Jump to content

Zsa Zsa's leg

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1,344

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by Zsa Zsa's leg

  5. Posted

    2 hours ago, Clorox Bleachman said:

     

    Food is the least of their worries. It was reported that an oxygen was to be pumped into the airhole but, like with everything, there have been no updates on that. Oxygen being released into the wrong areas could be bad news. Elon Musk must feel stupid right now for thinking they'd have enough time to assemble a giant boring machine and make a 1km deep hole. :lol:

    To be fair, one of the plans the authorities presented was to simply let them wait possibly months with oxygen and supplies while workers found a less dangerous pathway out other than diving. I assume that's when Musk decided he had the time to create a hole? Regardless, I don't think the wait game is a viable option. Still, with a hole I'm not sure they'll be able to get out, 1km seems very high for them to be lifted out.

    • Like 1

  6. Posted

    7 minutes ago, Clorox Bleachman said:

    Does everyone think they're all going to die together? I very much doubt that happening, unless there's a freak accident where the cave collapses or something. Now that they're being evacuated, the rescuers will likely focus their efforts on each individual kid. So if one dies then the rescuers will find a way to prevent the next kid from following the same fate, whilst one kid could make it through but the next one is too fatigued to get out in time.

     

    It's worth noting that the rescuers are talking about a 3-4 day "window" without clarifying what that entails. Does it mean that the cave is in optimal condition for that time? Or does it mean that everything's gonna go tits up after that point? The media's not explaining these things.

    It's definitely possible, if not likely. If they die I'm sure it'll be from lack of oxygen or the flood from the upcoming storm. I don't think they'll be in there long enough to starve.

  8. Posted

    The media needs to stop covering this story 24/7 like it will have a happy ending. This is nothing like the Chilean miners incident a few years back. Trying to teach malnourished children to do some diving feats that even professionals struggle to do, let alone novices. 

    Assuming they don't run out of oxygen, which seems to be the most likely scenario ATM, imagine the HELL that coach will go through when he returns home. I'm sure he doesn't want to leave that cave.

  10. Posted

    40 minutes ago, Sir Creep said:

    Democratic Rep Steny Hoyer has been hospitalized with pneumonia in Washington DC.  The Maryland congressman is expected to recover quickly.  Hoyer, 79, is being treated with antibiotics and has been resting after he was admitted to the George Washington Hospital on Tuesday. 

    SC

    Definitely not a valid replacement for Pelosi when/if she finally steps down. Neither is Joe Crowley anymore :D. Geez. House Dem leadership is just collapsing. Pelosi's nearing 80 and has been the leader since 2003, yet the only guy willing to challenge her is Tim Ryan. We are truly living in the worst possible scenario.

  11. Posted

    9 hours ago, En Passant said:

    And on that basis she's 20x more famous than the combined fame of 20 seemingly randomly selected other people?

     

    Sure it should be here, at least it's peripherally what the board is about unlike the minutiae of American regional politics.

     

    Look, I don't actually give two hoots, I threw in a two word response for a laugh, because it's a counterpoint to 14 tedious paragraphs about a subject that is meaningless to anyone not american.

    Then why post in here? Lol

  12. Posted

    54 minutes ago, En Passant said:

    Oh I leave most of the thread complaining to SC he's had more practice.

    Just throwing in a fuck at the americentrism, for balance.

    That and the ludicrous assertions that some reality bod is more famous than god because you've seen every show.

    Never actually seen her show, just the gifs, and is this the appropriate thread to discuss that?

  14. Posted

    A recent poll has shown that Lieutenant Governor Casey Cagle's lead has substantially narrowed in the Republican Primary Runoff for Governor of Georgia against gun-toting State Secretary of State Brian Kemp. Lieutenant Governor Cagle has apparently been caught up in a few scandals recently, and Brian Kemp is Brian Kemp, whoever wins this Primary will probably have a difficult time against Democratic Nominee Stacey Abrams, who could be the country's first black female Governor if elected, and the first Democratic Governor in Georgia since Roy Barnes in 2003. Georgia is trending heavily Democratic, with Atlanta growing and rural populations narrowing, pundits seem to agree Georgia could be a pivotal swing state in the next few election cycles. 

    In my opinion, Cagle deserves to lose after he refused a tax cut for Delta Airlines because they ended discounts for NRA members after the MSD Shooting ; although, Brian Kemp agrees with Cagle on the Delta issue.

    My rating for this race: Lean GOP. Downgrade from Likely GOP due to the collapse of Cagle's lead and Kemp being Kemp. This certainly can't hurt Abrams.

  16. Posted

    Probably terminal cancer and she won't see July.

    But in all seriousness, this is likely a nothing burger, it's a miracle she doesn't always feel unwell at 92 and being one of the longest serving heads of state.

    • Thanks 1

  17. Posted

    2 hours ago, CarolAnn said:

     

    Nothing terrifies me more than fearmongering and melodrama. Women's health is not in deep jeopardy. The federal guarantee to have an abortion is. There's a difference, particularly as only 14.6 out of 1000 women get abortions.

     

    You do realize that the majority of people on this forum aren't US citizens, right?  <_< 

     

    This will be a nomination hearing that will make Robert Bork's nomination hearing look like a day at Disneyland, and the stakes are much, much higher than just abortion. Whether people like it or not, this is how this system works. Check and balance. Tenth amendment. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled. No President or Congress lasts forever, and it only seems like the Supreme Court does. 

     

    And yes, I hate it when people say "breaking." It's the single most overused word on the internet right now. This is a deadpooling forum, not the fucking New York Times. Besides, rumor has been swirling for months that he would retire after this term. 

     

    The Supreme Court has been conservative since 1971 - basically all of my life. Nixon started it by stacking the Court with Rehnquist, Powell, Blackmun, and Burger. The Court still rarely outright reverses itself, particularly with flashpoint issues. It is feasible that the Court may whittle it away and make abortion more difficult to obtain, but it is unlikely to completely ban it - and reversing Roe v Wade would merely punt the issue to the states. This would serve to make California and New York vacation destinations of choice. 

     

    Roe v Wade was basically a cheater's way of figuring out how to tie abortion to the Constitution so the federal government could have some say without violating the 10th amendment. Linking the issue of abortion to privacy and due process and clearly indicating the the "right" to an abortion was not unlimited and that there was a compelling interest from the state merely set the stage for the years and years and years of idiocy and bullshit we have endured. The trimester framework is clumsy and was later rejected by O'Connor/Souter/Kennedy in favor of undue burden, which isn't much better. It was inevitable that Roe v Wade would face a legitimate challenge, and to be honest I'm surprised it hasn't happened sooner. It's time to stop kicking the can down the road. 

     

    Legally and constitutionally there is a lot wrong with the decision, and Wikipedia has a good analysis of it, but you have to read it without ideological blinders on.

     

    There are far more important issues that a conservative Court may decide on ideology. Gerrymandering and voting rights would have far more reaching implications than abortion. Civil rights, particularly with the law enforcement involvement lately, could reverberate far more than abortion. Personally, I'm more interested in preventing people from being killed for being black than I am for fighting for abortion rights, and I am not anti-abortion. Of course, I'm also not pro-abortion. It simply has never been my priority, and for anyone to assume all US women must be either for or against abortion, or are single issue voters, is a bit disingenuous and insulting. 

     

    You want to change the conservative tide in the United States? Really? Get your words off this forum full of people who have no say in the US system and use them to change this:

     

    Capture.JPG.8ac5159e18f5d0c607984f718992f4da.JPG

    US Census Bureau Current Population Survey (election trends 1984 - 2016).

     

    This graph is a Republican's wet dream.

     

    High points are presidential elections, low are midterms. Funny that it's the midterms that really have the most impact on US citizens as individuals but are when they are least likely to get off their asses and vote. As long as that purple line is above 50% and that blue line is below 50% there ain't gonna be any young person getting what they want. They give their power away in the name of apathy and ignorance. The older you get, the more likely you are to vote - and the older you are the more conservative you get. You vote to protect your interests. It's the actual majority of voters who get the grease. Kids have never understood this. We didn't when we were young adults, but the stakes weren't quite as high then. No one in Congress is going to look out for you when you don't vote as a block. The Baby Boomers are going to walk all over all of us. Ironically, they were quite liberal as youngsters.....but not any more.

     

    The number of people, mostly young but some middle aged, who have told me they didn't vote in the 2016 presidential election because "I couldn't vote for Bernie" or "Bernie got cheated" blew my mind. I just thanked them for electing Trump - because that's exactly what they did.

    I'll attempt to make a brief post, unlike this one.

    1. Fearmongering and melodrama it is not, genuine discomfort and worry over some of the most important issues in recent history it is. This next court will make new decisions on issues that either have already been resolved by the court and are being challenged again or are just now being introduced to the court. If this ignorance over the power the Supreme Court has, especially with a more conservative bench, helps you sleep at night, then so be it.

    2. Yes, I know most are British, is that relevant? Not necessarily. 

    3. Rumors swirl over every Justice and their possible retirement, especially older ones like Kennedy himself, and Clarence Thomas, who was also speculated to retire this year. This retirement was ultimately not expected, if he didn't retire in 2017, some analysts said he would probably either be a lifer or hang on for a few more years. This wasn't totally expected.

    4. I don't disagree with you on abortion at all. I am pro-life myself, I just care about precedent, the court's integrity, and ultimately the safety of our country. Our President promised to appoint judges that seek to reverse Roe V. Wade, and this President isn't too keen on breaking promises, no matter how outrageous or damaging they are. Roe v. Wade is definitely in jeopardy, but as I said, if it helps you sleep at night. Of course not all women are pro-choice, I don't think that's up for debate. 

    5. Not sure what voting demographics has to do with the retirement of Justice Kennedy. Despite younger voters consistently having lower turnout (you can't change that, young people simply don't care to vote largely because of GOP policies targeted at younger voters and minorities to prevent them from voting their asses out), a Republican hasn't won the popular vote since 2004, and before that, the last time it happened was 1988. Ultimately, the President makes a nomination to the court, and unless they want a constitutional crisis, the Congress will likely confirm any middle of the line nominee that's not batshit like Harriet Miers or Jeanine Pirro.

    This debate is interesting, and you definitely have wiser words than mine. I'd be interested in transitioning this discussion over to our messages because I do think it's important, just not in the actual death part of the forum.

  18. Posted

    1 hour ago, DeathClock said:

    Couldn't agree more, I actually do live in New York 14th congressional district and voted for AOC. Over the last couple of years my friends and I started to realize that Crowley was hardly ever in the district. We felt like he was too caught up with the, “Speaker of the House” hype. Despite all of this, I still planned on voting for him until that debate. It became obvious he toke everybody’s vote for granted, and that he only care’s about becoming a powerful politician. 

     

    In the meantime, AOC was always in the district and generally seemed to care about everyone who lives in the area. But, I have yet to met a die hard supporter of her’s. Honestly, this was more about replacing Crowley then electing her, tbh.

     

    I hope this sends a message to all politicians that you can’t ever take anyone’s vote for granted. You must help the people you represent first, and then you can advance your political career. 

     

    I leave you guys with 3 words: Watch out Cuomo!!!

    Very interesting to have somebody from the district have input on this race. I do have a few questions.

    1. Were you bombarded with campaign mail and flyers from the Crowley campaign? I've seen pictures of piles of mail from Joe Crowley and wanted to know if it was an isolated incident or if it was true. Also, did Crowley absorb the airways? And did AOC even come close to Crowley's amount of campaigning?

    2. Do you really think Nixon has a shot at beating Cuomo? and do you think Cuomo will hold onto minority voters in NYC or more voters in upstate NY, or which area will Nixon do the best in?

    3. Did you vote for Crowley in the past? And why do you think Crowley lost by a 15 point margin when some pundits predicted a 70-30 win for Crowley?

  19. Posted

    1 hour ago, Joey Russ said:

    I do agree with Phantom that this should be more of a 2018 midterms thread rather than a thread of your own predictions. Otherwise, would it be okay if every single person be allowed to make their own political predictions thread, or a “How will I do in this dead pool” thread type? 

    Not my predictions, haven't made any predictions in here. This is an election coverage and analysis thread. The mods can feel free to change the title if people are that mad.

  20. Posted

    I would love if Trump nominated his sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, an 81-year-old inactive federal judge. She's actually quite liberal and apparently pro-choice. Maybe she's a future DDP pick.

  21. Posted

    1 hour ago, Death Impends said:

     

    I don't think SCOTUS family dynasties are a thing that really happens.

     

    Fully expecting another Scalia type which basically brings you from 5-4 conservative court with the once-in-a-while swing from Kennedy to a 5-4 conservative court without that (well, there've been a few surprise moments from Roberts, but much more rarely than even Kennedy).

    Yeah. Family dynasties in America are rare unless you're a Senator that dies and the Governor appoints the wife out of courtesy, the Bush's are a large scale outlier. It's unlikely any of Kennedy's family members are qualified for the job unless they're a judge themselves. 

    Trump can go either way with this nomination, and neither will satisfy everybody. He can choose to win over swing voters with a Kennedy-esque moderate swing vote to honor Reagan's legacy and avoid a difficult confirmation battle. 

    Or, he can choose a conservative Trumpist that would struggle to be confirmed, but excites the base. Neither of these choices matters in the grand scheme of things, Supreme Court appointments may be large achievements for an administration, but the historically Democratic white working class in the midwest won't care. Instead, Romney>Clinton voters will care as they trend Democratic and become more politically involved. These Romney-Clinton districts are primarily occupied by suburban Republicans thay are retiring and are especially vulnerable to flip in November. If Trump were smart, he would appoint a moderate to not give these voters another reason to vote Democratic.

  22. Posted

    Just now, Sean said:

    Exactly.Trump will pick someone that his base will get behind.In fact his 2020 campaign will largely be on the supreme Court as if he is reelected as Breyer and Ginsburg are unlikely to be serving still in 2024.

    I hope that Kennedy can try to get into Trump's mind and ask him to nominate somebody he agrees with more, instead of somebody like Bill Pryor. This nomination goes on for so much longer than the end of Trump's term in 2021 or 2025, if the nominee is like Gorsuch and around the age of 40-50, this court will be 5-4 conservative for decades until Clarence Thomas leaves.

  23. Posted

    3 minutes ago, Death Impends said:

     

    Just because there are pro-choice conservatives out there doesn't mean anyone like that will be getting on the Supreme Court. Trying to get rid of Roe v Wade is one of the biggest obsessions of the Court-fixated conservatives, hence the candidates spoonfed to Trump all being in that mold.

    Exactly. It's impossible for a pro-choice conservative, the few of whom that exist, to be nominated by Trump, or even confirmed in our GOP Senate. If said pro-choice conservative is from a state where there is just ONE pro-life Senator, it's likely that the Senator will turn over their blue slip on the nominee.

    The notion that a "pro-choice conservative" will be appointed to be a federal judge, let alone the highest court of the land, is ridiculous

    • Like 2

  25. Posted

    16 minutes ago, Joey Russ said:

    He was a swing vote for many major issues, perhaps most importantly with gay rights. Not sure what the future of the Supreme Court will be now especially since it’s likely that there won’t be a swing vote...

    If Trump nominates another 40-something-year-old conservative, that doesn't have any extreme positions that would cause Collins and Murkowski to flip in the Senate confirmation vote, the court will be a 5-4 party line rubber stamp for Trump's GOP. Clarence Thomas isn't even 70 yet, it'll be decades before another conservative Justice retires or passes away. 

    Now, more than ever, women's health is in deep jeopardy. Roe V. Wade will be gone by June 2019 if a Trumpist is confirmed. 

    If this terrifies you, please email, call, and talk with Senators Lisa Murkowski, John McCain. Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, Susan Collins, and John Neely Kennedy, because once this nominee is confirmed, there's no going back, especially since Breyer and Ginsburg are aging and Trump has shots to replace them with conservatives.

×

Important Information

Your use of this forum is subject to our Terms of Use

  I accept