naraku360

I'm in a deep blue state. Pretty much every city, county, state, or federal election I have any impact on goes Dem whether I vote or not I'm not sure why you're more inclined to villify the voters over politicians who currently hold enough power to do anything, like Biden's refusal to codify Roe v. Wade which isn't even effected by the filibuster. What's his excuse?

Your coworker is, at present, completely wrong.

Most laws with minimum ages don't have maximum ages. We gain rights with ages, typically for the better, but it's not like it becomes illegal to drink when you turn to the arbitrarily selected 70 or whatever.

I understand the point, but I'm not entirely comfortable using uncontrollable circumstances (age) to reject people from a job. But the assumption of conginitive decline based on age rather than behavioral symptoms is explicitly discriminatory and illegal in most industries. If someone is capable of performing a job, I'm not big on rejecting their right to do so on principle. It may solve a lot of issues with our current situation, however at what cost? If, theoretically, all 65+ y/os are treated as cognitively insufficient, who is to say we can't keep expanding competency on equally discriminatory bases? I'd prefer a system that's actively holding people accountable than assume medical conditions without direct proof.

Elaborate. ???

Term limits perhaps, but age is a protected class and I don't think we should start restricting that.

Pelosi and Schumer are both worthless to society. They should've been voted out years ago. These prehistoric ghouls really need to kick the bucket already.

If it's a pedo thing, the only reason Trump would have to reject the request is that he wasn't invited.

Look, I'm cool with paying for porn to support independent creators.... But if I pay for your subscription, I paid for fucking content. I did not pay to get the ability to pay for every piece of content individually. That defeats the entire purpose of a subscrption fee. Just gimme my goddamn boobies! 🤬

o·rig·i·nal /əˈrijənl/ adjective 1. Whatever I say it is.

"We have no knowledge of any foot long dildo in any asses. But if one were to be located, rest assured it was put there by the Democrats at no fault of our own."

I'm still waiting to find out why you only acknowedged this part but not the breaking windows, scaling walls, chanting to hang Mike Pence and politicians intent on ratifying the election, or why the buildings were evacuated for that matter. I thought you wanted civil conversations with the opposition. 🤔

Legalizing/protecting child marriage, end all welfare for the poors, light the planet on fire, tax cuts for the right, drone strike brown babies overseas, ban porn and all forms of non-fornication related sex with the female orgasm onviously being death row, white Jesus, saying the n-word like a true 'Murican, arm teachers with bazookas, small government military state, burn the books, slavery didn't happen and if it did its not our fault also the Irish, don't ban me on Twitter for any reason ever, make throwing teh gays off roofs legal, and ban Mexicans and Muslims. What a lovely bunch.

And do you think the DoJ isn't or can't be in contact with the committee...? What difference does it make if they make the referral on their own accord or if the DoJ recommends prosecution and gets the referral? Their job is to present evidence. Evidence, used for or against prosection, is itself neutral. The goal is to investigate or obtain proof of wrongdoing, but if insufficient proof can be found the job itself does not dictate they come to a guilty conclusion. In the eyes of the law, innocent until proven guilty. To prove guilt, all evidence first needs to be presented first. They believe he was guilty so they are making that case on record. If they did not find evidence to back the claim, it would be their responsiblity to report such. Presenting an argument based on proof doesn't change that, and the argument isn't required to be for or against. I specifically said a cursory search. Like all of them are publicly opposed to Trump and joined the committee under the belief that sufficient evidence to take legal action could be found. Taking an off-record stance is maybe a bit unprofessional, but not a crime.

The point still stands. Taking a neutral stance is their job. They literally aren't responsible for pressing charges. And even then, they're all openly in favor of prosecution. Even the people being quoted have publicly said they want criminal charges.

It is an evidentiary committee. They actually don't make the call. Even the dubious "we aren't making criminal referrals," is followed by saying it's the DoJ that makes the decision. And "laying the roadmap for prosecution," sounds like favoring prosecution. A cursory look at his record, he doesn't come off as being opposed to pressing charges. Like, at all. Saying it's not our call isn't the same as saying it's out of the question, especially when they aren't acting as a committee that can press charges. It might be getting shot done by this guy, but as far as I can tell the chair doesn't have final say regardless. I believe it's a vote with several members publicly contradicting the statement, and I don't know if any have agrred with it. No matter what opinion we may have toward Dems, this doesn't really tell us much about the direction things will go.

MD isn't really doing that. She seems to be anti-Trump at this point. That's just how awful he was.

You're breaking @Ginguy's heart. He still won't answer me, either. After I was very civil, too.

I kinda.... like.... my.... corporate desk job. 🤮

It's always hot when I'm around. 😎

Inagine a system where you can fire the person invesigating you then hire the person who choses whether charges are pressed or not, and you pick someone who stated they would not press charges "even if crimes were committed," and also your followers think it's totz cool.

@Ginguy