I think they'd fit right in in Kansas. A real threat would be "I'm going to drop you off at SFO". Or maybe Mexico.

The mayor of New York just cut all contracts with Trump.
The multiple contracts the Trump organization has with New York city all include a clause negating the contract if any of the companies leaders commit criminal activity. Treason and sedition and inciting a riot fit that bill, so they have ended all business contracts and will hire other vendors to handle their properties.
It's pretty likely other states will follow suit.
The PGA has cut all ties.
Shopify no longer sells Trump merchandise or products like Ivanka's clothing line.
His banks, Signature and Deutsche bank have both said they will do no new business, but won't walk away from the $340 million he owes them, business loans personally guaranteed by Trump.
Sounds to me like all revenue is drying up just when $700-$1000 million in debts are coming due...Barron is going to need a job flipping burgers, he's only going to inherit debt and hatred.

If only we COULD cancel those 72 million who supported treasonous Trump and his coup. Cancel their citizenship, their government benefits, their air travel, their bank accounts, and their freedom. They are treasonous terrorists, and deserve to be treated as such.

If it was a white Republican woman, he would be throwing a frothing fit and blaming democrats somehow, not saying she got a great deal being violated because she’s going to get paid. In fact, when it was a white scientist in Florida having her home raided he called it tyranny, this he calls a boon for the victim ignoring the fact that it took her lawyer ignoring a court order to bring it to light because the entire city government tried to hide it for over a year.

He loves to blame victims for not just complying with being violated (like she did) when they’re black, and loves to bemoan the draconian deep state police when they go after whites, even violent white right wingers, especially armed right wing thugs attacking government buildings and employees. He’s a bootlicker, but inconsistently.

I wasn't and am not kidding about the bet. It's not vindictive. I'm sick of hearing bulllllllllllllllllllllllshit from these people. I have the attorney lined up, escrow seems simple enough. And the multiple posts were deliberate to draw attention.

These people get on here and reddit and w.e else spouting their bullshit hurting people. Go look on amazon, search for "vaccine" - the top 50 results in the books will be conspiracy nonsense. I'm of the mindset that these people don't actually believe these things themselves. If he did, he'd take my bet immediately. (still very interested if you're reading this bob) But he won't because he doesn't. And i stroll through the internet getting my argument quirks out to know where my faults are. I'm practicing if you don't mind.

Although, you're right, it is somewhat vindictive at this moment- I'm too numb to these trolls and you gotta speak their troll language to get their attention. Bob doesn't respond to well reasoned arguments, he only responds to crazy bullshit. I stand on what I've already said. The damage being done is incalculable, but i can personally say that 5 teachers from my school have died of Covid 19. The harm from this nonsense is real, and if he's made slightly uncomfortable by 3-5? (idk i dont even care to look) comments on his "personal videosift profile," - too fucking bad for him, or as he'd say, "fuck your feelings."


Yah' got little militia groups peppering the usa straddling a fence about if they're gonna kidnap the Georgia governor, and you're worried about me venting my frustration with one of the soothsayers? Spare me.

If he can contribute to a league of morons on the regular to the actual detriment of his fellow Americans, I can communicate, in a way that I see fit, that he should be ashamed of himself.

I'm open to debate on the channels. Travel didn't really seem to fit in spite of their name, as the video has little to do with actual travel. Love seemed to fit, as this felt nothing like a commercial venture and more like a giant bromance.

I guess the little guy just didn't know he couldn't fit through those bars.

they are fit, but where are the women ethnic cleansers!?

Rotflmfahs!!!
Never backs down.....Except when prosecuted for fraud, or redlining (denying black people access to his buildings), or charity fraud, or finally admitting he repeatedly paid for sex while married, or when Mexico refused to build or pay for his wall, or when he promises to fix our infrastructure, or when he claims massive 2016 vote fraud, or when he promises to simplify taxes so they fit on a postcard, or about Covid/masks.... Seems like he often backs down....almost half as often as he's wrong.

The too close to call/recount is bullshit. Georgia, where he claims it's too close, requires the campaign asking for a recount to pay for it, and Trump is flat broke with a zero credit rating and his campaign is deep in massive debt. Good luck....it won't change the outcome even if it flips the state, which it won't. Remember, when you donate to the legal defense fund, most of that money goes to pay Trump's bills, some into his pocket, and what's left might pay Rudy to rant in a parking lot. It's not paying for decent lawyers to try a case, they're consistently being laughed out of court for having zero evidence of their baseless accusations, most of which wouldn't change results if found to be credible. Decent lawyers won't touch these frivolous cases.

The cheating and interference was 99.9996% from your team. >300000 missing mail in ballots because Trump's guy ignored court orders, slowed mail to a crawl, and refused to search mail sorting rooms for ballots like he was ordered to by a federal judge. Armed intimidation at polls. Last minute voter purges. One collection box for counties of 4 million. All republican tactics that kept it from being a massive blowout, but couldn't stop the tide. All you have to claim democrats cheated are words from untrustworthy liars, no evidence whatsoever.

It's funny you think your best argument for a second trump term is that he was incapable of presiding over a free and fair election or of accepting the results.

It's ok, Bob. You can admit you're crying in your beer. It must hurt to be forced to realize your world view is a fantasy.....just a dream.

The next news conference is at the Waldorf, so don't be surprised if Giuliani is standing in a giant salad for that one...it's fitting, Waldorf salads do have nuts.

Man all that work and they could barely fit the payoff in frame.

The patience that takes so much time and effort to "accomplish" something so pointless astounds me.

I was slightly disappointed to find out the whole "hand down the pants thing" was legitimately him tucking his shirt in. Initially that sounded like a wild BS excuse, but no - it actually fits in context. He was certainly a bit creepy, but I didn't feel he actually *quite* crossed a line.

Overall I found the movie lacking compared to the first one. It was a lot more scripted set-up, and a lot less crazy shit involving real people in an unscripted manner. I would guess he had more planned originally, but the pandemic threw things off.

She refused to answer most questions relative to the job...and was dumbfounded by the most basic, simple question. If he hadn't told her there are five rights she would have answered "freedom of speech" and thought she answered well. She only answered softball questions and pats on the back before this. I can do that all day long.

Oh Bobby. Did bad man make Bobby cwy huwt? Yes, orangutan's bad, but he's not alone. I obviously see far more than just rage, but it is enraging for patriots to see a convicted con man and thief in the Whitehouse costing us trillions and hundreds of thousands of deaths being propped up by our enemies.

No Bob, I clearly don't prefer republicans who fit the definition you came up with...uneducated in crime, that doesn't fit the criminal republicans unless you mean uneducated in fighting crime, then check, rat infected Republican cities (big towns, but we'll humor you) that fits, debauchery (congratulations on looking up the spelling) holy shit does that describe Republicans more than democrats, keeping poor people poor, check republicans, doubly so if you make that poor black people.

Sorry sweetheart. Red Tsunami 2018 + 2020

2020- thanks trump.

Technically correct: the Constitution does not provide specific details of how Supreme Court appointments are to be made. The fine details have been left up to the Senate and Executive (to a lesser degree, I believe). The executive branch has the right to nominate someone to the court, the Senate then has a duty to serve as a check on that. Technically there's nothing in the Constitution stating you're not allowed to advance a SC nominee weeks before an election.

It IS however, a naked partisan power grab. In 2016 one party argued, 8-9 months prior to the election, that their political opponents should not be able to have their SC nominee even get a hearing prior to the election. There was no actual precedent for this, but they insisted that the will of the electorate must be respected, and that we therefore must await the results of the election. So we did. Now 4 years later, the same party that insisted on respecting the will of the electorate in 2016 is taking precisely the opposite stance. Because last time they could potentially gain from the delay, and this time they almost certainly won't.

The CNN guy was correct: it is NOT unconstitutional to ram through a SC appointment. The authors of the Constitution didn't see fit to include that level of granularity in how the process would work. There is a process to clear this all up though: let's amend the Constitution! That's a super American thing to do! Let's establish, once and for all, the specific rules of the process. Then there won't be any back-and-forth like this about when a nominee can move ahead and when they can't. Nice and tidy.

The question then becomes: at what point in a President's term do they no longer get to nominate a replacement to the Supreme Court, when an election is pending? Should there in fact be no limit (like prior precedent, or lack thereof), and you believe that Merrick Garland should have been allowed hearings, and by extension the Amy Barrett hearings now are legit? Personally, I say we establish a cut-off to spare the political arguments in the future. Let's make it 100 days prior to the election: it's nice round number, bit over 3 months (so time for meaningful hearings and background checks), and should be after or at the end of primary season most cycles. That would of course invalidate both the 2016 and 2020 schemes by the Republicans, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

What's your take, Bob? How should this be handled? You posted the video, so I assume you have a stance on the issue?