Jump to content

softlynow

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    1395
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by softlynow

  1. I’m not sure we will learn that much and may have to wait 4 more years to really know what ‘16 and ‘20 were about. Trump may be a truly unique candidate. If Ted Cruz in ‘24* more or less holds onto the Trump coalition, then I think you can discern something about the electorate independent from Dotard. If not, though, then maybe the celebrity grifter, reality tv star and rapist trifecta is the lottery ticket Pubs need to keep buying. *Check the history of Pub nomination runner-ups succeeding to the nom the next time. Reagan in ‘76, H.W. in ‘80, Dole in ‘88, McCain in ‘00, and Romney in ‘08 before you dismiss this. It’s their tradition.
  2. So dumb even Monty Python couldn’t get away with this sketch.
  3. Are you talking about federal prison / detention? If not, you’re way off. Of my cases in the last year about 35-45% are for drugs and most of those simple possession. A good portion of those folks received jail/prison only offers, and several could not post tiny bail amounts and waited for plea/dismissal in our jail. COVID brought plea offers down considerably, yet I still have guys/gals pleading to jail time if they don’t want to wait for trial, of which there have been zero since March. Plenty of folks do 15-45 days for a dime. A shitload do 30-90 days for trace amounts of meth. They come hard for THC wax/oil/edibles (COVID really helped here), and the state often wantS state jail prison time. Because a lot of my clients are dirt ass poor, not pleading means waiting 7+ months for trial. Some of them stupidly take probation without a shot in hell of completing it and end up doing double the jail time and revocation. Prisons and jails aren’t bursting at the seams with accused persons stuck with simple possession convictions, but there are still plenty on those rosters.
  4. Get a youngish black guy to do it next time. Or Gavin Newsome.
  5. Every time I think I'm about to leave this thread and do some work . . .
  6. Considering this thing might not be final (pre-recount and lawsuits) until Friday, I like it.
  7. This attitude is silly. You can pout in the corner, and mumble "elections are hard," or you can work the problem. Considering social justice paired with a tepid pocketbook platform has gotten Dems where we are, it's time for a rework. You have to at least re-package an re-brand your economic relief. Lot's of the folks you write off don't prioritize health care, maybe because they're relatively healthy. Plenty don't care that you want a more robust safety net, may because they're prideful about assistance, they simply want to work good jobs. Sure some are unreachable because of god and gays. But the folks written off as simply racist, may just look at the party that goes out of it's way on black issues, and says, "great, but I'm in poverty and the other guys says the plant is coming back." The "Dems are stupid" reaction is partly correct. They have compromised who they are too much. The need for Third Way Dems has passed. It's time for progressive economic ideas to come to the fore, and pair that with a muted messaging on social issues. Support the latter, but emphasize raising up ALL of the lower and middle class over issues that, in reality, the march of time will take care of.
  8. Because they don't know what to fear. They think socialism means less stuff for them I think Florida gave Dems the path to future victory: buy people's votes the way Trump did. Put pocketbook issues front and center. Not "health care," not "job training," not "social safety net." Whether it's direct payments Yang-style, or making Amazon have a processing center in every county or incorporated city, or promising contract military jobs to EVERYONE.oldman.gif, promise the economic moon. If Pubs are going all in on racism from here, go overboard on what you should be good at. If they're calling you socialist, and the rurals see you promising them economic relief/benefit, maybe that word won't be so scary after a while.
  9. And John Cazale's last movie, ending a too short and very spectacular run of roles in great movies - 5 nominated for best picture Oscars, with 3 winning.
  10. Incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsyltucky. That link has the actual quote. I'm using the common paraphrase.
  11. Pittsburg on one end, Philadelphia on the other, and Alabama in between (Credit to James Carville). If the cities aren't motivated, they can get beat by the rurals.
  12. Specifically, Tulsa 1921.
  13. This is the correct answer.
  14. I wish I could rep this 20x. Apathy is the exact problem we need to head off. Yesterday’s win was/should be a big deal. My reaction was to wonder whether we’re just going to toss out another winning lottery ticket this year only to buy an unscratched one after next season. I’m usually on the optimistic side of the fan base. I have no optimism left to give. If I’m that way, imagine the droves of glass-half-empty types. COVID deficits stopping necessary change is the epitome of penny wise, pound foolishness.
  15. That’s great that you would support it. You should. He’s going nowhere. He’s about to be the new GOP hero, because he absolutely will toss those votes. If this episode has a happy ending it’ll only be because Dems not only expand SCOTUS when it rubber stamps this un-American activity, but also the 5th Circuit which holds our region under their un-American thumb. Traitors should be hanged, but this is the only practical course while one party remains actively pro-treason.
  16. Florida gonna Florida. I think Texas will be within a point, but still hold for team grifter. Georgia, though, follows the coastal South path that Virginia blazed and NC has followed.
  17. Im going to attach large Biden/Harris and American flags to my car and drive up and down 1488 between The Woodlands and Magnolia looking for Magats to piss off.
  18. I voted for Biden because I like trains. Whenever there’s a pro-train candidate, they’re gonna hard for me not to support. The GOP is also a collection of racist, feckless, anti-intellectual, craven, misogynistic, closeted self-hating, nasty, grifting, cumstains and that might’ve been a factor as well.
  19. Y’all should let him post into the void on this one. You know his game. Don’t play it.
  20. Of course it's not disqualifying. The constitution only lists “good Behavior” as a limitation. Everything else is up to the particular asshat doing he nominating and the douche canoes voting to confirm. If you or I had a paddle this shit would matter.
  21. My take is that her support for that dissent is: 1. a player playing the game; above all she wants power/career advancement and by writing that article, she set herself up nicely; 2. more of the same when it comes to the arguments conservative jurists use; when the political end requires it, the opposite reasoning is just as useful. King v. Burwell is clearly a case about a typographical or drafting error. The idea that a law about expanding health insurance coverage that would allow its opponents an easy way to prevent that expansion, and in a way anticipated in the very text of the law itself, is absurd, and the dissenters know that.* It's also obviously a case about one of the biggest hot-buttons of the era. What side you're on matters most. That Scalia, Thomas and Alito would take the tack they did when the opposite argument has been in their repertoire before is unsurprising. I agree with wildcat's assessment in that neutral, thinking people, should see through both Scalia's dissent and Barrett's support of it. They should see someone for whom the reasoning is just a means to an end. But membership in the 9 (for now) isn't about being a fair-minded jurist. It's about power and priority. I don't think less of Ms. Barrett because of her support of King v. Burwell. I don't even think less of the state of conservative legal intellectual thought because of that case and its use in subsequent jurisprudential discussion. My regard for the latter went to zero long ago. That Barrett feels she has to play that game to achieve her life goals is all I need know about her. But, of course, my opinion of her doesn't matter; she will be confirmed, and another Alito will occupy the Court for 40+ years. Shit happens, Texas hires coaching frauds and conservatives acquire power however they feel best. So she's to be the Ted Cruz of the Supremes? C'est la vie. That case does confirm to me that Roberts will likely be, in the main, a fair-minded justice. He's made some rulings I dislike. However, it appears he at least has some intellectual integrity. .* Scalia has written eloquently and on the limits of textualism, pointing out that when an absurd result is reached, that should not be the interpretation.
  22. You do realize I was paying you a compliment, right? As to that question, I only state such opinions verbally, when there's no record being made.
×
×
  • Create New...