greg1647545532

Well if Barr's assessment is fair and accurate, no further charges or indictments. That's that then.

The next 24 hours would be nice but I'm not holding my breath for anything This is somewhat unrelated but what are your feelings about the Donald J Trump foundation? The organization has since been forced to dissolve, the 4 principals named (Trump and 3 of his children) have been prohibited from running or sitting on the board of a charity in NY for 10 years, and the investigations are still ongoing. Running a sham charity is a despicable thing to do, and it would have ruined any conventional politician's career. Do you approve of people running sham charities? Do you think this is "feelings of hatred towards Trump" instead of "truth and facts"? Something else?

I should point out that this is all BEFORE we even know what it's in the special counsel's report to the AG, which nobody knows at this point (and yet people are already declaring it a "no collusion" victory), and that it's highly likely that the special counsel has referred other crimes to other jurisdictions and that those indictments are likely already written and are simply sealed at this point in time. In short, the investigation is undeniably a success and we're not even done reaping it's fruits yet. ETA: Now, if you want to bitch about how the liberal media's breathless reporting of every new development was and continues to be really, really fucking annoying, and that there's no way the sum total output of the Russia investigations can ever live up to the hype, then have at it. I would agree with all of that. But to say that the investigation is a waste, or that Trump hasn't been revealed to be a seriously slimy, dirty motherfucker through all of this is to deny reality.

It cost negative dollars. The investigation MADE MONEY for the US taxpayer. The ultimate purpose of the investigation was very clear and was stated in the SC appointment letter. It was to determine if there were "Any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump," and "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." Are the people in jail as a direct result of matters that arose from the investigation? The answer is yes, they are, therefore putting them in jail was the ultimate purpose of the investigation. I don't see how you can view it any other way, unless you're pro-crime and don't like the US government getting free money.

Even though it resulted in criminals sent to jail and their assets rightfully seized for the US taxpayer? Do you want to set the criminals free and give them the money back?

Can you imagine Obama trying to run the country with a whole bunch of people demanding his long form birth certificate to prove his citizenship, demanding his college transcripts to prove that he wasn't a fraud, etc? Who would want that job, indeed. Of course, one person's "the media is just holding our leadership accountable" is another's witch hunt. It's almost like people don't have as much of a principled view of things as they'd like to believe, and instead just fall back on partisan lines. Case in point, public servant Hillary Clinton, who served her country as a US senator and secretary of state, had to endure no fewer than 17 Benghazi investigations (that all came up empty) and a prolonged investigation into her handling of government emails (which also came up empty). I assume you also think it's unfair that she had to put up with all that BS instead of just being allowed to do the job she was elected/appointed to do. If that's the case, then Republicans haven't gotten the memo, as just this weekend Sen Lindsay Graham, Trump's current favorite ball-fondler, was calling for MORE investigations of private citizen Hillary Clinton as the crowd at Mar-a-Lago chanted "lock her up!" Did I do it? Did I point out partisan hypocrisy!? Internet points, please.

Sorry for not getting back to everyone and not updating this sooner, I was a bit overwhelmed with responses and then time got away from me. The van went to (what I hope) is a nice family who seemed to really need it. Thanks for everyone who responded and I hope everything turns out OK for everyone I wasn't able to help.

Thank you for answering. The most powerful Democrat, Nancy Pelosi, has recently said that she is not for impeachment. If you think Pelosi disagrees with Democrats in polls, you're wrong. Support for impeachment is falling. Thoughts on that? Are my facts wrong?

I'm asking you.

Goal posts for what?

What agenda?

Goal posts for what?

I'll talk, what about?

Who gives a shit?

They just need to badge it as a Buick.

Can we forget all of this goddamn Buick nonsense and get back to the FR-S? It's the clear choice here.

GTO. Autocross.

Just so I understand, when you say "No," are you saying no to the actual hypothetical I laid out, where all of Yang's plans DO work as advertised to fix the opioid epidemic, thousands of lives are saved, but you have to accept some poorly thought out gun control measures? Because your random thought rambling seemed to be about how none of Yang's proposals will work, which wasn't an option in my question.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying anything about whether or not accepting that bargain is the right thing to do, it's all unrealistic anyway. I'm just saying, this is what you get with rookie politicians. You can't build a consensus if you immediately piss off half the country before you get started.

There's more at the link. Of course whether or not these are good ideas is irrelevant because he's already doomed himself with his anti-gun ideas. Let's say his list of ideas to battle the opiod epidemic works beyond anyone's wildest dreams, and hundreds of thousands of lives are saved. But he also fines gun manufacturers for each death associated with one of their products. Would any of you accept that bargain?

I had a Regal 2.0T as a rental car a few years back and it was actually a very nice car, not at all "Buick-y", but it was still like 3600 lbs and I wouldn't be jazzed about autocrossing one. Also IIRC the manual was only offered in FWD so even if you can throw more boost at it you're just frying the front tires. That's assuming you can even find one. I mostly drive minivans so it's not like I have room to talk anyway

It's just old, 15 years at a minimum at this point. Any car at that age is going to make a questionable DD. I'm sure it's a fine daily but you're never gonna autocross it because it's a big dumb turd and the next thing you know you're posting on CR about how great Buicks are. I'M LOOKING AT YOU CR.

If you buy an MKZ I'll personally punch you in the dick.

I think it takes more than ideas to be president. It's an executive job, I like Andrew Yang as a person but other than being a nerd and having run a $6 million dollar company, I don't have any reason to believe he has what it takes to manage a multi trillion dollar budget and/or build a political consensus to get any of his ideas executed. But I suppose we'll see how the primary shakes out. Maybe he'll impress.

As a fan of underpowered cars I have no beef with V6s, but V6 Mustangs are generally budget spec, they feel cheap and they're not exactly thrilling in the corners. But that doesn't mean you couldn't find one with a good combination of packages. People rave about the newer 1LE V6 Camaros, some people even go out of their way to get the V6 because it's lighter and makes for a solid track car, but it comes with a lot of good suspension goodies and you can even get a good interior. I'm just not sure if the same holds true in the Mustang world.