Jump to content

hobbes2702

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    13811
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by hobbes2702

  1. 4 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

    Hmmm.

    Cleveland has the third oldest roster in the NBA.  Boston has the fifth youngest.  Now, that's not to say that there's no way Cleveland is going to win and a younger team = better team, but I'd like to think that Boston just might be a bit more athletic now than Cleveland is.

    A Tatum/Horford PnR against Love/Korver would make them look like they were on skates

     

     

    This. I expect Boston to really attack the defensive issues Cleveland has. Especially those two. Korver is going to have a ton of trouble especially with the wings from Boston.

  2. 7 minutes ago, mdmost said:

    I'll go back to the TAA at MF decision. Against Brighton, sure. Against a team that's on your heels for a CL spot, no. I get you want Hendo to stay fresh but he's the first one on when you sub so you gambled that TAA could produce and lost. Maybe in the long run having to go all out against Brighton will help to get us back to form for the CL Final. 

    At some point we will learn that leaving Henderson out of the lineup corresponds to our team not winning games.

  3. 1 minute ago, d2o said:

    no but they can use any combo of those guys to get an even better player

     

    Why? Heyward and Irving are both all stars and you would have to give up too much to get anyone that’s a real upgrade imo.

  4. 19 minutes ago, Brothahorn said:

    Dickhead Ainge deserves a ton of credit for building a pretty damn good roster.

     

    If they get to the Finals, I wonder if he rethinks continuing to spend all that money on Irving and Heyward. Rozier, Brown and Tatum are a great nucleus.

     

     

    They aren’t a title contender with Rozier, Brown, and Tatum. They are a title contender with Irving and Heyward

  5. 31 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Which one?  To my knowledge there are no opinions of the OLC directly addressing Trump's situation, only some on other situations, most not involving the President, from which one can read between the lines or connect the dots, but there is nothing directly on point.

     

    I detest what Trump is doing with respect to self dealing and non-divestiture from his businesses, but it isn't clear to me that there is a remedy for it other than impeachment.

    You are 100% right that non address trump directly. I probably wasn’t clear. I wasn’t talking about the emoluments clause as a criminal matter. I brought it up in response to Tahoe asking Hugo and others what they would remove the president for and what evidence of that they have. I’m simply saying that anyone saying that he shouldn’t have already been impeached is ignoring the emoluments clause in its entirety 

  6. 24 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

    No I can only tell you what some guy on npr said is at issue and point you to an article that explains the likely arguments the 2 sides will make. Other than that unless there is a settlement we will all know what is allowed when verdicts are out

    Read the opinion of the office of legal counsel.

  7. 24 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

    Again it was over a year ago when I heard the interview but the gist was “emoluments” is an arcane concept (think of a foreign monarch giving Washington a chest full of jewels rather than agreeing to buy all the yields from his farms at market price) and overly broad to be enforceable, which is why there is now a stricter anti-kickback law on the books, but that law specifically exempts the president

     

    If foreign govts are paying well over rack rate for his properties or booking rooms that are then not used then emoluments would be more clear cut  

    China fast-tracking his patents or copyright or whatever they did could be as well if it can be shown they never do that for others and only did it as a favor to Trump as President, or if his companies have been awarded low-ball bids anywhere

    There is no question his business actions break precedents going back decades at least and I have not heard an argument from anyone outside of trumps camp that his actions are ethical. Whether they are legal does seem to be a legitimate question 

    And of course there is potentially a much lower bar with impeachment given the right political environment 

    My understanding is that the emoluments clause was intentionally broad to to ensure that any kind of profit or benefit is not gained.

    And for Tahoe, the emoluments clause is the impeachable offense.

  8. Just now, TwiceHorn said:

    I suppose there isn't that much talk about emoluments because so many in Congress (both sides!) don't really want their personal finances examined.

    Of course that’s why. 

    My main point is that American citizens shouldn’t act like there is nothing impeachable or worthy of removing him from office. There is and it’s not up for debate. He has violated the terms of the office via emoluments. Period

  9. 32 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

    Whatever man. There should never be only one narrative.

    No shit. There should however only be one set of facts driving the narratives. This administration, and their propagandists, do not adhere to basic facts which makes their narrative worthless and it should be dismissed as such.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...