I think your comment history is all the proof anyone needs that you’re the one living in the fantasy world. Sorry the world doesn’t punish people that you dislike, but honestly I hope you die mad about it.

Through the same judiciary that has rebuked trump on multiple occasions. They have a clearly-defined legal authority, and courts interpret law before anything else. It’s not a slam dunk, but there’s a solid chance the subpoena is upheld by courts. 

You’re missing the point. You can’t be a felon AND be president. If he cheated on his taxes, he’s a felon. If he did it BEFORE he became president, that calls into question all actions taken during his tenure. Justices could be overturned. Withdrawals from global agreements could be reinstated.

They didn’t subpoena the President. The head of the congressional oversight committee for taxes did something a touch sneakier. He basically told the IRS “You do mandatory examinations of Presidential tax returns at the IRS. That process is an IRS guideline, not a federal law. The oversight committee needs to justify…

Right? This is the playbook since Capone. Someone who is engaged in criminal activity has to lie about it SOMEWHERE. Typically, that “where” is in their taxes. Money has always been the paper trail, and tax docs are literally the papers that form the trail.

I can’t link to this reporting by Some More News enough:

teal dear, baby boo. We’re done here.

Ah! Now THAT’S a policy that can at least make a little bit of sense. Though I do have to cut Nolan some slack, here: the quote itself (so, assumedly, HuffPo reporting) is missing that vital info.

This is a fucking psychotic stipulation. Whatever business that would agree to that is out of their fucking mind. Fits that it’s a union that implemented it as they are, generally, out of their fucking minds.

You just don’t seem to be aware (given your continued communication with me) that I’m doing the same thing, just one more level removed.

Yes. That is an accurate description of what happened.

Yeah, no shit. Don’t worry - it was over your head anyway.

I didn’t say slippely slopes aren’t real. I implied that their use in refusing any implementation of legislation is a tactic to achieve an agenda rather than a well-founded precaution.
That you can’t see it is worthy of condescension. My engagement in said condescension can be subjectively rated however you please, but…

I’ll go ahead and take the blame here: “this discussion” is a bit abstract, so let me clarify.

I’m sorry, did you have something you wanted to discuss about points I made, or do I need to be involved, at all, in this little tangent?

Everything I’ve said has been genuine, save for the part where I mocked your slippery slope argument. I genuinely don’t want to repeal the second amendment, and I genuinely want better gun control in America. I genuinely believe that democrats, by and large, aren’t interested in a second amendment repeal. I genuinely…

Display of a firearm without state-sanctioned licensing, in a public or unauthorized space, is punishable by a fine and potential revocation of the firearms on display. Recurring offensive invoke harsher punishments.

I don’t believe in either of those things because I’m not a fucking child. I don’t believe in people who believe in those things. The few fringe democrats in office who actually DO want to repeal the 2A aren’t as concerning as the entire class of conservatives in office who refuse to enact even the most basic gun…

The preferred term is “common sense gun laws.”

I’m on the left (as any rational person is) and I wouldn’t repeal the second amendment tomorrow. I wouldn’t repeal it ever.
What I WOULD do is support reasonable gun legislation.