JohnboyND7

These guys are both something else, but Biden is clearly vulnerable when it comes to Hunter, he's vulnerable on Courts, hes vulnerable on race, and hes vulnerable on energy.

Trump will a lot more. He has a more domineering attitude.

Unlikely they will both need a chair and a cut-man.

I had nearly forgotten about that game. My God that was something else lol

Idk drawing the line between South Bend and Notre Dame Indiana is a bit silly. Just call it South Bend.

I believe he is suggesting that you insinuated the guy was some elite ND professor. The schools have some association i believe. St. Mary's is an all girls school i think though.

Twins...amirite?

Lmaooooo thats gold.

Don Lemon's excuse there is piss poor. That's a President Trump level attempt at a backpedal. I'm not sure what Tucker Carlson has to do with Don Lemon not understanding basic civics. Why are you defending Don Lemon here? Genuine question.

Don Lemon went on TV and claimed Joe Biden and a Democrat congress could abolish the electoral college. CNN isn't exactly high quality journalism.

you are covering for the dude who was paid by Russians out of fear that Trump has borrowed money from a bank that also services Russians?

Fine by me. You are conflating him personally being non-religious with him doing right by religious people. I'll take a guy who privately thinks Catholicism is stupid but ensures religious freedoms over say...a guy who proclaims he is Catholic but wants to force taxpayers and employers to pay for abortions. That article won't change a single voter's mind....its the Atlantic.

Idk. They called him a serial gang rapist. He had free reign there.

Deutsche Bank? Enormous bank with well over a trillion dollars in assets. Is everyone with loans from Deutsche a risk to the country?

Your post didn't seem to care whether or not it was legal. Your post indicated people getting their tax burden as low as possible is unpatriotic because of Afghanistan and preschool or some nonsense. So again..why would he pay more than is required, assuming it was legal? Do you give the government more money than is required?

Can you expand on something or perhaps have an original thought for once in your life? If it was legal, say his accountants and lawyers legally (or substantially legally, hard to get mad at folks for pushing the boundaries in good faith) got his Federal Income Tax burden to that amount, why the heck would he pay more? Does anyone say "you know what...my accountant says I owe $750 but I'm gonna write the government a check for $50 million because I'm a patriot!" No. They don't. That article is trash. I feel bad for you. Be better.

I suspect that played a role in the leak. A.) Give sleepy Joe ammo for a debate B.) Lead Americans to think close to an election that Trump is in financial trouble when more information would be needed to ascertain that. C.) Tell Don that he can clear it all up by releasing financial information that probably shows either A.) He is in financial trouble, or B.) He doesn't have as much money as he wants folks to think. Under any circumstance, its bad optics before an election and its on a topic that most people have a limited understanding on. Let's assume its all perfectly legal and he is in a fine place financially... He could send out the leading tax accountants, tax attorneys, and corporate attorneys in the country to explain it to people in a 15 minute speech or a 12 hour telethon, 99% of it will go right over people's heads and a lot of folks will still be saying, "Orange Man Broke, Orange Man Bad!" <--- see a few folks on this board without naming names.

Perhaps he only needs to generate the necessary cash flow to service his debt like many others seem to do.

Sounds like it's in the nation's best interest to keep Donald in office until he dies then... for national security. Thanks Barn!

If they added 4 additional justices there would be no need to pass a law saying "it takes 7 votes to overturn Congress" unless he is saying what I think he is saying. Its pretty clear contextually that his objective is to not only expand the court but also dilute its power to stand against Congress. And I'm pretty sure that Congress has no authority to say that "if it is not at least 10-3(7 vote majority), then our legislation stands." If im remembering Con law correctly, overturning a SCOTUS ruling can only occur under two circumstances, 1.) SCOTUS itself overturns their own past decision, or 2.) Constitutional Amendment which is very difficult. Its possible that I'm forgetting some other methods or that we didn't discuss them in class. But SCOTUS isn't going to let Congress create a genuinely ludicrous standard to find their laws unconstitutional. They would have next to zero check on the Legislative Branch. I dont think you'd get a single member of the Court to sign off on that. Those folks have their own leanings left and right but that's the sort of institutional threat that they'd all probably reject unless they are some goofy goofy activist. Once they reject that law (which no congressman with a remote shot at losing their seat will vote in favor of, but we will pretend they voted for it), you'd need a constitutional amendment to overturn SCOTUS. Has it been done in the past? On a few occasions. But that dude has a bizarre pie in the sky theory that I can't imagine anyone rational acting on. The result of that idea is basically "we have two branches of government now because the third branch will pretty much never have the votes to stop anything." That guy is an idiot. Tl:Dr .... just no.

According to the screen, roughly three hours ago. Consider yourself enlightened.

aren't you the guy who suggested Congress pass a law declaring that SCOTUS can't strike down their legislation without at least 7 votes? I'd take it easy before calling others idiots.

What happens if you are an executive at Company A and also Company B, and Company A hires company B for X amount of money...who later pays that money to the executive who works for both? Genuine question and not saying that happened here.

Not sure how being a sexist, racist, homophobe with issues of animal cruelty and a hawkish attitude against a regional nuclear superpower can be regarded as venial sins. The media and DNC told us this in 2012. Mitt was a monster. Now I am to believe that they were just kidding around back then and Trump REALLY IS a monster? Nah. The media lost all credibility. Not my fault they suck at their job. Donald doesn't need to release his taxes to prove anything. Apparently the NYT has them already. Whats this intelligence you speak of? The IRS has had this information for 20 years. You are telling me the Obama IRS, who literally got busted for targeting groups and individuals hostile to his administration, had information that Donald Trump was compromised in some way and did nothing with it? It appears you have some weird belief that Trump is both an idiot and some evil genius mastermind. The more likely reality is that he doesn't want his taxes released because he doesnt have as much money as the he likes to lead people to believe because he's a pretty petty and vain dude.

he was a sexist, racist, homophobe who dabbled in animal cruelty and didn't pay his taxes....Plus his foreign policy was straight out of the 80's! Gotta love our media.