2024 Presidential Race

[TheDirector]

Nope.

Matt Coker - Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) (Aug. 2021-), Senior Adviser - Biography | LegiStorm

See more about Matt Coker including contact information, congressional salary, employment history, education and other biographical information.

www.legistorm.com

He used to be a Rep but is now a never Trumper. Like Liz Cheney. His twitter is full of anti Trump hissy fits.

 

[BreatheUT]

Oh please.

No rules were broken.

This really sounds like sour grapes.

Apparently cheaters are ok with you.

Y'all watch yall back when MP is around.

 

[TheDirector]

DJT Stock jumps 15% on election day

 

[Vol423]

So to summarize, you think that your opinion matters when it comes to the opposing party's choice of a Presidential nominee.

Hate to burst your balloon, but nobody GAF what you think. Not trying to be saucy, just laying out the truth man.

Where were you when @luthervol kept commenting ad nauseum that Republicans should nominate Liz Chaney?

 

[evillawyer]

 

[hog88]

I believe that proposal would only impact those whose net worth is more than $100 million.

For now and that was the same way the alternative minimum tax was sold. Before it was eliminated it was hitting the middle class. But in general should people pay tax on money they don't have?

 

[McDad]

Democrat Party Chairman.

Trustworthy source.

 

[BowlBrother85]

For now and that was the same way the alternative minimum tax was sold. Before it was eliminated it was hitting the middle class. But in general should people pay tax on money they don't have?

No, but there are so many loophole tax dodges for the upper crust, it wouldn't bother me as long as it stayed on that $100 million plateau.

 

[jp1]

It's the ground game, dumbdumbs. From a Tennessean in South Philly.

If you knock on my door 7 times in 10 days....Im going to show you ground game.

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

That's your opinion. Not that is right. Opinions are like a$$holes. Everyone got one

Sorry, but it's accurate

 

[BowlBrother85]

To be honest, having a hard time finding the motivation to go vote. I will get up and go do it .... but I understand why some people don't in states like Tennessee. The cake is baked in our state.

 

[Carp]

How's it looking boys?

Way too early to tell. But initial turnout numbers favor Trump.

But I think it's quite obvious that Kamala has significantly less support than Biden did in 2020. It will likely be a super close with Trump or Kamala edging out a victory, or it will be a Trump landslide. I don't currently see any scenario in which it is a Harris landslide.

Honestly a doomsday scenario of 269/269 is becoming more plausible by the minute, given the data we're seeing in NE2.

 

[hog88]

No, but there are so many loophole tax dodges for the upper crust, it wouldn't bother me as long as it stayed on that $100 million plateau.

To me that is a punitive and vindictive tax, taxing unrealized gains is theft IMO and you know that the plateau will not stay at $100 mil.

Ok next subject, her proposed price controls on rent and groceries? How do you think that will play out?

 

[newyorkvol]

To be honest, having a hard time finding the motivation to go vote. I will get up and go do it .... but I understand why some people don't in states like Tennessee. The cake is baked in our state.

Welcome to my world

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

No, but there are so many loophole tax dodges for the upper crust, it wouldn't bother me as long as it stayed on that $100 million plateau.

No there isnt....

Holding highly appreciated stocks long term isnt an upper crust loophole

 

[Sea Ray]

Oh please.

No rules were broken.

This really sounds like sour grapes.

It's not about rules...it's about what the Dems have been telling us for a year now: It's about democracy. Kamala was not elected in a democratic way. The people did not vote for her. She was appointed by her party bigwigs and by her predecessor. That's how the Soviets did it in the Politburo.

 

[BreatheUT]

For now and that was the same way the alternative minimum tax was sold. Before it was eliminated it was hitting the middle class. But in general should people pay tax on money they don't have?

That is one of the reasons I've decided to vote against the Davidson County transportation amendment/bill.

 

[BowlBrother85]

No there isnt....

Holding highly appreciated stocks long term isnt a loophole

I didn't say it was .... it looks like a way to offset loopholes.

 

[Kristy*]

Oh please.

No rules were broken.

This really sounds like sour grapes.

The Democrats should have the sour grapes. I would be livid if my party's nominee was replaced, and I was just told to accept/support that person. It's literally fascism at its finest. It feels like free-thinking and dignity left the Democratic Party some time back.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

To be honest, having a hard time finding the motivation to go vote. I will get up and go do it .... but I understand why some people don't in states like Tennessee. The cake is baked in our state.

Is this enough motivation?

 

[knoxvol52]

Is this enough motivation?

 

[BowlBrother85]

To be clear, I put absolutely zero stock in this. I'm just posting it, because I think it's funny how Nate Silver suddenly flipped. Did he give in to wishful thinking? Perhaps.

Kamala Harris predicted to win by nearly every major forecaster

"A close race in the polls does not necessarily mean the outcome will be close," pollsters FiveThirtyEight wrote on their website.

www.newsweek.com

Honestly, I just want to get a rise out of some of you .... and I ran across ^ this ^ a little while ago.

 

[lawgator1]

For now and that was the same way the alternative minimum tax was sold. Before it was eliminated it was hitting the middle class. But in general should people pay tax on money they don't have?

Not chiming on on the election so this doesn't count ...... BUT, there was a funny discussion of this on Daily Show the other day which was something along the lines of this:

Musk says he wants to buy Twitter. But he does not want to sell his Tesla shares because right now he does not "have" the money for those shares and so is not taxed on them. So he borrows money from others using the Tesla shares -- which he says he does not "have" in order to raise the money, which he then does have, to buy Twitter.

So he essentially converts something he claims never to have actually "had," into something he now "has," to buy shares in another company. Which he later claims he has never actually had.

 

[RDU VOL#14]

It's not about rules...it's about what the Dems have been telling us for a year now: It's about democracy. Kamala was not elected in a democratic way. The people did not vote for her. She was appointed by her party bigwigs and by her predecessor. That's how the Soviets did it in the Politburo.

It’s the biggest group of hypocrites on the planet when they talk about protecting democracy. It’s their party trying to buy votes by letting the whole damn world into the country for the past 4 years . Or constantly fantasizing about abolishing the electoral college or packing the courts. Nobody is more FOS than a liberal talking about protecting democracy bc a bunch of idiots stormed the Capitol on January 6th.

 

[RockyTop85]

I can't think of too many times I have complained about Trump being investigated. I may chuckle or express some exasperation at some of it just because of "boy who cries wolf" if you want to semantically pigeonhole that into "whining" go for it.

[/QUOTE]
Lol.

that wasn't the discussion. I didn't comment on the merits of a new investigation. my OP was merely pointing out it was established fact that they did conspire with a foreign agent. when you brought up other points about needing the investigation I said it had already been done, and any wrong doing should be proven in a court of law. which I don't think meets your "day of reckoning", but maybe you are trying to put words in my mouth again.

this is where you get very lawyery with semantic battles, whether an X-spy is still considered an agent. which is quiet the deviation from the original argument of whether or not there was anything to investigate. I do believe you included some hyperbole in your OP which I am generally avoiding due to its nature, so maybe that is where you are trying to lawyer in some deeper meaning I haven't assigned to posts.

Lolol. Also see below.

its a long way from being hyperbolic about if there is anything to investigate at all, to having to go to a Bill Clinton "depends on what your definition of "is" is" when discussing past investigations. I pointed out the investigations you were either unaware of, or leaving out as an purposeful omission, and expressed no desire for more of them. I posted what I took to be the findings from those investigations and posted them here, and you are taking exception with them without addressing them directly. you are instead playing word games assigning more emphasis on the ways you can twist words vs the actually addressing what I actually quoted.

Now if you want to badger me for your own bit of hyperbolic fun: a foreign spy who claims "retirement", likely just from his official spying job with the M16 or whatever, but who still does spy like activities, like dig up non-public knowledge, has access to the resources of a spy, is still an "agent" IMO. he walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, I don't really care if his income tax filings still list "spy" as his employment. some reasons for this opinion: Igor Danchenko was his main contact, another foreign agent, someone who worked for the Russians and was investigated by the FBI for previous spy like activities, insert your legalese dismalls here, in 2011. one of those Russians was Olga Kalkina, who works for the government run news agency RIA Novosti, insert same legalese deflection here. I really very much doubt people steeped into state craft, like the involved individuals have an established history of, fall into too many legalese definitions easily. but for the purposes of an anonymous political forum, its good enough for me to look at all of that and come up with the opinion of "yeah he's a foreign agent".

I am sure it won't satisfy you in your digital courtroom as you type out another series of legalese bad arsey to prove you are the smartest guy in the thread trying to catch people on invented technicalities that weren't part of the original discussion.

I don’t know what any of this is supposed to mean. As best I can tell, it seems completely irrelevant due to your forgetting about the start of the discussion. If you want to coherently rewrite it, I don’t mind to address it then.

100% untrue. well maybe 99%. I am someone who can be convinced. find me anything that will stand up in court and I will be ready to march on DC and get him the heck out of there. as it is its just sour grapes making crap up.

Then: has to stand up in court.
Now: lawyerly semantics to ask for something more statutorily precise than collusion.

That has literally never been used before in this country. #keepthewitchhuntgoing

Then: Witch hunt.
Now: they looked into it and let it go because “what difference does it make”

dude. this whole spree of Russian nonsense has been filled with those type of lies.

You throw out a damning lie. Let people react for a couple days. then after the storm has blown over you release a "correction" and no one pays attention. Even if the correction completely invalidated the original story. wash, rinse, repeat. it has happened literally dozens of times the last 2+ years but everyone still buys the BS.

Then: Russian nonsense, full of lies. Totally made up long enough for everybody to buy the BS.
Now: “But they hired a foreign guy to do oped!!!!!!!1!!!(one)!!!111

even if every single person on this planet is given every last shred of evidence that Mueller dug up it will be meaningless and the speculation will continue.

when the report comes out you will find out about some minor stuff Trump did at some point. And that will become the next rallying cry, even when its no where close to collusion/conspiracy or obstruction. I am almost willing to bet what ever comes out is something you have already looked over a Democrat doing, but this time it will matter.

It’s been two years of shifting goal posts, it won't stop. Mueller's report was supposed to be that line. so far it isn't, and you have given no evidence that you will accept it.

“I cAn’t reMemBeR eveR whiNinG bEforE…”

lol. LG hating on our laws again. wants to punish people for crimes he even admits they didn't do. wow

Then: bad to punish people for crimes they didn’t commit.
Now: we should punish people for crimes that don’t exist.

there is a world of difference between "efforts to interfere" and "hacked the election".

its such an extreme difference its laughable you act like they are similar

Then: important to draw distinctions.
Now: distinctions are lawyerly semantics.

this this this. They started with the assumption he was guilty and was working backwards from there.

“I cAn’t reMemBeR eveR whiNinG bEforE…”

so says the guy who wants to charge Trump with a crime you admitted he didn't do. you have been all about the reach arounds if it gets you what you want, and ignoring any you don't.

Then: bad to punish people for crimes they didn’t commit.
Now: we should punish people for crimes that don’t exist.

I was going to say this type of thing HAS to happen daily as the President. Any President in the modern day that has a team of lawyers behind them has suggested something that could be illegal. But is is extraordinarily rare for that ever to come to fruition.

Again the double standard on Trump is mind boggling.

Poor baby Trump and his double standard.

There was the whole part where they had to approve the Russian lawyers for the Trump Tower meeting.

The part where they lied about the Russians, and any ability for the election to be influenced to discredit Trump.

The illegal spying is also just part of what they did against Trump. They also had an investigation going. Which started with something that doesnt pass the smell test.

No way to claim the WH was treating both sides the same

“I cAn’t reMemBeR eveR whiNinG bEforE…”

The one case of obstruction being the firing of Comey, which Comey said Trumo could fire him for whatever reason?

The truthers have their own support for their beliefs. As with anything in the government its impossible to know every detail. Which in both cases is used to continue the argument.

Do we defend someone from non-proseuctions? Seems like putting the cart before the horse. Yeah stuff went down, but if it doesnt rise to a high enough level to bring a case against it is let go. And that's a general statement in our justice system, not Trump specific. It will be interesting to see if the higher standard is indeed what got him not charged. But until he is proven guilty, he is innocent. Sorry our justice system doesnt fit your argument.

Then: stuff has to rise to a high enough level to bring a case.
Now: “but they hired a foreign guy to do oppo research!”

That definition of obstruction is scary. If that is the standard I dont see how literally every president, or person under federal investigation isnt guilty. You tried to effect the path of the investigation, that is some dangerously broad words. Does that apply to prosecutors as well? I doubt it does, but it should.

The possibilities of that are literally endless. Trump might be guilty under that, but I would think Hillary is as well providing a known crap piece of evidence to the investigation. Prosecutors should be guilty of that for leaning on witnesses, threatening legal actions just to get someone to cooperate, something we definitely saw in this investigation.

If that's the leg you want to stand on, congrats for killing any America I want to live in.

Then: if our laws are too broad we should ignore them.
Now: foreign agent means whatever I want it to mean.

Ones that make sense.

Under that phrasing pleading the 5th could be obstruction. Obviously, hopefully, the 5th would win out, but when application of our rights falls under the guilty category of the law something is wrong. In this case it's the law.

Unlike some however I wont jump to precrime reasoning to throw someone in jail.

“I cAn’t reMemBeR eveR whiNinG bEforE…”

Not sure what you are getting at with all of this. My point has generally, as I tend to wander, is where is the line between questionable and illegal. And you pointed out the law says there is no line. If its questionable it's illegal. That doesnt seem like a good law, which is why I have pointed out that anybody investigated could be guilty of that. And that's scary to me.

I dont care if trump goes down. It just shouldn't be over some bs. This is an incredibly divisive subject which boils down to a process crime now that the Russian thing has blown over.

Imo its bs that we get a chicken or egg result under an incredibly broad law.

Then: important to question the line between questionable and legal.
Now: lawyerly semantics.

Pretty sure that’s just from one relatively short thread about the Mueller report, didn’t event bother to find the Trumputingate thread or to look up what you said about the multiple cases that have been brought, including the one where he was convicted by a jury.

I especially like the one about an overbroad definition of obstruction “murdering any version of America I want to live in” juxtaposed with your current crying about me trying to get you to rely on a fixed definition of foreign agent.