Yeah I'm sure it had everything to do with that, and not the whole Coronavirus becoming more of a global issue. Oh, and corporate earning reports rolling out.
Yeah no, definitely senate related. You dumb fuck.
Printable View
Yeah I'm sure it had everything to do with that, and not the whole Coronavirus becoming more of a global issue. Oh, and corporate earning reports rolling out.
Yeah no, definitely senate related. You dumb fuck.
He'd have to tune out of CNN to realize there is an epidemic going on. You know, where the Chinese have literally quarantined several cities of approximately 30 MILLION people.
Imagine if that happened in the US. The National Guard rolls out, says hey... you can't leave this city (to 30 million people). Fucking riots in the streets.
But yeah, it's the senate basically arriving at the conclusion we all literally knew they would, because a majority vote won't ever happen. Yeah. That's it.
Also, I actually made a little money today, net net. Amazon up 7+% was great. I had a trigger to sell @ 2k, and son of a bitch it blew right past that this morning.
THANKS TRUMP. Even when China threatens global apocalypse, I am making money (paid for new running boards on my truck and about 1K extra in the old trading account). Not a monster gain, but I'll take it.
I see Romney of course sided with the Democrats on the witness issue. Is Romney the biggest butthurt loser in the history of politics or what?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swawVMDutGs
LOOK HOW SOMBER THEY ARE.
Also, look at Camala's OH NOES face when Schummer shushes her.
Schumer to Chief Justice John Roberts: Did you know that in 1860 the then chief Justice in the Senate impeachment trial of President Johnson cast tie breaking votes?!
Roberts: Bitch are you for real? Of course I know that shit! He cast tie breaking votes to adjourn! Get this shit out of here!
I may or may not be paraphrasing the exact wording of this conversation.
Again the Democrats come off as little children trying desperately to be taken seriously at the adults table. Going back 160 years for precedent in which the chief justice cast a tie breaking vote to adjourn and using that as evidence that Roberts should cast a tie breaking vote for something that is actually serious and important in this trial?