Hyperbolized like a true traitor, I'm speaking like a true patriot who's forefathers founded this great nation and who wants to prosecute 1/5 (70 million/350 million) of the country because they attempted a violent murderous coup, an overthrow of the American government by force, violence, and threats of violence, and around 60% of them think it was great and intend to try it again this week, not because they voted for a traitor, but because most still back him after the failed coup and intend to try again.

I would love to round you all up, put you on trial with exactly the same criteria members of ISIS/Daesh faced as members of a terrorist organization, and give you all the same treatment you all cheered on when it was done to brown skinned people. (Just one reason I shouldn't be appointed supreme leader) They/you are members of a violent, anti America terrorist organization and movement. Do you think Daesh members should be set free if you cannot prove they directly killed someone but can prove they are active Daesh members, including those who say clearly they support the anti American violence and terrorism and are just waiting for an opportunity to plan more attacks? A slap on the wrist is inappropriate. Letting it slide is not just inappropriate, it's incredibly dangerous and unpatriotic...indeed that would be giving comfort to enemies of the state, a crime itself.

Anyone that crossed police lines actively attacked America and democracy. That precludes them from being patriotic (unless you mean patriotic to Iran or some other foreign adversary), and it makes them enemy combatants. Those usually get the death penalty. When they are American citizens it's called treason. Does this describe you?

Spoken like a true fascist, trying to demonize half a country simply because of their vote. You would probably love to round them up and stuff them into ovens wouldn't you?

Backed by the wiggers, who are being rounded up and enslaved by communist China

This is like driving around the Arc de Triumph in Paris. It's absolute insanity and you HAVE to drive through it to get certain parts of the city. Imagine a huge round-about with no set rules, no one uses their signals and everyone is French. Yet, somehow, there's rarely accidents and it just sorta works.

Also, driving in Paris in general tends to be hair-raising, especially in the Left Bank.

Zaibach has been here longer than you, Bob. Edit: He quoted you 4 months ago, so yes you have heard not just of, but directly from him.

🤦‍♂️

Jesus, you can't research anything, that's why you believe OAN and trump, you know nothing, so you are free to believe them without any knowledge that would expose them as consummate liars.

You must be so scared, with everything you know being proven wrong constantly. The world without trump, without your fake news fed to you direct from Russia, with right wing terrorist organizations being rounded up and blocked from social media, you'll soon be alone in your cave of ignorance.

This has nothing to do with her capability. It never has been. It has to do with people pissed because there is a nominee during this time.

News flash, it doesn't matter if Trump wins or loses. He can nominate someone even after he loses. Until he is replaced, he is THE President of the United States.

No judge is required to have a photographic memory of the Constitution. I bet you could ask SITTING judges on the Supreme Court and have them miss a question. That is what clerks and research people are for.

What this comes down to is two basic things.

1. Merrick Garland never made it onto the court. People are still bitterly pissed off that he didn't. But what they forget is that he WAS nominated and did not get through the process due to a Republican majority. It was perfectly legal and was allowed. It sucks if you wanted him, but that is the way the game works.

2. People are STILL scared that Roe v Wade is going to go bye bye or the ACA is going to get kneecapped. News flash, SCOTUS has been majority Conservative leaning judges for YEARS. When Gorsuch was picked, all I recall hearing was OMG OMG, THE SKY IS FALLING, ROE V WADE IS DEAD! Same thing as when Kavanaugh was picked; although they were pissed about his supposed rape as well, every news site was repeating the mantra about Roe V Wade now dead.

It isn't going to happen. Not at a Federal level. It would be suicide for years. Conservatives, by and large, do not give a fuck about abortion. It's only the squirrelly ultra right wing pricks that care and Republicans sadly have to cater to them verbally to keep their votes. States, yeah, some will pass laws and then those will get turned away from SCOTUS like they have been for a while. The appellate courts will set the precedent on those rulings and they solidly rule for Roe v Wade.

Same thing for the ACA, although personally I wish that would die a fucking quick death. As I've said before many times, that little gem has fucked the value of my family insurance from work into the ground. I didn't get to keep my doctor unless I wanted to pay 2k+ per person per year, because he and a shit ton of other doctors went to Concierge fees to cover the money they were losing under the ACA. Now I have to go to either:

A. Doctor's who have horrible ratings for their practice, ie ones that suck or just don't care.

B. A clinic setup where I 'technically' have a 'family doctor' but in reality I can be bumped to others on staff or, most likely, a PA. There is no feeling that I know my doctor because, even if I do get to see him, they just run me through as fast as possible so they can get another patient in.

I have pre-existing conditions, so I empathize with those who are on the ACA. But the act itself is fucked up beyond repair. It needs to die and get replaced with a true national insurance. If not that, something that lets me go back to feeling like I have a real doctor and not just whoever is johnny on the spot at that moment.

It isn't going to be killed at SCOTUS though, they don't want to legislate. They will let it survive and if you think otherwise you are drinking the liberal koolaid that they are serving to round up voters.

I like the Youtuber and do agree with his other videos. I do not agree with this. I can diagnose a Macbook Pro right now if I had to, even after being away from Apple for around 8 years. But I might need to pull up a damn schematic or reference manual to know how much resistance I should be looking for on the PPbus if it isn't present when trying to power the thing on. If I and everyone else had photographic memories, we wouldn't have reference material. Wikipedia wouldn't exist. This is simply a nitpick because people are worried and still pissed.

Your video, shipping container meets tank round, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 20 Badge!

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?

That crime bill Trump said was too lenient? Didn't target blacks enough, and didn't put them in prison long enough?
You forget what Trump's position on race was/is....round up the blacks and imprison them all, they're all muggers and rapists. He put out ads saying so.

You can't bring up a thing about Biden where Trump wasn't exponentially worse. Biden isn't perfect, Trump is inhumanly and inhumanely horrible. That's why knowledge is important, it helps you not make ridiculous accusations against your opponent that only apply to your guy. Try it.

How many times has Biden pleaded guilty to defrauding the poor, or veterans, or business associates? Can Biden still be involved with a charity, or is he banned for outright stealing donations?

This insanity of trying to label Biden a racist (with 90% of African American support) and trump a friend of the African American community (with 8% of their vote) is just too funny. You don't even realize you're insulting them with that claim, clearly implying they're too dumb to know who supports them and who won't say the words "black lives matter" without following it with "are all terrorist thugs coming for you next".

🤦‍♂️

Your video, Mini Dachshund Rounds up Mob of Sheep, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I was wondering that too! Dug a little and found out why:

This was the first cash answer of the "main game" -- it was just a $2000 question in and of itself (as you can see from the empty numbers until his $2000). However, he then went on to solve every puzzle in the rest of the "main game" (before the bonus round), racking up a record of $91,892.

I mean, if he wanted to scare the dog off and had to use the gun to do it, how about shooting one round into the ground? Seems pretty obvious that this guy shouldn't have had a gun at all and as such the people in charge of this one week rookie should get charges too.

At least they didn't fire 11 rounds at him like the unarmed 13yr old who was clearly not a threat. US police are a fucking joke.

These are not the only communities wiped off the map this round.

Too bad you fall for the excuses.

Of course, since you support militia kid, you also support the antifa guy who shot the patriot prayer Nazi who was driving through town shooting black people with pepper balls and marbles from paint ball guns, and spraying them with bear mace too, exact same self defense against a violent mob attacking him with weapons. He's a good man you're glad killed that violent thug, right?

But no, because the parties political affiliations are reversed, I expect you stand with the unpatriotic prayer fucker who was the aggressor and first to use weapons just like you stand with the threatening armed murderer who illegally crossed state lines armed with the intent to play police using live rounds, went off and found some trouble he was hoping to find, and murdered two and disabled one.

Rittenhouse is going to need a pardon, he's going to be convicted. You don't get a pass on murder just because your victim isn't Andy Griffith, not that your characterizations have any resemblance to reality. He went illegally armed across state lines looking to shoot someone like Trump said he should, and did. No crying "poor little boy got scared by big bad liberals" now, snowflake. He went looking for it.

But since you support murdering child molesters and woman abusers, I can think of one target that stands before all others.