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

  1. Trump should hire his own supplemental security. It's not fair to the Secret Service to have to protect someone who intentionally paints targets on their back with detail's the size of those allotted to former Preaidents and he does not warrant extra protection on the taxpayers dime. The Secret Service does have many other responsibilities and uses for their resources.
    3
  2. Tech people have offered to help him and he refused...
    3
  3. The majority of the population doesn't care. Move on.
    3
  4. She was in the right procedurally... just saying. Comer qualified for removal more than her.
    3
  5. ​ @stratostatic Actually, this ruling doesn't make that a necessity. The Constitution prevents someone who participated in an insurrection/rebellion from holding office. It doesn't say anything about running for it. The fact that the judge made a point of stating that former President Trump did participate in an insurrection may become significant down the line. There could be a situation where he gets elected to an office that he can't legally hold under Federal law. The judge's decision to make that seemingly unnecessary point could be a sign that they don't believe a conviction is necessary to keep him from actually holding office.
    3
  6. Yep. Why do business somewhere that actually enforces the law when there are plenty of red states out there where fraudulent business practices are overlooked in return for kickbacks.
    3
  7. ​ @amerikanviking  Actually, when Bloomberg used it in New York many in the low income areas said that while it was in effect, many dealers quit selling on the streets and worked out of buildings instead (they didn't feel safe in the open without a gun and with the cops being able to search them whenever they wanted, were afraid to carry one.) Also, gun crimes did drop a small but noticeable amount in those areas.
    3
  8. His campaign has released multiple versions of the story. The Army only one. I've seen the original ad released shortly after the event with the images of him in section 60 without the family. I know who I believe, and it's not him. He should just admit it and apologize. Is that so hard?
    3
  9. Any grown adult naive or disingenuous enough to invoke the "peacefully and patriotically" argument is an embarrassment to the country.
    3
  10. That decision was an affront to the laws of the land. A President does need some limited immunity in very limited areas. However, they went way over the line to specifically craft it in direct defense of Trump's actions which were clearly not legitimate situations for it to apply. Their bias couldn't be anymore obvious and still be even remotely defendable with straight faces by the "justices" who agreed with it.
    3
  11.  @TPWM  Keep telling yourself that and see how it works out.
    3
  12. You'd be surprised. Especially when it comes to questions on things a President isn't an expert in. It helps avoid things like Presidents suggesting that injecting bleach is a good way to prevent/treat an infectious disease...Biden's just not that good at not making it obvious.
    3
  13. Waste of effort on their part. They could have spent the entire time playing mobile games on their phones and it would have still been an acquittal. In fact, they did such a poor job, that they managed to convince an additional GOP Senator to vote to convict than the six that were expected.
    3
  14. It's like a fire sale to mitigate the extra costs and economic damage tariffs and other policies will create while still being able to cover their tax cuts for the rich... pathetic.
    2
  15. Other way around kiddo. It's the minority party who has to rig things to win and Republicans are the minority in the US. While the Dems are stupidly making ridiculous arguments against the new state election laws, said laws are intentionally designed to favor Republican candidates. They make it impossible for election workers in heavily populated urban areas (usually the bluest parts of a state) to do their jobs and will lead to rushed, inaccurate counts. That way, whenever a Republican loses, there's an exvellent chance that there will be enough inaccuracies in the urban vote to challenge it.
    2
  16. Indeed. Thankfully it failed and Trump was defeated. Had he been successful at his attempt to steal the election things would have really blown up...
    2
  17. Yep, opening a bill for debate is so frightening...Grow up or shut up
    2
  18. ​@btk1243 Most Trump supporters don't know anything about the law...or much of anything else.
    2
  19. @Danzvide  Apparently that's not saying much.
    2
  20. ​@ggary04 The 14th Amendment became law in 1866. The federal statute concerning insurrection and rebellion didn't come along until 1948. One could make a strong argument that since there was no insurrection/rebellion charge available to convict someone of when the 14th amendment was passed, the insurrection/rebellion bit it contained was intended to be a judgement call rather than require a conviction.
    2
  21. It was less biased than the anti-urban voter garbage being passed by Republican led state legislatures. Also, this was a vote to open it for debate, not pass it outright. To vote against it at this stage is simply a show of fear and weakness on the part of the GOP.
    2
  22. None of which will be put to any beneficial use toward his campaign. He knows he isn't going to win. That money is just going to go into his pockets.
    2
  23. Article 2, sec 1, clauses 2 & 3 only deal with various aspects of the electoral college process. Clause 4 is the only one of the bunch that addresses the setting of a specific day for something. Even then, it still only applies to aspects of the electoral college procedure and clearly gives the US Congress the power to set a uniform date for all states. See below. . Article 2, sec 1, clause 2 Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. Article 2, sec 1, clause 3 The electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President. Article 2, sec 1, clause 4 The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States. Also, Pretty much all states have changed their electior laws without direct action by their legislatures at some point. Texas seems to enjoy doing so on a fairly regular basis (ironic considering the suit they filed.) As for Pennsylvania, due to how vague their state constitution is worded concerning election procedure, it can be argued that not attempting to throw out the changes made was essentially the legislature giving approval of them. Beyond that, the "police powers" given the states by the 10th amendment when it comes to emergency health/safety etc. laws could be used to justify the changes in question.
    2
  24. There is no job needed. Expecting a former President size detail to protect someone like Trump is ridiculous. Especially at large events and spur of the moment golf games etc. Trump simply needs to provide his own supplemental security for such things and quit expecting the taxpayers to cover him. It would also help if he'd actually heed the warnings from his taxpayer supplied detail.
    2
  25. To be fair, they're not entirely wrong. There are quite a few things that could have been avoided or dealt with easier had Trump handled things better than he did.
    2
  26. How about making sure Americans have good basic healthcare in general before promising government involvememt with elective stuff... Also, I thought the throwing away of unused embryos counts as baby unaliving to evangelicals and the pro-life movement. I guess what counts as a person is subjective afterall.
    2
  27. The green card/work visa demographic contribute to the economy, are required to file tax returns, etc., and account for ~9% of New York City's population. As they pretty much share the same responsibilities as the rest of us with the only difference being citizenship status, is it really that un-American to allow them some say in how their local government is managed?
    2
  28. Your bar is set quite low...
    2
  29. And just raise it back up higher with tariffs and other Trump policies...
    2
  30.  @mmcgahn5948  Grow up kid
    2
  31. If it were actual money we were giving them, yes. The vast majority of that aid however, has been in the form of equipment that was bought and paid for in the past. When you factor in the actual cash involved divided among the number of homeless, it comes out to be maybe ~$20,000 at the high end (emphasis on the "maybe"). That may seem like a large number, but once you factor in the bureaucracy that will be needed to administer such aid, the fact that many homeless literally have nothing and will have to start from scratch, and that the foreign aid to Ukraine is not something intended to be a permanent expenditure while aid for the homeless would likely be a constant part of the budget, you end up with very little if any actual aid making a direct difference in a homeless person's condition. Trying to solve the homeless crisis by throwing money at it will be a far less efficient use of funds than the aid we send to Ukraine and others. Properly addressing the issue is going to require an overall shift in our views concerning mental healthcare and the homeless in general If anything is going to change. Until then, throwing money at it is pointless.
    2
  32. If it were a private employer, the courts might rule against it. Requiring state employees to be tested or vaxed is legit for public health issues.
    2
  33. It's better to use notes on questions concerning something the President isn't an expert in. It helps avoid things like a President suggesting that injecting bleach is a good way to prevent/treat an infectious disease...
    2
  34. I'm interested in voter fraud...far fetched alleged voter fraud with no legitimate evidence to support it, not so much.
    2
  35. DOGE isn't looking into anything. Their AI is.
    2
  36. Such a suspect is not a sovereign nation. Israel on the other hand, is. Thus, they are under no legal obligation to allow an outside investigation. The best we could do is threaten sanctions if they refuse but that would take at least a year or two to have enough of an effect to matter.
    2
  37. Joe Biden
    2
  38. Procedurally, she was in the right. Comer needs a refresher on how do his job apparently.
    2
  39. This comment section is absolutely deranged. Educate yourselves before becoming hatemongers and bigots.
    2
  40. That's rich. Dude dodged accountability his entire term.
    2
  41. At this point it's growing into a fine art...Sadly
    2
  42. Delusion can be treated
    2
  43.  @bigvision2058  It's not feasible to close our borders. Economically or manpowerwise. Walls do almost nothing. You need tons of guards and that doesn't even account for container ships etc. The better approach would be to drastically expand the immigration courts to start processing the ridiculous backlog that Trump's policies created. Process them quicker and most will be gone quicker without having to be housed far from the border for years. Also, that allows for legitimate asylum seekers to still have their chance at a better life.
    2
  44. Where are those 3,000 voters going to come from? It definitely won't be from the left and this will just be a reminder to moderate/centrist voters (the deciding votes in the 2020 election) of why they got rid of him last time.
    2
  45. @aaron-dd5zr  They quit because he refused to accept the help offered by tech specialists who were willing to donate their time. Anyone with a brain would have done the same at that point.
    2
  46. How sad for Melania to be married to Trump knowing his...
    2
  47. Learn how your government operates...
    2
  48. Blue won...
    2
  49. ​ @PBA8 Those in Ohio he's talking about are here legally and are working towards citizenship...
    2
  50. Lucky for him. Maybe she'll let him out with a pardon.
    2