StrangeSox

He was sadistic to a bunch of people in the book. He didn't get as large of a percentage of time, but he was still completely awful.

Jon being crushed under a mass of bodies started to induce some real-life anxiety in me. Liked everything up until the very end. Feeding Bolton to the dogs seems uncharastically sadistic for Sansa and Jon and decidedly un-Stark-like. Ned was always about doing your own dirty work. Thought the Battle of the Bastards was going to be a big nod to Hannibal at Cannae, not sure that would have been any more "obvious" than the route they went (Jon falling for a trap, miracle last-second army saves Jon's ass again!)

Something's got to be going on with the website. I can log in and see several free ticket vouchers, but there's zero shows listed for the Chicago area. Probably just overloaded right now.

The Republican primary electorate isn't the general election electorate.

Yeah it's legitimate expenses, it's just that of course he's going to structure it so he benefits. And anyone donating to his campaign has to know that some of that money is going to be going directly into his pocket, and that a big chunk is going to go towards paying off his personal loans to the campaign.

I think that's a weird argument in this case given everything that was already public, including his stated support of various (competing) Islamic groups. But at the same time I don't understand why they redacted some of the transcripts in the first place again given what was already public.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 21, 2016 -> 09:11 AM) I thought in translations, you didn't change proper names? It's the Arabic word for God, not a name. When you read a translation of Spanish, you don't leave God as Dios. Eta you'd also translate some proper nouns eg Estados Unidos or italia or Deutschland, city names typically change eg Turin versus turino.

I'm not sure what's supposed to be funny about the existence of legally required FEC disclosures.

Perhaps a perfect encapsulation of trump voter mentality. All campaigns are required to make detailed disclosures to the federal election commission on campaign income and expenditures. This is how we know, without a doubt, that at the end of may trumps campaign had slightly less than $1.3m in cash and had over $40m in debt (mostly to trump himself). This is also how we know that about 20% of his campaign expenditures are to his own companies. This is how we also know that he has less cash than many house campaigns and that his total donations in may were really, really low. You can easily Google this stuff or you can go straight to the fec website if you prefer. This is all public information available for any candidate for federal office.

QUOTE (CB2.0 @ Jun 20, 2016 -> 11:24 PM) What DOES it indicate? That Trump's campaign is ridiculously low on cash and that, as a partisan Democrat in the Democratic Thread, find this funny and so might other Democrats. laer teg!

I have no doubt that Trump will be the Republican nominee for the general election, and my post doesn't indicate otherwise.

QUOTE (CB2.0 @ Jun 20, 2016 -> 10:49 PM) lol - Got any links? I don't find any of those things even remotely interesting. Or the firing of Lewandowski. Business man... gonna business. But seriously...are you trying to imply Trump is down to his "last $1M trying to fight Hillary" or something? Get real. get real go get real look get real up get real the get real FEC get real filings get real released get real today I get real don't get real care get real if get real you get real find get real Trump's get real dumpster get real fire get real interesting get real or get real not get real fake edit: GET REAL! real edit: the implication is that Trump is not and has not been running anything resembling a real campaign thus far, and his total lack of campaign infrastructure/staffing and having less cash-on-hand than people who stopped running months ago and 50 House Representatives is just a symptom. His campaign is about $45M or so in debt with $1.3M cash on hand while Clinton's campaign is about the exact opposite of those numbers.

A few interesting things from Trump's FEC numbers today: His campaign only has a little over $1M in cash on hand. His campaign has been spending millions of dollars on his own companies/properties He appears to be drawing a small salary from the campaign

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 20, 2016 -> 10:20 PM) That wouldn't explain changing Allah to God. Uh that's the literal translation of the word

I do not envy your electricity bill.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 18, 2016 -> 03:29 PM) Well, here is a rumor I heard if you want to do some digging. What I heard was that the security company the guy worked for has itself been investigated for some shady dealings, but because it does a lot of work for both the US and British government, some 'problems' get swept under the rug. Like removing the shooter from the terrorist watch list. Also heard that he has an accomplice who was inside preventing people from leaving while he rampaged throughout. Have fun with those. lol @ both of those "rumors" aka completely made-up things. what would the security company (G4S, who is no stranger to government criticism for their f***ups e.g. 2012 Olympics) have to gain from taking some random lowest-level employee off of the FBI watch list?

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 18, 2016 -> 04:13 PM) There will be a steady trickle of stuff. The ISIS stuff seems like crap, just a poser trying to be a part of something bigger. That's what initial reports from the investigations seem to be indicating. He followed the typical mass shooter template (sandy hook, aurora, UCSB) much more than he followed any sort of ISIS radicalization template, and may have just used ISIS (and various anti-ISIS groups) as a way to grab even more attention.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jun 17, 2016 -> 04:06 PM) "Yeah, FBI? This guy came into our store and a bought a gun. Looks suspicious. That's all the info we have. Thanks!" lol

Unfortunately, short of a total or near-total ban on handguns, you aren't going to put much of a dent in total firearms deaths.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 17, 2016 -> 02:59 PM) How is it possible that a hand gun ban could be struck down under heller but an assault weapons ban would not? Heller was the trigger lock ban but, more importantly, the first time an individual right to a firearm was explicitly laid out. McDonald was the Chicago handgun ban case that incorporated the 2nd to the states, and a later case forced Illinois to be the last state to allow concealed carry. I don't know the intracicies of these cases, so I can't tell you why NYS's AWB is okay but Chicago's handgun ban wasn't--I think it boils down to a "self-defense" argument, but I'm not entirely sure. I've only ever read Heller, and both the majority and the dissent were examples of why judges pretending to be historians is really bad, but the finding in that case wasn't "any ban on guns whatsoever is unconstitutional."

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 17, 2016 -> 02:55 PM) But laws haven't been made, and previous laws that were made were overturned under a new view of the 2nd amendment as unencroachable. Any restrictions are unconstitutional. Now that's simply not true. There are still restrictions on e.g. automatic weapons, short-barreled shotguns. NY state was still able to pass an "assault weapons ban," and that's held up in court so far without a problem.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3e0b835d125...cal-gop-leaders lmao outside shot at the House with this historically incompetent non-campaign Trump's running.

FWIW the current broad understanding is thanks to the supreme court, so it's conceivable that a 5-4 or 6-3 liberal court could overrule or greatly narrow down Heller in the future. That would allow for tighter gun control without needing a Constitutional amendment. That has zero chance of passing since it only takes 13 states to block it.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 17, 2016 -> 01:34 PM) When there is a bomb attack a day, we may see the same regulations to certain materials that we see for drugs used for meth. WE have had the whole no regulation on guns thing, and we keep seeing mass murder. So, yeah, maybe the thing we haven't tried may work better then us trying to control environmental factors that drive 1 in 25 million people to become mass murderers. There are regulations on things like buying ammonium nitrate (fertilizer) in large quantities thanks to OKC. And the Boston Marathon bombings were pretty low-tech pressure cooker bombs using grocery store materials. Reliable bombs aren't easy to build without some technical know-how, though, whereas firing a gun into a crowd is pretty simple.