Hanarchy Montanarchy wrote:It warms my coal black heart to see that no one is concerned with federal over reach any more.
The single episode isn't so concerning as the precedent we could be setting. Not to mention a marginal chance to start a real insurgency as a response.
Thing is, if Trump goes in there he won't come out a loser. Whatever that may entail.
“I've got a phone that allows me to convene Americans from every walk of life, nonprofits, businesses, the private sector, universities to try to bring more and more Americans together around what I think is a unifying theme..." - Obama
Hanarchy Montanarchy wrote:It warms my coal black heart to see that no one is concerned with federal over reach any more.
The single episode isn't so concerning as the precedent we could be setting. Not to mention a marginal chance to start a real insurgency as a response.
Thing is, if Trump goes in there he won't come out a loser. Whatever that may entail.
He's not going to declare martial law over 3* million people. That's too stupid, even for him. Nobody is even going to take it seriously as "an outrageous opener".
We've yet to see his hand called down. His reputation is crucial to his clout.
“I've got a phone that allows me to convene Americans from every walk of life, nonprofits, businesses, the private sector, universities to try to bring more and more Americans together around what I think is a unifying theme..." - Obama
Postby Hanarchy Montanarchy » Tue Jan 24, 2017 11:04 pm
It is a dangerous gambit. If Trump is going to make a habit of threatening that he is going to bring the ruckus, he has to either eventually bring the ruckus and look like a tyrant, or fail to bring the ruckus and look like a pussy.
That is probably why responsible statesmen don't threaten to bring down the boot of a police state without a really good godamn reason.
HAIL!
Her needs America so they won't just take his shit away like in some pussy non gun totting countries can happen.
-Hwen
Someone get the President on TV to fire this bitch
A senior U.S. Secret Service agent posted Facebook condemnations of President Trump during the past seven months, including one in which she said she wouldn't want to "take a bullet" for him.
She explained herself saying she viewed his presidential candidacy as a "disaster" for the country, and especially for women and minorities.
Kerry O'Grady, the special agent in charge of the Secret Service's Denver district, oversees coordination with Washington-based advance teams for all presidential candidate and presidential trips to the area, including all upcoming or future trips by the president, vice president or Trump administration officials. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2612814/
I was under the impression that there was a law barring the Secret Service from engaging in this sort of activity.
What, you want to make her a celebrity for the anti-Trumpist opposition? Yep, they would surely want another agency that Trump has a strained relationship. Smart thing would to make her resign.
Stupid thing to make it a bigger thing. Only Trump starting to talk about this would focus more attention to it than an prosecution of one members Facebook page (in a 4 400 person organization).
U.S. Treasury Secretary nominee Steven Mnuchin isn’t jumping on the Republican bandwagon to audit the Fed.
Drain the Swamp right?
No brainer.
Now why would a Goldman Sachs guy want to make problems for another Goldman Sachs guy, like William Dudley, who's in charge of the biggest regional Federal Reserve bank and the vice-chairman of the Federal Open Market Committee? Or for Wall Street banks in general?
Hanarchy Montanarchy wrote:It is a dangerous gambit. If Trump is going to make a habit of threatening that he is going to bring the ruckus, he has to either eventually bring the ruckus and look like a tyrant, or fail to bring the ruckus and look like a pussy.
That is probably why responsible statesmen don't threaten to bring down the boot of a police state without a really good godamn reason.
You let us know when you've found a good reason to intervene,
40 Murders In 22 Days: Chicago Violence Not Slowing After Bloody 2016
From Jan. 1 through Sunday, there have been more murders, shootings and people killed or wounded in shootings than over the same period in 2016. Last year saw Chicago's bloodiest days since violence rocked the city in the 90s, and the violence has not slowed.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dumb slut partied too hard and woke up in a weird house. Ran out the door, weeping for her failed life choices, concerned townsfolk notes her appearance and alerted the fuzz.