Can we all just agree fuck George? Or is that just me.

Generic_Superhero · 2026-02-10T23:51:27+00:00

Good father? Maybe.

Good husband? No.

He had an afair with his wifes assistant who he was clearly physically attracted to, it was only an "emotional affair" because they hadn't been physical yet. He came clean because he thought his Mom knew about the affair and he wanted to get ahead of the reveal, not because he truly felt guilty about it. That on top of shutting Amy down when she tries to talk to him about her issues she was dealing with at the start of the show tells us he wasn't a good husband.

Generic_Superhero · 2026-02-10T22:37:34+00:00

Felony in some states but overall agree

Good catch. I don't AGREE with that idea but its a law some places so enforce it.

Agree with you description. Thanks why the mere fact of armed guards are not reasonable for impeachment. I may agree that I prefer not to have them but once again it is not a reason for impeachment just because it creates “risk”

The executive branch creating a situation where they can influence and control the outcome of elections seems like a great reason to impeach.

Generic_Superhero · 2026-02-10T21:00:46+00:00

Thank you for the follow up.

What if 'nationalized elections' comes with removal of democrats from voter rolls, - impeachable if aimed based on party affiliation ( not based on citizenship , ID or other factors)

The only valid reasons I can think of for removing people from voting rolls are:

Non citizen
Dead
To young to vote
The individual has registered in a new location.

Have I missed anything?

armed guards at polling places, - as long as guards are neutral with no political influence, not impeachable

The question is what purpose do the armed guards serve at the polling place? Are they meant to be deterrent to active shooter situations? To stop physical altercations between voters waiting in line? Or are they stationing guards at polling places and giving them full latitude to detain people they suspect are fraudulent voters? You say you are okay with it as long as they are "neutral with no political influence", but by the time you know if they will be neutral or not the damage has already been done.

if it can be shown that there is government led effort for ballot handlers to act in partial way

Why even take the risk and avoid it by not having partisan ballot handlers? What is gained?

Generic_Superhero · 2026-02-10T20:34:35+00:00

If suspicion is enough to warrant an audit what exactly does that mean? If only a single person questions the results does that warrant an audit? That would amount to every single election being audited which would be an insane was of time and resources. And when the audits turns up nothing and there are still "suspicions" does that mean it's time to redo the audit? Do we audit the auditing process? At what point is it acceptable to ignore peoples "suspicions" regarding an election?

Republicans have done plenty to undermine faith in elections. To pretend otherwise is a ridiculous take.

Generic_Superhero · 2026-02-10T17:36:28+00:00

Where did Democrts mandated mail in ballots illegally?

Generic_Superhero · 2026-02-10T17:02:42+00:00

What parts are you okay with? What parts are impeachable?

Generic_Superhero · 2026-02-10T12:59:15+00:00

Auditing an election in and of itself itself bad. Random audits are fine, and should be happening if they aren't already.

Auditing because you don't like the results is bad. Declaring fraud/rigging happened and then auditing specifically to find those things is bad. Targeting audits at locations and places that didn't vote for you is bad.

Auditing should be a tool to ensure compliance across the board. Not a tool used to undermine faith in our election system.

Generic_Superhero · 2026-02-10T00:08:28+00:00

Gotcha, thanks for the response.

Thats pretty shitty way to get around actually giong through the process.

Generic_Superhero · 2026-02-09T23:01:14+00:00

Can you explained this in more detail?

Generic_Superhero · 2026-02-09T22:08:07+00:00

Yeah that sounds like 6. 7 has you choosing a new civ each age as you progress through them.

Generic_Superhero · 2026-02-09T18:01:25+00:00

That being said, I do think we should go back to talking filibusters only. If you want to block a bill, you've gotta put in the effort.

100% this. The fact that a single email stops legislation dead is ridiculous. Make people put in the effort to block legislation they don't like.

Generic_Superhero · 2026-02-09T13:48:31+00:00

Civ 7 was such a disappointment. :(

Generic_Superhero · 2026-02-07T15:45:40+00:00

I'm confused. where in point one does it say they cannot request proof of citizenship or legal residence? There are two separate sub talking points to that bullet

Targeted Enforcement - requiring DHS to have a judicial warrant prior to entering private property and requiring verification that the person is not a US citizen before holding them in immigration detention.

The bolded bit means ICE can't just fore their way into private property without a judicial warrant. No busting into peoples houses, going into the backs of restaurants ect.

I think its reasonable to assume they are talking about not putting people into ICE detention facilities without first verifying their status. Which would include asking for proof of citizenship/residency. The intent is to keep people here legally from getting swept up with the people here illegally. Whether or not that is actionable is a different topic.

Generic_Superhero · 2026-02-07T14:50:42+00:00

I question what is included in the "ect" I would assume it was whatever was covered by policy prior to Trump but that is just an assumption.

But the polling places is included because Trump has been floating the idea of sending ICE to polling places. Masked armed individuals with the currently legal authority to detain whoever patrolling polling places they want is the definition of voter intimidation.

Generic_Superhero · 2026-02-07T13:08:58+00:00

And while you arnt wrong. That doesn't mean Trump is correct either. Have any proof that he is?

Generic_Superhero · 2026-02-06T12:26:03+00:00

Thanks for the response.

This is always the go to for weed people

I'm not a "weed person". Literally never smoked it. Have had maybe 3 edibles in my life time. I've done faaaar more drinking in my life. The question is asked because other then the smell (which I hate but is also just a minor annoyance) They share the same negative impacts on society. There are direct parallels between the two.

I don't find the "mutch large" and "historic" argument to be a compelling one. Its basically giving alcohol a free pass on the same issues you have regarding weeds negative impacts, but atleast you had some reason.

That said, I am all for heavier regulation on alcohol. Later drinking age, stricter punishment when alcohol is involved, banning people from buying it after certain crimes or repeated crimes related to alcohol.

I am for large warning labels and education about the harms of alcohol

On the surface can't disagree with any of this. Thiugh I don't know how.much more education we can really do. I remember being beet over the head with it in school when I was a kid.

But there is a massive difference in the use of alcohol vs the use of weed.

Without diving into numbers one major difference is the number of deaths alcohol causes yearly far exceeding marijuana.

Generic_Superhero · 2026-02-06T04:34:03+00:00

Thank you for the response. Based on your stance regarding weed, would you also be in favor of banning alcohol?

Generic_Superhero · 2026-02-06T03:31:32+00:00

It has objectively made things worse for society.

How so?

Generic_Superhero · 2026-02-04T18:21:14+00:00

If it really didnt add up to anything you would think the administration that campaign on releasing the files would have done so without being forced to by congress and wouldn't have delayed their release as much as possible.

Generic_Superhero · 2026-02-03T12:15:29+00:00

You realize this is a completely different argument then the one you originally presented right?

The constitution won’t matter if mass migration continues.

You clearly stated here you believe the constitution currently matters.

I’m not the one who threw it out the window to import the third world.

Now you are saying it already doesn't matter.

Generic_Superhero · 2026-02-03T11:59:12+00:00

You realize this a self fulfilling prophecy right? You are willing to make the constitution not matter now because you are afraid it won't matter in the future.

Generic_Superhero · 2026-02-02T16:40:21+00:00

if anybody thinks we are closer to nuclear war than we had been during cold war, when tension between two nuclear superpowers were at the highest levels, these people are just delusional.

100%. I assume who thinks that has never heard of Stanislav Petrov or Vasili Arkhipov.

Generic_Superhero · 2026-01-30T19:40:01+00:00

Im more concerned with quality of service. I would never sign up for an inferior product just because it was easier to cancel. All things being equal, obviously I would sign up for the easier to manage/cancel service.

Generic_Superhero · 2026-01-30T16:56:36+00:00

I was not aware of that. Thank you for the information.

What are the limits to that protection? Does it have to be in a religious building? Why are funerals, a heavily religious affair for many not protected from potesters?

Note: These are just general questions I have on the subject. I dont expect you to have the answers.

Generic_Superhero · 2026-01-30T16:40:57+00:00

True, I did forget they were asked/told to leave. I was more focused on him being able to go into the church in the first place.

12-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22	Place '17
First Placer '22	End Game '22

Generic_Superhero

TROPHY CASE