Comments by "possumverde" (@possumverde) on "Fox News" channel.

  1. Considering how often Trump bent over and spread his cheeks for the Saudis, a reach around was the least they could do.
    1
  2.  @pamthetraveler7224  Do a little research on all of the favors Trump did for them with little to nothing in return. Whether he asked for it or not, he bought that ego stroke at the expense of the American people.
    1
  3. ​ @charlestomlinson3236 and did everything he could to sabotage it... of anyone's a traitor, it's a commander in chief who goes out of their way to destabilize NATO and shut down vital facilities in Europe that are needed for rapid response both in Europe and the Middle East.
    1
  4. Someone should strongly consider ordering temporary psych observations for the five justices who voted to do this...they're clearly suicidal.
    1
  5.  @simoncohen9323  They made a ruling that violates the 13th amendment's prohibition of "involuntary servitude" and is guaranteed to put them on the hit list of many...extreme patriots...and all with no discernable reason other than to force their personal/political/religious views into law above the constitution. In other words, they're inexplicably asking to be assassinated by those who care a bit more about such things than others. Such behavior can be seen as suicidal. Edit: Especially when they recently ruled that essentially anyone can go around in public armed. Thus making it even easier for some radical to knock them off.
    1
  6. Because affidavits contain specific information concerning the case which could compromise an informant, give a heads up as to the full scope of an investigation allowing for evidence to be destroyed, potential witnesses/accomplices to flee, etc. Nearly all affidavits remain sealed until indictments come down as that is traditionally seen as the end of the investigation phase and the beginning of the trial phase (where discovery becomes a thing etc.)
    1
  7. SCOTUS decides what a law actually means which is far more powerful than the legislative body who made the law.
    1
  8. @RicFlair-yn1mm  Mine's 31st. Not great, but at least more than 25% of 4th graders can pass the reading requirements here... unlike OK.
    1
  9. Moderates aren't interested in swapping one delusional radical for another. They will be voting Bloomberg.
    1
  10. No surprise, the son is as dishonest as the father...Unless one of the Bidens was holding a gun to the President's head forcing him to violate the Impoundment Control Act, misuse high security servers, illegally order people to ignore legal subpoenas, etc., this has nothing to do with them. The President's current problems are solely of his own doing. I somewhat feel sorry for jr. and the other kids...all their lives spent trying to placate their dad in hopes of remaining in the will and in the end there will be nothing left for them after the fines for tax fraud and his creditors get paid...
    1
  11.  @coreycoleman177  Hardly. I never said I liked Bloomberg, just that he's the only one with a chance. He's a bit too liberal in certain areas for my liking but nowhere near as bad as the other Dem candidates. With no better options out there, he'll have to do. If nothing else, given the President's fragile ego when it comes to appearing successful and wealthy, Bloomberg is the perfect choice psychologically.
    1
  12.  @thomasfitzpatrick6392  Bernie's honest and means well, but democratic socialism simply won't work for a country the size of the US. The bureaucracy needed to administer such a system would collapse under it's own weight. Also, scientific and technological advances tend to stagnate under such systems due to complacency and lack of incentive to innovate. Capitalism, even with all it's drawbacks, is much better suited at such large scales due to it's relative simplicity. The current imbalance in the system is as much our fault as consumers as it is the corporations'. We grew too fond of our toys and were willing to overlook the growing corruption rather than risk having to sacrifice them. It's not too late to turn things around but if we decide to throw the baby out with the bathwater and go all in on democratic socialism, the road back when it inevitably implodes will be a very dificult, if not nearly impossible, one to traverse.
    1
  13.  Mrreciprocat  Look at the bureaucratic nightmare that our half-assed attempts at socialist programs (welfare etc.) have already created. Now imagine if we go all in...With our population, the bureaucracy needed to administer such programs would essentially require us all to work for some aspect of it (assuming we want such programs to even remotely function.) Personally, I don't see a purpose to living in such a system. It would just be communism with a more acceptable name but the same bleak future. As far as health care goes, there's a reason why so many people from countries with socialized health care systems come to the US and pay out of pocket for important surgeries/treatments. The waiting lists in their own countries are ridiculous and the quality of care is mediocre at best due to the lack of incentive that comes from capped pay for their medical professionals, limitations on what equipment they can afford, etc.. Also, without people in non socialized health care countries like the US paying the R&D costs for new meds etc. Those countries with socialized health care would not have access to them due to caps on how much their governments will pay for such things. Someone has to pay the difference. If we go with socialized health care, who will that someone be? No one. R&D is expensive and if no one pays for it, it will simply cease to occur (or slow to a snail's pace at best.) Similar issues arise when it comes to science, technology, manufacturing, etc. Socialist programs become increasingly inefficient with population increase and thus require that more and more resources be allotted to them just to maintain mediocre results. Resources that could otherwise be used to further the growth of tech/manufacturing etc. Essentially, such systems stagnate as the workforce spends all it's efforts just trying to maintain the bureaucracy. Currently, ~40% of yearly published scientific papers come from the US/are co-authored by US scientists and are often funded by private business (often by the much maligned corporations.) That will not be maintainable if we transition to a socialist system. The resources to fund such things will have to go to inefficient socialst programs instead.
    1
  14.  Mrreciprocat  No one can truly know anything 100%. If that's what you're getting at, it's a bit childish. Otherwise the answer is already included in my previous posts. Simply do some research into countries that have been somewhat successful with such programs and those that haven't and then compare their conditions with those in the US. You won't find a successful outcome in any country with a population to land area ratio similar to that of the US. You're welcome to draw your own conclusions as to why, but if you bother researching things, the reasons tend to be rather obvious.
    1
  15. @WEEIRISH  There are no actual receipts on their website... just partial screenshots of non descript forms with dollar amounts and their written claims of what said dollar amount represents. No different than me showing you a piece of paper with a number on it and then making a claim as to what that number represents. Edit: To put it another way, simply look at the screenshots provided without reading the description provided. If you can't figure out from that alone what you're looking at, then it isn't a receipt.
    1
  16. The unofficial ruling is that they decided the original ruling was so flawed in it's arguments that it couldn't even be used to address the question of whether or not the court can overrule the FDA. They sent it back hoping that it never returns or if it does it will at least have legitimate arguments that can be addressed.
    1
  17. If only that were true...
    1
  18. I don't think an unethical hack of a "legal expert" knowingly making dishonest arguments for pay in something as important as a Senate impeachment trial is much to be happy about...regardless of one's political beliefs.
    1
  19. Not if the government put a cap on the price gouging going on with housing thanks to corporations buying up all they can and then charging whatever they want.
    1
  20. This ruling has nothing to do with the law. It's purely political. The Constitutional arguments made in the dissenting opinion are far stronger than those in the majority opinion (of which some are borderline absurd.) That's why all three dissenters attached their names to the dissenting opinion while only one of the six who voted the majority did so for the majority argument. They know their arguments are garbage and are already trying to distance themselves.
    1
  21. Research Neville Chamberlain and what happens when you opt to ignore behavior like Putin is demonstrating and hide behind the excuse of domestic issues
    1
  22. They attempted to work it out without having to get the search warrant within that time period. Trump and his representatives ceased returning the FBI's calls. If I were Garland, that would tell me that they had no intention of voluntarily handing over the disputed records. From there, a search warrant would be the only course of action left. As for the scope of what was to be looked for, if you read the Presidential Records Act, you'll understand why any Presidential records from his time in office was indeed a legitimate specific item to look for in this case. Having any such items in his possession (classified or not) would be a violation of said act and thus a crime. Also, I'll take your word for the two receipts with different names since I don't feel like looking for it at the moment but, given the sheer size of the search area (any areas of the residence which Trump or his representatives had access to), splitting into two groups wouldn't exactly be an odd way to go about it.
    1
  23. They already have term limits. It's called elections. If people don't want life long politicians in the house and senate they can simply stop voting for them.
    1
  24. So far, none of them have violated it either. Ignoring them however would.
    1
  25. Those who base laws on subjective beliefs are tyrants...nothing more.
    1
  26. Trumps done. They have him dead to rights on violating the Presidential Records Act and likely a few other laws as well. If he's smart (and his arrogance allows him to) he'll end up cutting a deal which will likely include a ban from holding public office.
    1
  27. There have been many instances where a party's Presidential candidate was so pathetic that their voters jumped ship in that race but stayed true for Congressional candidates.
    1
  28.  @NPC-9361  The various resistance groups during World War II used methods that would be classified as terrorism today and their actions occasionslly caused enemy retalliation on civilians yet they are seen as heros. When it comes to being underdogs versus a much more powerful enemy, only fools would fight fair. That has been known at least as far back as the David and Goliath tale where David chose to abandon tradition and cheat by using a long ranged weapon in what was supposed to be an honor duel.
    1
  29. It's a shame that Stanford still affiliates themselves with such a skid mark of an institution.
    1
  30. Gaetz will not get the Senate seat. He'd be a blacksheep who would not get any committee positions of value and the President cannot afford to insult more than three Republican Senators if he wants to get anything passed. He won't go back to the House either since that would bring the ethics committee report back into relevance. He's tainted goods now, and done.
    1
  31. Lol Had he been honest with state leaders at the start, the spread of the disease could have been better mitigated. If we had an infection rate close to the world average, we'd have about half as many deaths than we currently do. The only people who deserve praise in the US are our healthcare workers. They've somehow managed to keep our fatality rate far lower than the world average despite us having one of the highest infection rate.
    1
  32. His supporters were mostly voting against Trump and Biden, not for him (As evidenced by his losing nearly half of them to Harris when Biden dropped out). I'm not sure why he or Trump think his endorsement is of any political significance. He bent the knee for nothing.
    1
  33. Nope. It went down nearly exactly like the first guy predicted (his writers need a raise) and Trump got trounced.
    1
  34. Trump is a mediocre con artist at best. When you adjust for inflation, He's currently worth less than he started with (and might actually be broke given the amount of outstanding debt he has.) All he really knows how to do is exploit loopholes and isn't above backstabbing his business "partners" if there's some profit in doing so. Definitely not the kind of person who should ever be put into a position where they can manipulate the economy.
    1
  35. Well, other than the separation of church and state bit anyway...
    1
  36. You should also remind them that that film was made by a convicted felon whom Trump pardoned and thus might be a bit...biased.
    1
  37. And yet she's already achieved "control"...It's always been known that Senate Republicans (enough to prevent a supermajority anyway) will vote the party line no matter how strong the case against the President may be. Pelosi's holding back the articles until assured that the trial will be fair, etc. is simply meant to force said Republicans to do what McConnell has already been dumb enough to do...openly abandon their constitutional responsibility to conduct an impartial trial in good faith and vote their conscience based on the evidence and testimony delivered during said trial.
    1
  38. I'm just curious to see what happens when Biden is still the winner...
    1
  39. Dr. Raoult's studies involved 36 and 80 subjects respectively (not the thousands mentioned here.) They were not randomized and the one with 80 had no control group (among many other glaring problems concerning their methodologies.) While the one you speak of (and she mocks here) did have a slightly smaller sample size, the rest of it's methodology was far better than the study it refutes. Regardless, you're free to think what you will, but Raoult's study would not have been acceptable to the schools you attended while the other would have at least warranted consideration.
    1
  40. Because it was a secret investigation began under, and essentially working for, then President Trump and tasked with proving his allegations that a lab leak was responsible. Combine that politically motivated bias with the investigators habit of removing anyone involved with the team who questioned their methods/conclusions on scientific grounds, and you end up with unreliable information concerning the issue at best. In other words, similar to Cyber Ninja's farce of an audit in Arizona, the process of the investigation was so tainted and questionable that any conclusions ultimately coming from it would be meaningless.
    1
  41.  @OverlandOne  People from red states really shouldn't bring up tax related arguments. Unless you all want to start paying for your own federal benefits rather than leech off of blue states.
    1
  42. Probably because they haven't provided any evidence...
    1
  43. Voting irregularities are common period. The number they're disputing is no more than you would find with a close look at any past election...and ~0.2% of what would be needed to change the result.
    1
  44. Fell asleep in civics class I see...
    1
  45. He's already started betraying them... and he hasn't even taken office yet. Gotta watch out for the Leopards Eating Faces party.
    1
  46. Last I checked, Donald Trump was elected President, not Pope. It's the latter who supposedly becomes infallible upon election. The former is simply an employee of the American people, can be held fully accountable for their actions, and if such actions warrant it, they can, in effect, be fired. People (especially Republicans) should be disturbed by Sen. McConnell's blatant contempt for his responsibilities under the Constitution. Regardless of his personal views on the matter, his duty is to conduct an impartial trial in good faith and vote his conscience once all the evidence and testimony have been delivered. The fact that he's been making the rounds on right wing media announcing a verdict before the trial and actively assisting the defendant should disgust anyone who has any love for this country. Especially his constituents. Since he's apparently unable or unwilling to do the job he was hired to do, one would hope that those who hired him will exercise their right to hire someone more dedicated to the responsibilities of the position next time around. Impeachment aside, the man can't even be bothered to perform the basic duties of his position. There's an ever growing stack of legislation passed by the House just gathering dust in his office while he's out there mugging for the cameras ffs...
    1
  47. The keyword there is "if." Since no such thing actually occurred, your comment is pointless.
    1
  48. There are but, like the left, the radicals can be an embarassment to avoid being connected with.
    1
  49. Graham must have a very low opinion of his constituents' intelligence (or be expecting a large sum of cash from the President at some point in the future) to make an argument this absurd. The whistle-blower is completely irrelevant now. The claims in their report have been supported with evidence and corroborating testimony from others making the report itself unnecessary as evidence in the future trial. He's essentially arguing that a criminal trial would be invalid if someone who made an anonymous tip which led police to evidence used at trial never revealed their identity...idiotic Anyone unfortunate enough to be represented by this man should do themselves (and the country) a favor and vote him out of office next time.
    1
  50. He has the power yes. However, such hasn't been done this late in an election year since the 1800's. It's bad enough that McConnell made a mockery of the Constitition by rushing through the Senate impeachment trial. Now he's going to rush a SCOTUS nomination through without properly vetting them simply as a parting shot from the outgoing Trump administration.
    1