question about how long a person can be President? Seems like the sort of thing Buzzette might know. We should ask her. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted August 29, 2022 Share Posted August 29, 2022 1 hour ago, Redskins Diehard said: Anyone know where I could find the answer to a trick question about how long a person can be President? I think Buzz knows I think Buzz knows I think Buzz knows 1 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fullnelson9999 Posted August 30, 2022 Share Posted August 30, 2022 6 hours ago, purbeast said: LMAO! 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted August 30, 2022 Share Posted August 30, 2022 On 8/28/2022 at 12:03 AM, China said: Now that the horse has left the barn and the DOJ has had a couple of weeks with the documents... Judge Signals Intent to Appoint Special Master in Mar-a-Lago Search Click on the link for the full article As I was saying... 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted August 30, 2022 Share Posted August 30, 2022 Every time I hear "Hunter laptop story buried" I think back to social media during the 2020 campaign season and I have an odd time trying to rectify the definition of "buried" because I quite remember seeing it every single day all over social media. It seemed like the only thing being messed with was the actual New York Post story itself, but it didn't stop any of the chatter or linking to hundreds of different sources or endless comment threads. I am curious to figure out who was it that was so eager to talk about the story....that wasn't able to? Hell, even FOX eventually dropped it because they didn't see much to it outside the gutter trash aspect of it (which I am a little surprised they didn't keep running with anyway). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ball Security Posted August 30, 2022 Share Posted August 30, 2022 55 months for this scum bag. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted August 30, 2022 Share Posted August 30, 2022 Trumpworld walks a line between predicting violence and threatening it It is generally understood that any indictment of former president Donald Trump would be rejected out of hand as corrupt by many of his most fervent supporters. There are further widespread worries that some of those supporters might engage in acts of violence in response. This is not idle speculation. The revelation that Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort had been the target of an FBI search this month led to a broad backlash against the bureau, with a spike in threats against agents and at least one attempt at violence. The political right’s view of the search began with its being an unwarranted overreach, a position that has been left largely unmodified as more details emerge. There’s an obvious parallel here: Trump and his allies repeatedly insisted that the 2020 election was tainted and, on Jan. 6, 2021, his supporters violently pushed past law enforcement and overran the Capitol. That this risk exists is unquestionably a complicating factor for the Justice Department as it picks its way forward in its investigation into Trump. Attorney General Merrick Garland reportedly spent weeks considering the Mar-a-Lago search before ultimately approving it, a consideration that certainly included the expected response. But there is an important difference between understanding the existing threat and leveraging it. In an interview on Fox News on Sunday evening, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) rationalized why Trump supporters would be furious at an indictment. “There’s a double standard when it comes to Trump,” Graham told host Trey Gowdy. He articulated this “double standard” in familiar ways, including disparaging the investigation into Russian interference. “I’ll say this,” Graham continued, referring to Gowdy’s role leading the House investigation into Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of an email server as part of the probe of the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, “if there’s a prosecution of Donald Trump for mishandling classified information after the Clinton debacle, which you presided over and did … a good job, there’ll be riots in the streets.” Before the end of his interview, Graham returned to this point. “If they try to prosecute President Trump for mishandling classified information after Hillary Clinton set up a server in her basement,” Graham said, “there literally will be riots in the street. I worry about our country.” Gowdy agreed. So did Trump. Soon after the segment aired, Trump shared a clip of it on Truth Social, without comment. Now the question becomes: Why? Why did Graham reiterate his point about “riots”? And why did Trump decide to share it with his followers on the social media platform he runs? Trump, eager to throw any roadblock in front of a criminal probe, readily amplified that suggestion. Where Graham was rationalizing possible violence, Trump appeared to be threatening it. And even recent history suggests that when Trump nods at violence or unrest, some part of his base takes him very seriously. Click on the link for the full article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chew Posted August 30, 2022 Share Posted August 30, 2022 4 minutes ago, Ball Security said: 55 months for this scum bag. I went to middle school and high school with him. He was a chill dude, we'd talk about Wu-Tang in Phys Ed. I'm not sure what happened to him in his adult life, but he was not like this when we were teens. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLSkinz83 Posted August 30, 2022 Share Posted August 30, 2022 2 hours ago, NoCalMike said: Every time I hear "Hunter laptop story buried" I think back to social media during the 2020 campaign season and I have an odd time trying to rectify the definition of "buried" because I quite remember seeing it every single day all over social media. It seemed like the only thing being messed with was the actual New York Post story itself, but it didn't stop any of the chatter or linking to hundreds of different sources or endless comment threads. I am curious to figure out who was it that was so eager to talk about the story....that wasn't able to? Hell, even FOX eventually dropped it because they didn't see much to it outside the gutter trash aspect of it (which I am a little surprised they didn't keep running with anyway). What percentage of voters do you think are on social media? My guess is much less than 50% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted August 30, 2022 Share Posted August 30, 2022 2 minutes ago, FLSkinz83 said: What percentage of voters do you think are on social media? My guess is much less than 50% Really? I feel like I’m the only person I know not on instagram Facebook and whatever the else is out there don’t believe I’ve heard one person admit to being on truth social or whatever that thing is retruthes 😂 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted August 30, 2022 Share Posted August 30, 2022 3 minutes ago, FLSkinz83 said: What percentage of voters do you think are on social media? My guess is much less than 50% Demographics of Social Media When Pew Research Center began tracking social media adoption in 2005, just 5% of American adults used at least one of these platforms. By 2011 that share had risen to half of all Americans, and today 72% of the public uses some type of social media. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLSkinz83 Posted August 30, 2022 Share Posted August 30, 2022 7 minutes ago, China said: Demographics of Social Media When Pew Research Center began tracking social media adoption in 2005, just 5% of American adults used at least one of these platforms. By 2011 that share had risen to half of all Americans, and today 72% of the public uses some type of social media. That's fuzzy math, I think. There are plenty of old people that have Facebook, but are they active on it? Not really. Maybe the better question on my part would be how many voters get their info from social media? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 30, 2022 Share Posted August 30, 2022 59 minutes ago, FLSkinz83 said: Maybe the better question on my part would be how many voters get their info from social media? 90% of Republicans. Maybe 50% of "undecideds". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted August 30, 2022 Share Posted August 30, 2022 6 hours ago, Larry said: 90% of Republicans. Maybe 50% of "undecideds". They're just doing their own research 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted August 30, 2022 Share Posted August 30, 2022 (edited) 7 hours ago, Larry said: 90% of Republicans. Maybe 50% of "undecideds". You honestly think getting info from social media is a uniquely republican issue? Edited August 30, 2022 by tshile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted August 30, 2022 Share Posted August 30, 2022 (edited) 9 hours ago, FLSkinz83 said: What percentage of voters do you think are on social media? My guess is much less than 50% 8 hours ago, FLSkinz83 said: That's fuzzy math, I think. There are plenty of old people that have Facebook, but are they active on it? Not really. Maybe the better question on my part would be how many voters get their info from social media? The interrogation schtick again! Anyhoo…it’s another utterly bizarre component of modern “conservatism”. On the one hand, all mainstream media sources are hopelessly corrupt and biased. But on the other hand, our slanderous twitter-sphere boondoggles/Russian meme witch hunts must be covered extensively and therefore authenticated by these same hopelessly corrupt and biased media organizations. And the (tan suit) tantrums continue… Edited August 30, 2022 by TradeTheBeal! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now