Werthless wrote:

JUburton wrote:

Bucky wrote:

JUburton wrote:https://twitter.com/pourmecoffee/status/804362511013265408

how is an anti-vaxxer the head of infectious disease at CHOP

i think you need to re-read that champ

jokes on you, i didnt even read it but my brother sent it to me and i took his word for it! i will chastise him for his terrible comprehension!

ok maybe jokes on me

You'll love this article then.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ber ... 1f5257a6b7

Before November 8, 69 percent of Republican voters said they wanted the entire law repealed. But that has declined to 52 percent in the wake of Donald Trump’s victory.

Voters shifted to another option: scaling back what the law does.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:Stein visited Wisconsin and Michigan during her campaign

maybe if Hillary had she could have overcome those tiny Trump margins

A little-noticed clause in the document, which Trump signed with the General Services Administration before he ran for president, no "elected official of the Government ... shall be admitted to any share or part of this Lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom."
...
Schooner has argued the case against Trump's ownership of the hotel in recent weeks. He said the fix has to come from the GSA, and he said one option is for the agency to terminate the contract because of the breach.

"It should not be difficult for GSA to figure out that they have a number of obvious solutions," he said.

Schooner said the Trump Organization could sue the GSA should the agency end the contract, but he said the government would have a strong legal case in court. Nobody forced Trump to run for president two years after he signed the lease.

Even if the GSA were to lose, the monetary damages would probably be small, Schooner said, and the Trump Organization would not regain control of the hotel.
...
"I don't really understand what they're doing right now," Schooner said. "GSA got themselves into this mess. They have to get themselves out of it."

Werthless wrote:Could Trump lose his hotel on Pennsylvania avenue for violating the terms of the lease? Maybe!

A little-noticed clause in the document, which Trump signed with the General Services Administration before he ran for president, no "elected official of the Government ... shall be admitted to any share or part of this Lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom."
...
Schooner has argued the case against Trump's ownership of the hotel in recent weeks. He said the fix has to come from the GSA, and he said one option is for the agency to terminate the contract because of the breach.

"It should not be difficult for GSA to figure out that they have a number of obvious solutions," he said.

Schooner said the Trump Organization could sue the GSA should the agency end the contract, but he said the government would have a strong legal case in court. Nobody forced Trump to run for president two years after he signed the lease.

Even if the GSA were to lose, the monetary damages would probably be small, Schooner said, and the Trump Organization would not regain control of the hotel.
...
"I don't really understand what they're doing right now," Schooner said. "GSA got themselves into this mess. They have to get themselves out of it."

CalvinBall wrote:Toni Lahern was on the daily show tonight and it is as skin crawling as you can imagine

PTOITWCFTPP wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Toni Lahern was on the daily show tonight and it is as skin crawling as you can imagine

Just watched this. She's very dumb

Werthless wrote:

PTOITWCFTPP wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Toni Lahern was on the daily show tonight and it is as skin crawling as you can imagine

Just watched this. She's very dumb

I can understand how people can not notice, since she talks so fast. It actually is a skill to be able to string coherent thoughts together at that speed. Of course, while they are syntactically correct, her arguments are usually dumb. But she's not dumb.

Youseff wrote:that does seem like a very dumb position.

BLM can have a confrontational style that is hostile, and I can get why that would rub people the wrong way, but there's been a myriad examples of rational pro-BLM folks or representatives of BLM explaining clearly, empathetically and rationally what their movement is trying to accomplish. Beyond that, they're gaol is a good one: less racist policing policies. It's bizarre how maligned and misunderstood that movement is.

Werthless wrote:

PTOITWCFTPP wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Toni Lahern was on the daily show tonight and it is as skin crawling as you can imagine

Just watched this. She's very dumb

I can understand how people can not notice, since she talks so fast. It actually is a skill to be able to string coherent thoughts together at that speed. Of course, while they are syntactically correct, her arguments are usually dumb. But she's not dumb.

TenuredVulture wrote:

Youseff wrote:that does seem like a very dumb position.

BLM can have a confrontational style that is hostile, and I can get why that would rub people the wrong way, but there's been a myriad examples of rational pro-BLM folks or representatives of BLM explaining clearly, empathetically and rationally what their movement is trying to accomplish. Beyond that, they're gaol is a good one: less racist policing policies. It's bizarre how maligned and misunderstood that movement is.

Not really when you consider there are a lot of people who like the idea of cops killing innocent black people.