smjjames

As not-100%-serious as that idea is, the question is how would you split it. The North-South divide no longer exists, though traces of it remain. Urban vs Rural? The cities can't exist without the farms and the farms need the cities to sell food to. Red states vs Blue? No red or blue state is so homogenous as to be utterly one or the other. Even liberal California has lots of Republicans and ruby red Idaho has plenty of Democrats too. If a dissolution of the union or a split ever does happen, it'll most likely happen along the path of least resistance, whatever that happens to be at the time.

Heh, yeah, he learned the lession Obama learned which is to not attach yourself too closely to the vagaries of the stock market.

34 if you want to know.

Back in the day being when? My dad did serve on the USS Abraham Lincolin during the first Gulf War.

Bit hard to tell what kind of sword it is though.

Thoughts? Seems weird to be coming down from a bank, on the other hand some banks give you a gun when opening an account. Policy-wise, I think it's fine. I'm all for tighter gun restrictions. Banks have put similar restrictions for example for porn and legal gambling quite lot. And sometimes they are just jerks and close accounts, without giving any reason or warning, for businesses involved in mentioned industries. Usually banks target industries that aren't seen favorably by society. Well yeah, theres legal concerns with porn and it'd be understandable why they wouldn't want to touch gambling. Outside of stuff seen as unfavorable by society, banks don't generally tell their customers what to sell or not sell. Speaking of industries not seen favorably by society, does that mean the gun industry is now not seen favorably by society? There could arguably be a bandwagoning effect here or they're jumping in ahead of a big trend they see coming,

How exactly would they enforce it anyway? Banks aren't usually in the business of telling their customers what they can or can't sell.

Really? I wonder what his opinion is on the election meddling and stuff then.

I suppose theres a slight silver lining in that while his ire has been mainly at Iran and NK, I don't imagine him having any love at all for Russia.

Trump just replaced National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster with John Bolton. RIP peace.

You can sometimes get around the paywalls (at least the monthly ones) by opening in a private window. Works for WaPo and NYT. Ironically, they have a total of 9 or 10 draft deferments for Vietnam between them, heh http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/379719-tapper-shreds-trump-biden-fight-exchange-there-are-nine-draft edit: Trumps top lawyer (or lead lawyer in Russian Probe anyway), John Dowd, resigned because.... surprise surprise, Trump wasn't following advice.

I swear you've talked about gun laws in California as if you were in California though GD. Anyways, that's cleared up now.

I don't get the joke, GD is in California.

Whoever marked it has no sense of humor, lol.

Yeah, I see now... The signs are in strange distances and I'm also noticing that white fence with a completely different background that seems to be blocking the apparent exit of the parking lot and is cutting off part of the red car. I didn't give it a good look earlier and then I focused too much on the wierd thing in the parking lot.

I saw that part as a dog too, but then decided that's a pretty big dog.

The yellowish/gold thing next to the red car? No idea either.

Any specific reason she would be a successor? They already have a line of succession set up though, the successor for the President (they don't have VPs in Russia apparently) is the Prime Minister. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Russia

Yeltsin being drunk probably didn't help with credibility.

Sure. The problem, as I understand it, is what do you do when the president utterly refuses to submit to or even acknowledge subpoena or any other court proceedings? Note that even your article mentions that other presidents voluntarily submitted in order to prevent a constitutional crisis - I seriously doubt that Trump will be concerned with such, given that he hasn't been concerned with...well, anything related to due process or any semblance of justice. Does the court have the power to physically compel the president to submit? I was under the impression that only Congress has the ability to do something like that...and given that our Republican Congress has refused to protect/appoint Mueller as their special prosecutor to make Trump unable to fire him, I'm not exactly too confident that they'll try to punish him for anything short of starting a nuclear holocaust. It gets taken to the Supreme Court and if he still refuses? Constitutional crisis. Also, some Republicans really don't want him to fire Mueller because they know the catastrophic deadlock it'll create and they backed off of protecting Mueller last year because Trump seemed to back off on Mueller.

A subopena is possible though, if legally complicated https://www.vox.com/2018/3/15/16997474/mueller-subpoena-trump-organization-probe-russia @Val: It's less actual tweets of obstruction of justice and more pattern of behavior. Also, Drudge's audience is obviously biased towards Republicans

The NK-esque response and freakout is a negotiation tactic? That only makes sense for a toddler. I suppose it might be a defensive reaction in the same sense that a frilled lizard popping it's frill and hissing is a defense tactic. As for avoiding incriminating himself, if they can't avoid incriminating or perjury by just doing written answers, then they're beyond screwed.

She is without a doubt the most obviously selfish and reprehensible individual in American politics. Today for sure, and very arguably ever. I agree wholeheartedly that Johnson should have been in the debates, but he was never a true alternative. Had he been in the debates, that would be more obvious. He didn't lose because too many Americans think there are only two choices. He never got anywhere because he's a pretty ****ty candidate, with a mostly crappy message. He was pretty much a status quo guy for many of the issues that people want changed, no matter what direction they happen to lean in politically. The fact is that guy had as much legitimate claim to his party's nomination as Hillary did to her's, as the Libertarian party nomination was about as crooked as the democratic party's nomination process the last go around. The cry of foul within the Libertarian party during primary time was not small (though it barely made any news). The truth is that Libertarian party is as hijacked, bought and paid for as the Republican and Democrat apparatuses. I look forward to the day you realize that. And all that said, the solutions to the nation's biggest problems will more than likely never be found via the 'right person' in the White House. It's long past that point, unfortunately. Also, if the Green and Libertarian parties were allowed to the debates, they'd be forced to find quality candidates that can actually stand up to an actual debate. Course, 'good at debates' doesn't neccesarily mean 'good candidate', Trump ripped every opponent a new one as they tried to beat him at his own game and Clinton has her skills.

Showing them the questions he wants to ask doesn't seem like a good idea because then they'll try to coach Trump on the answers. Then again, they don't know what he does know, or doesn't know for that matter. They probably have a good idea, sure, but still.

Turns out the slang hooker existed before the Civil War, so, Gen. Hooker must have endured his share of jokes based on his last name when he was alive too. lol