***Official Political Discussion Thread***

Sunday night nfl games start at 8:20 and last roughly 3 hours

watchmen starts at 9 and lasts an hour

unless my team is playing, I watch both

I watch the nfl game until 9 and then turn back to the game at 10 when watchmen is done

#CommonGround
 
And that clearly isn’t basic English, unfortunately

but who knew won’t and haven’t could be soo confusing for an adult male

*sigh again*

So, say a little child is in the car. The parent might say, "he won't get out of the car."

Does that mean:

A. He will never exit the car ever, or
B. He is refusing to get out of the car currently?
 
*sigh again*

So, say a little child is in the car. The parent might say, "he won't get out of the car."

Does that mean:

A. He will never exit the car ever, or
B. He is refusing to get out of the car currently?

so you’re a little child that frustrates your parent(s)?

my bad for calling you an adult male
 
Out of curiosity, how many, if any, guilty verdicts are you guys expecting from the Stone trial?
I think Stone will likely get off on count 3 by a hung jury. The other 6 counts seem like good bets for a guilty verdict.



EJWWXDkXYAY85wD
 
*sigh again*

So, say a little child is in the car. The parent might say, "he won't get out of the car."

Does that mean:

A. He will never exit the car ever, or
B. He is refusing to get out of the car currently?
This is semantics question so the correct answer is both A and B, subject to interpretation and context. Perhaps the parent reassured himself in an unsolved murder scenario where the parent locked the child in a car and then buried it in the desert.
 
Last edited:
This is semantics question so the correct answer is both A and B, subject to interpretation. Perhaps the parent reassured himself in an unsolved murder scenario where the parent locked the child in a car and then buried it in the desert.

The fact that it can be both was my point. The other poster was acting as if won’t can only be interpreted one way.
 
The fact that it can be both was my point. The other poster was acting as if won’t can only be interpreted one way.

if I say “you won’t get peed on by Donald trump”

how many do you want it taken?

or would you prefer me to say:

“you havent been peed on by Donald trump”
 
Seems counterproductive to me to continue having more than 5 candidates in these debates. It only dilutes the content and importance of the process. Even engaged individuals won't watch. Also, how will new entrants track with regards to the process? If Bloomberg joins the race could he qualify for next debate or is there a threshold of donors he has to accumulate first?
Yeah he's gotta get his donor numbers up

Here's December's benchmarks

SmartSelect_20191114-175403_Chrome.jpg
 
9b345d5b971aa056078d075e7872b71e.png

I should note that Bloomberg has previously been very on point when it comes to reporting on SDNY investigations. The WSJ even more so.
I highly recommend following WSJ reporter https://twitter.com/rebeccaballhaus on Twitter.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...s-probe-on-campaign-finance-lobbying-breaches
Giuliani Faces U.S. Probe on Campaign Finance, Lobbying Breaches
Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, is being investigated by federal prosecutors for possible campaign finance violations and a failure to register as a foreign agent as part of an active investigation into his financial dealings, according to three U.S. officials.

The probe of Giuliani, which one official said could also include possible charges on violating laws against bribing foreign officials or conspiracy, presents a serious threat to Trump’s presidency from a man that former national security adviser John Bolton has called a “hand grenade.”

A second official said Giuliani’s activities raise counterintelligence concerns as well, although there probably wouldn’t be a criminal charge related to that. The officials, who asked for anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter, provided the first indication of the potential charges under investigation.
 
This is semantics question so the correct answer is both A and B, subject to interpretation and context. Perhaps the parent reassured himself in an unsolved murder scenario where the parent locked the child in a car and then buried it in the desert.

Homeboy will get his panties in a bunch real quick if I say the following:

Trump and republicans won’t do a damn thing about gun control no matter how many kids die
 
Back
Top Bottom