Um….have you heard, Trump’s new lawyer that he had to (illegally) pre pay $3 million from his “Save America PAC” just to take his case, Chris Kise, has turned out to be a registered foreign agent for the government of Venezuela?
He has already demanded he have access to all documents taken from Maralago including the highest level classified top secret nuclear documents.
I guess you see no issue with actual hostile foreign governments having access to our top secret documents, a must if he’s going to defend Trump.
More anti American actions daily.
Also Trump fully embraced Qanon at his last weekend rally.

P.S.- according to a new book, Trump floated “trading” Puerto Rico for Greenland because he thought he owned the island, and saw it as a commodity, not a territory full of American citizens.

Actually no you haven’t, and yes you clearly do care what party they’re in. You may have said you think that, but your actions and arguments speak louder than your lies. Remember claiming you weren’t sexist at all minutes before (keyboard) screaming MGTOW!!!
Remember saying it was not just ok, but smart that Trump lied in depositions under oath? That only a stupid person would tell the truth if it might get them in trouble? Then you clearly stated wrong is right….and those are not the only instances.

You ignored the vote stealing, actually claimed the Republican vote harvester that admitted (his campaign workers) voting for himself thousands of times was punished when you KNOW he wasn’t because it was your district, and he remained in office until he withdrew on his own for personal reasons. Zero punishment whatsoever but you lie about it because he’s Republican.

You still call democrats the party of debauchery with zero evidence to cite, but can’t fathom that the reason I never find “my team” (I’m a Democrat only by default btw) doing that kind of wrong is because I only pay attention to reputable sources like court records and not often anonymous lying blowhards trying to score political points against their enemies, and reputable sources and police never find democrat representatives molesting children, trafficking them for sex, having cocaine fueled lemon parties, exposing themselves to pre teen girls in bowling alleys, picking up 12 year old girls in malls, having parties with Epstein and young girls and no one else, covering for child molesting coaches for decades, being long term pen palls with convicted kiddie porn producers while in office, admitting to driving for hours intending to have sex with an 11 year old girl, rewriting marriage laws so it’s legal to marry and have sex with 9 year old children, etc. …do I need to put names to all those charges? Because I can. You ignore every one of those credible accusations against Republicans and make up random accusations out of thin air about Democrats constantly.

Stealing, your hero Trump was convicted of stealing from charities for veterans, and students, and every contractor that ever worked for him, you don’t care one whit. He tried to steal an election (or two) and you cheer it on.

Cheating, why are you a Republican then, they get caught cheating for real daily, not MTG style baseless accusations based on someone’s Twitter claim. Your own district was the most egregious cheating scandal in decades, by republicans, and you would have gladly voted for him again, maybe twice. Have you forgotten how many of Trump’s administration ended up being unreported foreign assets? Hiding their foreign payments and cheating the system to allow foreign influence in our whitehouse?

It is odd, you would think statistically there must be some Democrat representative child molesters, I assume there are, but if there are they are smart enough that they aren’t getting caught. Republicans constantly are getting caught, and you are constantly ignoring it.

I do call out Pelosi for insider trading, and say she isn’t the only Democrat guilty of that crime against America, but I also say Republicans do it as a matter of course daily. Republicans went to court to make it legal for corporations to bribe them with pacs and super pacs and block any attempt to make bribery illegal again.

So you are just incorrect, again. Doesn’t that get tiring?

Mr engineer, when there are two parties, sentence structure demands you use plurals….both sides have THEIR share of undesirables. An engineer should see grammar as a clearly defined structure that follows simple rules and just get it. Spelling is different, but grammar should be a no brainer….why is it so hard for you? Have you never seen it that way, or was engineering incredibly difficult for you too?

The difference being one side is all undesirables, and the level of undesirability. One side openly calls for an end to American democracy, death for their political rivals, death for anyone who disagrees with today’s talking point. One side has no party platform, no stated goals, and exists solely to stop any legislation the other side puts forth, even when it was something they want or that would benefit them. They are the same side.

We found another point of agreement.

Term limits are a must, and will never happen because our system does put the regulatory onus on those who need regulating….absolute insanity. It also lets them set their own salaries, ethics, and benefits.

Divestment is another must. Perhaps a bigger must. Total divestment across the board. Not just blind trusts that aren’t really blind, and absolutely not what we have now…the “honor” system run by the honorless. Allowing legislatures to write horrific laws because they can personally financially benefit is a recipe for disaster. That should (but never will) change.

Campaign finance is a third must. Corporations should have the same donation limits individuals have, which should be more like $100 each so every person can afford to have a voice, and we should return to an equal time on broadcast tv for free situation and deny the media as a political platform to give candidates a boost….no more Fox News interviews indistinguishable from campaign commercials, no more media smear campaigns, with severe penalties for violations, like $10 mil the first time, $25 mil the second, loss of fcc license the third. Another non starter….but needed badly.

PACs should be outlawed, or regulated into obscurity.

Some reasons often brought up in opposition to term limits can be traced back to Maddison who wrote "[A] few of the members of Congress will possess superior talents; will by frequent re-elections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members of Congress, and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt they be to fall into the snares that may be laid before them,"

I think we have proven at this point the cons of self serving representatives legislating for personal gains outweigh the benefits of professional legislators, especially seeing as we have the internet and huge staffs to ostensibly level the playing field of knowledge.

One fix would be the creation of an ethics branch, completely non partisan, not self regulatory, with rules against former candidates (winners and losers) and lobbyists too from serving and strict rules about how they operate, and bans from running for office or being a lobbyist afterwards so it doesn’t become a campaign platform or tool for industry. Maybe even ban close family members from the same. Won’t happen, only the best people intentionally limit their powers, and they are few and far between in Congress….all but absent on your side.

Ms. Pac-Man strikes again!

So....anyone recall how Barrett swore she would recuse herself from any case she had a personal interest in? Specifically about abortion cases....she didn't, religious cases, she didn't, and now she's refusing to recuse herself in a case against the Koch brothers PAC Americans for prosperity, that actually spent millions running ads to support her during her confirmation hearing.
This isn't just a blatant conflict of interest, it's pure pay for play bribery of a supreme court "justice". She should be not just removed but disbarred.
At some point this outrageous behavior by the highest court will end in assassination, it's the only way to remove them.

This is why, for every seat filled by Trump's criminal cronies who are all crooked as a pig's penis, we need to add two seats filled with actual judges with integrity, not prejudiced bigoted rapists and liars....add three for the seat stolen from Obama.

BLM.com
Nothing more then a Democrat front fundraiser. No black live matter help, just a fundraiser

Donate tab,
ActBlue Charities is a registered charitable organization formed to democratize charitable giving.

opensecrets.org and look up ACTBLUE
Act Blue expenditures

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expenditures.php?cycle=2020&cmte=C00401224

Bernie 2020 $186,780,034
2 Biden for President $119,253,857
3 Elizabeth Warren Presidential Exploratory Cmte $93,478,053
4 Pete for America $78,100,960
5 Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte $55,684,603
6 Amy for America $43,167,720
7 Friends of Andrew Yang $31,705,527
8 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte $31,067,413
9 Democratic National Cmte $29,924,707
10 Amy McGrath for Senate $29,558,536

BLM making white Democrats rich. Just a fraud

WTF does Hillary have to do with any of this?

Let's be very clear here. No-one is talking about banning guns (and if anyone is, they can fuck right off). Guns are useful tools. I've been target shooting a few times, I have friends who hunt. I wouldn't see their guns taken from them because they are sensible people who use guns in a reasonable way.

What we are talking about is a reasonable level of control, like background checks, restrictions on certain types of weapons, etc.

BTW, you might want to actually read the 2nd amendment.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

None of these people are in a well-regulated militia, and in 2017 "a well regulated militia" is not necessary to the security of the state, that's what a standing army and a police force are for.

Your seatbelt analogy also makes no sense at all. If I drive around without a seatbelt and crash, the only one hurt is me (I'm still a fucking inconsiderate asshole if I do that, but that's another story). Guns are all about hurting other people, so it makes sense to regulate them.


Fundamentally, the USA needs to grow the fuck up and stop believing "Die Hard" is a documentary.

You are not Roy Rogers.
You do not need a gun for "home defence".
You are more likely to be killed by a criminal if you have a gun than if you don't.
And the most powerful weapon you have against a fascist dictatorship is not firearms, but the ballot box.

The irony is that while your democracy is increasingly slipping away from you (gerrymandering, super PACs, voter suppression), you have a corporate-funded lobby group protecting your firearms.

Cool LaserDisc game visually and techwise, but boring to me. I played other arcade games like Gauntlet, Pac-Man, TMNT, RoboCop, etc.

*related=https://videosift.com/video/Squeeze-Box-The-Complete-Works-of-Weird-Al-Yankovic

*related=https://videosift.com/video/Weird-Al-Yankovic-Pac-Man

Squeeze Box: The Complete Works of "Weird Al" Yankovic has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

Weird Al" Yankovic - Pac-Man has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

*dupeof=https://videosift.com/video/Weird-Al-Yankovic-Pac-Man

1 more comment have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by ant.

@radx

I don't see money being taken out of politics. Especially not with a Republican legislative / executive before the next election. In fact I've honestly become cynical about campaign finance reform having any serious effect no matter how well designed.

You can limit campaigns and their committees all you want, but if the money's there it will find it's way in through sponsored media and astro turfed 'grass roots' organisations that will claim some kind of legal disassociation with the candidate. Or the law will just be ignored like the supposed separation between campaigns and super PACs now.

Not that I like this, but I feel the lesson here as far as winning elections is concerned is, for a successful party the campaign never ends. Obama was blamed for every economic and foreign policy event over the past 8 years with little meaningful rebuke despite GOP obstructionism being a huge factor. He came very close to losing to Romney.

After Republicans claimed the legislative branch and so many state level positions that message should have been easy to refute citing an unwillingness to compromise for results (Simpson-Bowles debt plan should have been exhibit A). I would not at all be surprised if even now with almost complete government dominance, they are able to blame the Democrats for years to come by claiming to be fixing existing policy mistakes.

If Democrats don't deliver an effective message, they'll be looking at a second Trump term, with every failing over the previous 4 years blamed on them.

Among the Podesta emails, there are some rather refreshing ones, like this one from Brent J. Budowsky to Podesta:

"Considering that a) Hillary's campaign has become close to 100% negative with attacks on Bernie, b) she is running to serve Obama's third term, c) her latest move is to escalate her use of Wall Street money and Super PAC's to pursue her negative attacks against Bernie, d) a growing number of her black surrogates have moved beyond supporting her record to openly lying about Bernie's record, and e) before this latest move her favorable ratings were dangerously low and her distrust numbers were dangerously high, (...)"