Only during careless times.

Despite what Trump has claimed he often settles his lawsuits

https://thinkprogress.org/donald-tru...b22#.9wfjby1r1



USA today did an investigation into lawsuits involving Trump and found many instances of him paying off the plaintiffs

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...tles/84995854/

If he let this go to court, he'd be liable while in office and depending on how badly he defrauded people, it could be pushed as impeachable. Might not make it far, but dems would certainly push for it because why not. That's why he settled. Also because he's a conman and always has been.

Really sad that they had to settle instead of going all the way and suing his ass. The system is set up to benefit the rich so that they can freeze out common people who can't sustain all the fees that come with being involved in a legal case, even if they are in the right.

Makes me wish the complaintants' fees for this case were crowdfunded so they could nail him. I'm sure a lot of people would donate to that cause.

This guy has a record number of lawsuits against him and dumbasses still think he's some sort of messiah who's going to clean out corruption in Washington.

obviously he doesn't have 70 open against him right now so

An excellent and surprisingly truthful article on Steve Bannon

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...ovement-948747

They really touch on how insanely out of touch the Democratic party has become.



Here's a quote:

"The media bubble is the ultimate symbol of what's wrong with this country," he continues. "It's just a circle of people talking to themselves who have no f—ing idea what's going on. If The New York Times didn't exist, CNN and MSNBC would be a test pattern. The Huffington Post and everything else is predicated on The New York Times. It's a closed circle of information from which Hillary Clinton got all her information — and her confidence. That was our opening."

Guys spot on

I know rich people and none of them are currently embroiled in any lawsuits.

I love how Poots' standard of evidence for wrongdoing magically changes depending on who the subject is.

"You're naive if you don't think Clinton is part of a Satanic pedophile ring. You obviously have to read between the lines of this dinner invitation. These are codewords, don't you know."

"Yeah sure Trump has plenty of lawsuits against him, but how is that evidence of anything? Why don't you prove that not every single rich person has 70 active lawsuits against them right now? Sure, he's said he likes grabbing people by the pussy, so what? Calling Mexicans rapists? That's not necessarily racist, he even said that some of them aren't! Your claims of 'dog-whistles' are just born of paranoia."

all these politics arguments on this board are like watching a 1.5 second gif loop into infinity

however, just for once, for the sakes of unity, i wouldn't mind seeing an african american bass player in the band.
i'm sure there's plenty of talented ones about..

See! As a white bass player this is where I pull the line. I'm not equal according to you libtards!

You say that as though it will be some silly side effect

What kind of person wants to see the world burn?

I'm too old fashioned and don't want to see any kind of major regression or set back to humankind.

nah he has me convinced. Should have voted Trump!

and here we all are, just staring at it every day

Ah long time ahgo, ah whuz in Burma

ah rubay, the soize uv ah TANGERINE

Hey vix,

If I recall correctly you and I went off on a tangent in the Poli board election thread about the elite pedo rings. Well, you may find this interesting:

only if you're volunteering to be the first to go

the world would be so much better if I didn't have to share so much! Other people suck!

The funny thing is that the lack of sustainability of our species has little to do with overpopulation. People in the developing world who are popping out the most kids aren't the people using up most of the resources. It's the developed world with rich fucks who drive two Hummers to work, one on each foot, like fucking roller skates. It's us who have to reduce our carbon footprint, and create green technologies before the developing world starts to demand living the sorts of lifestyles we do.

I mean, it wouldn't be bad if we slowed down population growth so that we could have true Fully-Automated Post-Scarcity Luxury Social Utopia. But we can do that through birth control and education, not fucking up the world so badly that maybe the world economy collapses and we have to go back to growing turnips on our lord's fiefdom. Especially because if we do that, the carbon we shit into the atmosphere is gonna be there for another few hundred years anyway, so it's not like we would just quickly start from scratch.

You say birth control and education after stating that the problem is not contraception, but the consumptive lifestyles of those with fewer children.

So the solution is actually consumers in the developed world giving up a bunch of their shit.

Like beef, fast fashion, private motor vehicle transport and aircon.

Good luck with that :(

I think people would rather die while driving their air-conditioned ford through McD's drive through, picking up their quarter pounder meal, sitting behind the wheel in uniqlo, than have to give all that stuff up to live in the heat, eating salad and lentils, dressing in one of two bamboo outfits they own.

Because people are stupid and shitty, like that.

I said that it wouldn't be bad if we had more contraception in the developing world, and that the smaller the world population, the higher the standard of life each person could have (up to a point; you need enough people for labour and stuff), but that doesn't mean that the population in the developing world is the significant reason for humanity being unsustainable as it is. I don't see how those two statements are contradictory.

I dunno, places like Sweden have a much smaller carbon footprint per capita than places like the U.S. or Canada, and the average Swede isn't living off of a diet that consists of what he or she grows in his or her backyard.

Part of the answer will be individuals making decisions to limit their footprint, like being smarter with water and eating less meat and stuff like that. Another big part will be on the societal level, such as internalizing environmental externalities through carbon pricing.

But yeah, easier said than done. I'm off to Carl's Jr. to eat a meal that has way more calories than I need and required more water and carbon to produce per calorie than something healthier would require. Then I'm probably going to kill myself.

if everyone like poots uhh disappeared there would be a lot more resources to go around

I don't think any progress on carbon emissions happens until the gov puts down regulations

Even if they did, it wouldn't stop foreign countries like China from polluting the world into oblivion

Use some sense

It's what the U.N. is for and it's mostly the US rejecting treaties to globally reduce because we have a political party that thinks global warming is not happening

yeah you can't stop your neighbor from throwing trash on the ground, so you might as well throw even MORE trash on the ground, right? I mean that makes total sense

USE SOME SENSE

Global Warming? I thought they gave up the ghost on that term and opted for Climate Change. Besides, you mean anthropogenic effects on the climate and whether there's causation.

The U.N. exist for the Marxist extortionist that inhabit it. Any political stance they take is to further their global governance agenda, part of which is to arrest people who challenge the GW/CC narrative. We'd all be better off to kick those crooks out of New York, let them find another country to pillage.