Jump to content

Satans Little Helper

Supporting Member
  • Content Count

    84
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Satans Little Helper

  1. I'd pay to see this happening. Space expansion now please!
  2. To take a break from all these heated debates, take a cup a tea and have this vid. Interesting vid. All sorts of economical schools of thought in 10 mins. As far as I can tell, it's light hearted, fair and quite neutral as far as I'm concerned. Although, they do mention that the most likely development will be that the various schools will converge in the centre, as opposed to an extreme. OK, that's it. Back to hair splitting again... ;D
  3. I'm happy to never have jumped on the FB train. For a while, it was pretty difficult though. Around 2013-2016 I've noticed many people started to communicate with each other through FB. And there was a real sense of missing out on what people were talking about. People were regularly talking about stuff on FB in real life, back then. That has lessened nowadays. Although I have to admit that Whatsapp is a must. Even professionally. But that has nothing to do with a FB account. And I've noticed more and more people getting off FB. Often out of principle. Which is a good thing, imo. Still us
  4. Highly explosive when mixed with Ca. Radioactive. Toxic. I'm sure it'd be a solid at chamber temperature. In its pure form, that is. Mixed with other substances, anything can happen. It becomes unstable. And please, keep it away from Ca.
  5. In a - what I would argue - normal world he would have been convicted by the senate and (then) you would have been right. But that's just not the world we're living in. No need to jump into the weeds of semantics here. Just accept the reality of being wrong. For once. 😜
  6. No, the original question was whether he could run again. You argued he couldn't. Disqualified by law, or something along those lines. He could run again in 2024. And possibly win. https://news.yahoo.com/trump-is-free-to-run-for-president-again-but-can-he-win-152047510.html
  7. welcome to communist standards of posting, comrad. also had to make sure i follow your lead in terms of quality. there's no difference in class here, right?
  8. It's just an accusation. There's a difference between a missing leg (easily verifiable) and an accusation of insurrection. I think you're getting ahead of your skies. This is more like that OJ Simpson case, where you know he did it, but he was acquitted anyways. Or whatever the outcome was zillions years ago.
  9. I really have a hard time making sense of your logic. First you say this: And now you say that there's a number of people that think he did it. A majority but not the required 2/3s. By law that means he's acquitted. Instead of disqualified. That's how US law works, right? The threshold was put there for a reason. You can't just move it aside when it suits your view. If you say by law, you should follow the law. An impeachment is not much more than an accusation. The jury was the senate. And they acquitted. Acquitted by law. If there's any article of some legal expert mak
  10. I think the point is that he was accused (impeached) by the house and the senate acquitted. So without any further action from the senate, he can run again. The accusation on its own is not enough. The 14th amndmt. assumes more than just an accusation. At least, from a legal point of view, that makes the most sense. To me anyways. Innocent until proven guilty, right?
  11. Thanks! Clear answers! You can write it off as wilful ignorance, if you so desire. If that floats your boat, go at it. I was just looking for a straight answer to a simple question.
  12. Thought I was asking a straight question. So I'll repeat: Acquitted means he can still run for office, right? Either a "yes" or "no" will be fine. Not interested to expand my knowledge beyond that, tbh. I'm currently in an instant gratification mood. Thank you.
  13. Not sure if going pedantic here makes any sense, but he has the record number of votes for a GOP candidate. And apart from Biden had the highest number of votes. Fair to call it a record imo. Or case in point: WTF. Also: Reads like he was acquitted. Am I missing something? Acquitted means he can still run for office, right?
  14. In times where amounts of clicks equal economic value and power, I'm not clicking that link. It's on ignore.
  15. And this guy still got a record number of votes during the last election. And could run for office again in 2024. Sometimes the reality can be worse than your imagination. 😕
  16. I guess he was talking about Confield!
  17. Let me start with saying you shouldn't point the finger towards others (dcom) and their "assumptions" as you so obviously have lots of them yourself. As you should be able to notice in that post you've written. ad 1: You say it's a "HUGE" mistake. How so? Why "HUGE"? I mean, ideally you'd like to know long term effects. But the reality is, researching long term effects are incredibly difficult, if possible, to do. Apart from being very expensive, it's extremely hard to keep confounding aspects out of the equation. And another issue I have with your argument is that given the amount o
  18. Plz try harder yourself. What are you arguing? People are right to be reluctant? MRNA vaccines are bad? Thing is, apart from a scientific discussion, this is also a political issue. Besides scientific uncertainties, there's also the societal impact of not taking a vaccine which should be taken into account. What's the impact of that? And how does that risk relate to these scientific uncertainties (like long term effects of MRNA - or rather the odds of there even being long term effects)? If you want to assume the worst, lets do it in all directions. What's the worst that could happen
×
×
  • Create New...