Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Wouldn't double jeopardy technically prevent that?

[Rolan7]

There's no very obvious solution for "JILL STEIN GONNA BE PRESIDENT"

Two economists are on a ship which sinks and they wash up on a sandy island.  They find a crate full of canned food on the island.  They sit around wondering how to get at the food.  Finally one of them comes up with a plan.
"Okay assume for a moment that we have a can opener..."

Yes a remote scenario is remote.  You have to use the magic of ~imagination~, and also hope nobody takes the thought exercise too seriously.

[mainiac]

Wouldn't double jeopardy technically prevent that?

I dont see how it would apply.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Has she been tried yet for that crime?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Well, the impeachment process functions as a sort-of-trial presided by Congress. It would be a little troublesome to legitimize the idea that impeachment permits selecting an already tried and convicted/acquitted crime from a President's past to get rid of them.

I mean, Obama admitted to the ganjia and Clinton didn't inhale (( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)), so it's kind of incongruent even without Bush's massive coke addiction.

[smjjames]

I thought sergarr meant Clinton there, heh.

Has she been tried yet for that crime?

She'd probably at most spend the night in jail and pay a fine.

[Max™]

I have a solution, but it only applies in the case of spherical cans in a vacuum...

If literally everyone over the legal age died and Stein was the oldest person left and only one eligible, I'd bump her odds of winning up to 45% maybe.

Also, if NM does wind up screwing over the results, would you say the election had an Aleppobuquerque moment?

[RedKing]

The country as a whole will be left saying "I knew we should have taken that left turn at Albuquerque..."

[Max™]

Sometimes the candidates make things really easy on the SNL writers.

This isn't a new thing.

I don't recall SNL being able to get away with just a couple of lookalikes reading the transcript.

'Secretary Clinton, what do you think about this?'
"I think I'm gonna be president."

[Frumple]

Huh. Anyone else happen to have noticed this? Haven't checked how legit it is, yet, but if it's solid, eesh. The tl;dr is that trump('s company) appears to have had business with an iranian bank that ended up pegged as being used to fund terrorists.

I think what'd be pretty amusing is if it turns out the bank didn't have an exemption from the trade embargo at the time. Maybe the guy thought there was some kind of contest to see how many embargo violations someone could rack up. _{but it's only two so far, you say! No one except trump said trump was good at it.}

[Max™]

Huh. Anyone else happen to have noticed this? Haven't checked how legit it is, yet, but if it's solid, eesh. The tl;dr is that trump('s company) appears to have had business with an iranian bank that ended up pegged as being used to fund terrorists.

I think what'd be pretty amusing is if it turns out the bank didn't have an exemption from the trade embargo at the time. Maybe the guy thought there was some kind of contest to see how many embargo violations someone could rack up. _{but it's only two so far, you say! No one except trump said trump was good at it.}

So, could we sue Trump for having some sort of vague ties to Iran in a period when it was under sanctions for terrorist activity thanks to JASTA?

[smjjames]

Huh. Anyone else happen to have noticed this? Haven't checked how legit it is, yet, but if it's solid, eesh. The tl;dr is that trump('s company) appears to have had business with an iranian bank that ended up pegged as being used to fund terrorists.

I think what'd be pretty amusing is if it turns out the bank didn't have an exemption from the trade embargo at the time. Maybe the guy thought there was some kind of contest to see how many embargo violations someone could rack up. _{but it's only two so far, you say! No one except trump said trump was good at it.}

I'm gonna give him a bit of the benefit of the doubt on this one until we know more about his culpability and the exact situation going on there. It just seems like that particular situation may be more complex than the article lets on. The article does state that it may have been legally difficult to evict the bank as a tenant, but Trump seems to love suing people, so, it doesn't seem like that would stop him.

It's pretty obvious that his morals are the same as the sterotypical 'evil/greedy corporate CEO that only cares about his bottom line'.

Huh. Anyone else happen to have noticed this? Haven't checked how legit it is, yet, but if it's solid, eesh. The tl;dr is that trump('s company) appears to have had business with an iranian bank that ended up pegged as being used to fund terrorists.

I think what'd be pretty amusing is if it turns out the bank didn't have an exemption from the trade embargo at the time. Maybe the guy thought there was some kind of contest to see how many embargo violations someone could rack up. _{but it's only two so far, you say! No one except trump said trump was good at it.}

So, could we sue Trump for having some sort of vague ties to Iran in a period when it was under sanctions for terrorist activity thanks to JASTA?

That seems incredibly runaround. Besides, there's already laws for breaking sanctions like that.

There's also supposed to be some sort of wikileaks 'bombshell' that is supposed to 'destroy' Clinton. Somehow, I doubt it'll make me, or any of us, want to vote Trump any more than we already are. Seems like this entire election is one long 'October Surprise' after another.

[Rolepgeek]

If we were to find out that the current Clinton was an android who replaced the original Hillary years ago, and Trump has an alien parasite controlling his mind, would everyone vote Johnson?

[Frumple]

... he's johnson, so no. Dude's pretty right-wing, not even remotely a central enough candidate to get broad-spectrum support if something happens to the current candidates.

What would probably happen is just the VPs stepping in and going at it. Either of them's probably more likely to manage a win than any of the third party critters.

[Sheb]

Anyone plans on watching the VP debate? I still can't believe organizing this doesn't count as cruel and unusual punishment for Pence.