Comments by "possumverde" (@possumverde) on "Forbes Breaking News" channel.

The problem is that the schizophrenic methodology being used by those cyberninja clowns negate the legitimacy of the audit. The only thing they're accomplishing is the further embarrassment of our country.
1
It wouldn't need to be mandated if there weren't so many adult age children out there refusing to take basic common sense precautions against a highly contagious, rapidly mutating respiratory virus simply out of political spite...act like children, get treated like children.
1
Article 1 section 4 says it's up to government (Congress specifically.)
1
@rhiannonbittle1454 Hosea 13:16... At least modern abortions are performed more humanely and don't include the post birth variety like those commanded by your god...
1
President's can only pardon federal criminal convictions. This is civil. Giuliani is SOL...and still waiting on the $2M Trump never paid him for his legal services.
1
Because doing so means accepting that a sizable portion of the population would rather childishly refuse to take basic precautions against an extrememly contagious rapidly mutating respiratory virus out of political spite than grow up and return to reality...
1
Maybe, just maybe, Trump should have listened to his security detail's warnings not to play at such a poorly secured course on short notice without giving them time to secure it. All the protection in the world can't do much if you refuse to listen to them. Also, the detail allotted to former Presidents is not large enough to protect someone like him. Perhaps he should consider hiring his own supplemental protection with campaign or personal funds.
1
Countries whose militaries are actually competent.
1
20 years ago none of the states had millions of mail in ballots to count on top of the in person vote. Also, the states that took so long all had election laws that prevented them from counting their mail ins until election day (some couldn't even sort them in preparation for counting until then.) As a result, the count at the end of election night was heavily skewed in Trump's favor as on average, around 75% to 80% of his total votes came from the in person vote while only around 60% of Biden's did.
1
Nothing says compassion like the forced sterilization of minors.
1
The BRICS countries all have their internet bot armies pumping out pro-Trump spam. That should tell you who the dedollarization candidate is. He's been friendly with almost every single one of their dictators and they all love him.
1
@charlesljones2454 Yep. Trump's counsel should consider themselves lucky if they make through this bs without being disbarred for making nonsense arguments like this. Judges don't tend to be very fond of attorney's who knowingly waste the court's time with arguments a first year law student would know are bogus.
1
@scotthooper4170 Don't be so naive kid. This has never been about defending themselves, freeing hostages, or even directly destroying Hamas. This was always meant to be a land grab via ethnic cleansing. Nothing more. One need only analyze the IDF's battle plan to see that Israel's stated goals do not fit with the methods being used to supposedly obtain them. A prime example being their unnecessary (ab)use of 2,000 lb. bombs in densely packed residential areas to destroy individual buildings that could easily be dealt with by using much smaller munitions. The only reason for such overkill is if the goal is to cause as much collateral damage and civilian casualties as possible while still maintaining some form of plausible deniability when accused of genocide/ethnic cleansing. As for the human shield argument, there may be some merit (though in urban warfare, civilians will be caught up in it whether intentionally or not.) That said, even if a "human shield" situation were involved, no Hamas member would expect Israel to level up to a ten block radius simply to destroy one building. With the use of appropriate munitions, such a situation would see all in the targeted building dead with maybe a handful more from damage to immediately adjacent buildings. By using a 2,000 lb. bomb instead, you're looking a destruction/casualty rate at least ~50 times greater (possibly as much as ~100 times). That is not an approach you would take if one of your goals was to free hostages as they will likely be held in such areas and thus die from "friendly fire" (which is exactly what has happened to most if not all, of the unaccounted for hostages.) It's also not what one would do if limiting civilian casualties and collateral damage is a goal. Also, consider the IDF's battle strategy for each city. First, they take out the hospitals. Then, they destroy the utilities and housing making the city unlivable and forcing the civilians to flee south. Once that's accomplished, they regroup a bit and then do the same thing with the next city and the next city etc. That is not an efficient way to go about freeing hostages or generating Hamas casualties. All it's good for is herding civilians like cattle in to smaller and smaller areas until their population is extremely dense, they have nowhere left to go, and no resources to sustain themselves. With something like that as a goal, the obvious purpose would be genocide/ethnic cleansing. In fact, it's just a slight variation on how the early stage of the Armenian genocide played out. If continued, the IDF's next phase will simply be to lock them down and let starvation and disease do their dirty work for them. One final thing. From 2000 up until Oct 7 2023, the IDF killed ~25,000 Palestinian civilians in Gaza and the West Bank. Hamas killed ~1,200 and took ~200 hostages once. Even when you add in the small handfuls of Israelis Hamas killed over that time, you're still looking at at least a 20:1 ratio in favor of Israel when it comes to civilians killed (which has since spiked to ~55:1)...and Hamas are the truly genocidal faction in this?
1
Because VPs are to be seen, not heard.
1
@a.a.staffing5272 Trump had it easy. He would have failed harder if he had the messes that were dropped into Biden's lap. Trump knew it was coming too (he caused a lot of it due to inaction/stupidity during his term). That's why he intentionally threw the race in 2020 and then started his nonsense "stolen" claims in hopes of rallying support for 2024. He wanted someone else to deal with it so he could ride in on a white horse. Were he to win, he will just ride out the four years for posterity (being in the history books as a two term President is all he cares about) and not give a flip how it ends up. That's why he won't give any legitimate specifics on what he plans to do. He just keeps whispering sweet nothings into his supporters ears.
1
They could probably use a little Preparation H about now.
1
When in the election process those requirements are applied is a bit of a gray area. An argument could be made that states could include someone on their ballot who isn't eligible at the federal level but does meet the criteria under their state's election laws and that the question of eligibility only comes into play when the US Congress counts the electoral college votes. Edit: Essentially, the US Constitution says that an insurrectionist is ineligible to be President. It doesn't straight up say that they can't run for President.
1
@jasonrobbins4227 The US Constitution really only says that an insurrectionist isn't eligible to be President. It doesn't directly address whether or not they can run for President. As the US Constitution gives the power to manage elections to the states (which includes criteria for being included on the ballot or written in), it is theoretically possible that someone ineligible to be President at the federal level could still end up on a state's ballot/be a legitimate "write in" due to their meeting the necessary requirements listed in the state's election laws. Were such a candidate to somehow win, their ineligibility would be addressed when the US Congress counts the electoral college votes to determine the President elect with any votes for an ineligible candidate being challenged and rejected. In this particular situation, were Trump to be included on a state's ballot and win and those electoral college votes rejected by Congress due to claimed ineligibility, said ineligibility would then become a matter for the federal courts to decide.
1
@user-dm4yx3iz5f Yeah, it's a bit crazy but common sense isn't always involved when it comes to the law. Even Constitutional law. In this case if it's decided at the state level, gou run into the possibility that in one case the judge rules one way but a judge in another state where this argument is being made rules the other. If you wait until the EC count, you have one all encompassing case handled with a single ruling. Also, whenever possible, you want the federal government to stay as far out of a state's electiontion laws as possible so that you don't have them dictating who a state's population can and can't choose to represent them.
1
Nah, Judge Judy for SCOTUS
1
People voted for the Democratic platform, not necessarilly Biden in particular (the position of President was never meant to be that important in the first place.) More Americans consider themselves to be Democrats or lean toward the Democrats than those who consider themselves Republicans or lean toward Republicans. It's been that way for awhile now. The only difference is that those on the left who normally don't bother voting finally decided to do so since it was easier to do so in many places due to the increase in mail in/early voting options. Edit: Trump lost partially due to his inexplicable campaign blunder of actively discouraging mail in voting but mostly because his party is the minority party.
1
@chrislast It is genius, but not for the reasons you think. He has only one term available to him, so he can promise anything he wants and not have to worry about accountability for re-election. On top of that, his refusal to do any more debates means he doesn't have to explain or defend any new enticements he throws out there. He's free and clear to promise the moon with no worries.
1
@salex9482 to poop on maybe. In 50 years, historians will rank him near the bottom of the list. Probably second worst.
1
@bev7439 Also, the locals of the area have not asked for such help, nor do any but a tiny minority want the immigrant population removed (their economy has picked up significantly and is expanding). In fact, many are angry with Trump over it thanks to all the bomb threats to their schools they've been getting since he started this mess.
1
It's not unconstitutional (article 1 sec 4 gives Congress the power to make such changes) and anti-american is a bit of an exaggeration but there are a few things that would be better off being left out.
1
Trump can't save him. Presidents can only pardon federal criminal convictions. This was civil.
1
People have been easily climbing over/tunneling under the completed parts since they were built. Something does need to be done about the border situation but when comparing cost versus effectiveness, the wall (and it's future upkeep) will be a waste of money. These Senators know this and are just playing for extra support from their constituents that don't. It wouldn't be surprising if they also happen to stand to benefit financially from it's completion as well.
1
They need to be threatened. They've built themselves a dictatorship where they think they decide how checks and balances work. When they get out of hand, they're supposed to answer to Congress, not themselves.
1
Break the law, get a jury trial, get convicted, go to jail. Trump's always ranting about criminals coming here and yet he's already promised to release criminals solely for political purposes.
1
They're here legally, he can't do 💩 and he knows it. He's just pandering for votes with lies as usual.
1
@JamesbaconFiyah "Keep" implies he has a habit of actually doing so. The evidence says otherwise.
1
The US accounts for ~34% of the total population of NATO countries yet we pay only ~26% of the general operations funding. There are many metrics to consider when determining whether or not a member country is pulling it's weight. Trump's just using this disingenuous 2% of the GDP for defense agreement because he knows most of his supporters never put much thought into anything and will thus fall for his bs rather than see him for the traitor he is.
1
Just doing their job...very thoroughly in this case.
1
This is a pathetic manchild grandstanding for votes.
1
To be fair, accurate tracking of ballots for the purposes you mention will always be low priority. Unless you want to double or triple the amount of election workers in each state. I've always been a bit amazed that even bother trying at all considering everything else they have to do.
1
He has enough as it is. In fact they did an excellent job here given the circumstances. Besides, the President can't do anything about it without pulling SS off their current duties or getting additional funding from Congress to hire more and fund their operations. None of that needs to happen. The former President can use campaign funds or personal funds to hire supplemental security when he wants to do unnecessarily dangerous things.
1
When did he need to compromise?
1
They all have term limits except for SCOTUS. It's called elections.
1