Jump to content

jimmyjazz

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    37161
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    7

Posts posted by jimmyjazz

  1. Note that the vast majority of examples on the interwebs are for simple problems like pie charts of annual sales of apples, pears, and condoms across 2 different years.  What I am looking at is more complicated, because my independent values are not constant across the 2 sets of data.  Their SPAN is very similar, but the numerical data points are slightly different.

  2. I hate Excel.  I have 2 separate workbooks listing measured data as a function of time for two different tests, say "temperature vs time".  The range of time for each workbook is approximately the same, but the actual points in time don't line up exactly between the two workbooks.  I want to plot both sets of data on a single graph.  So, I want to combine a graph of T1 versus t1 with a graph of T2 versus t2.

    What's the easiest way to do this?

  3. 11 minutes ago, JBJ said:

    No it's not.  Every PAC spends millions of dollars every year "of value" to campaigns.  It's doesn't violate laws to spend money to help a campaign.

    The laws I referenced are for individuals.

  4. 2 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

    That is not technically correct.  First, the campaign had to know about the contribution and "accept" it.  Or, they have to make the case that Cohen was an active agent of the campaign.  Both will be very hard to prove, IMO.  But it is not a slam dunk.

    Proving one of those is as easy as falling off a log.

  5. 52 minutes ago, JBJ said:

    The question is if the payments originated from the campaign, and if they are allowed under campaign finance laws.  Arguing that they are campaign-related is an argument in favor of Trump (assuming they originated from the campaign).

    Wrong.  The question is if the payments were of value to the campaign.  If they were . . . and they CLEARLY were . . . then they constitute campaign finance law violations because of the amount.

  6. 2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

    That's a question of fact for a jury. The argument will be made that he paid Stormy to protect Trump's marriage, not the campaign.

    The timing clearly makes it about the campaign.

  7. Just now, Mojo Hand said:

    But doesn't it matter as far as Trump is concerned? 

    I think the degree of his awareness heightens his exposure, but it was still an illegal contribution to his campaign . . . by his personal attorney.  I understand the desire to stack more malfeasance, but I'm just trying to point out that a payment to a 3rd party in excess of allowed limits triggers the illegal contribution laws.

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/03/politics/campaign-finance-q-and-a/index.html

  8. 10 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

    Because Cohen paid Stormy.   If you're tracing the funds from the Trump campaign, that's the last link in the chain.   Campaign to Trump Org.  Trump Org to Cohen.  Cohen to Stormy. 

    It doesn't matter, at least as far as Cohen is concerned.  His payment to Stormy was an illegal campaign finance contribution.

  9. 2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    If he's at the middle school I think....it's because they flooded.  the interior courtyard, and thus a lot of the rooms and hallways that connect to it, underwater.

    The courtyard flooded.  They didn't say anything about interior rooms.  

    I'm pre-disposed to assume AISD is overreacting in any given weather event.  Because that's what they do.

  10. They just cancelled all after-school activities at my son's middle school.  Not just outdoor, but indoor, too -- like the annual talent show, at which he was supposed to perform.

    Must be worried about ice accumulation.

    Fucking AISD.

  11. 16 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

    Because it matters whether that was campaign money vs Trump’s money. Federal law limits not only contributions, but also expenditures. Paying off porn stars isn’t exactly copacetic. 

    Are you sure that's the story here?  It's my understanding that Cohen's payment to Stormy Daniels AT THAT TIME constituted an in-kind campaign contribution.  It was considered a payment to a 3rd party on behalf of the campaign because of the value to the campaign (her silence).  Trump's repayment just further adds to the story, and in the right context, leads to potential felony prosecution.

  12. I worked at Wendy's when I was in high school.  There was a couple who would come in every Sunday with the newspaper and eat lunch at the all-you-can-eat salad bar.  They'd refill their iced teas over the course of the afternoon and then pop down another round of salads for an early dinner.

    I may be cheap, but that was pathetic.

  13. The fact that Fox News is wholly incapable of showing any restraint whatsoever, and routinely makes mistakes as big or bigger as NBC's mistake about Cohen's phone lines matters not one bit to the Trumpkins.  This thread is glaring proof.  Interesting how those who are critical of Fox are now also critical of NBC.  You know . . . balance.

  14. The desire to scoop the competition has always existed.  In the past, with newspapers going to print (at most) twice daily and television news broadcasts only happening in the evening, there was a little time to verify stories.  On top of that was an overriding fear of being wrong.

    Now, it's "first to broadcast", truth be damned.  The whole industry is in the crapper.

    • Like 1
  15. I think my Aunt has Fox News on 24/7.  Quite literally.

    She will fly in for a visit and then, without asking, switch the TV to Fox News.  On several occasions I've had to (gently) scold her and say "hey, let's wait until after the game" or "hey, let's wait until <grandson's> 'Scooby-Doo' is over".  It's fucking infuriating.  She's 80, I'm not getting in a Battle Royale with her, but come on.

  16. 37 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

    It’s unbelievable.  Granted, Avenatti is fairly high profile and took this case after Trump was President so he knew it would be big publicity, but we are still left in a reality where some dude representing a porn star is 1,000,000 times more competent than everyone who has ever been associated with the legal team representing an alleged billionaire and President of the United States.  

    Not only that, but he absolutely revels in fucking with Team Trump.  He seems very capable of walking a fine line between jeopardizing his client's case and old-fashioned trolling of POTUS.

×
×
  • Create New...