Jump to content

Brisketexan

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    43902
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    243

Posts posted by Brisketexan

  1. 1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

    It's not a terrible bet, if you get the right odds. Income level is important, but not the sole factor in economic mobility.  Among low income families, regional variations are important determinants of outcomes. There has been some work out of Harvard that demonstrates that the regional factor with the strongest association with economic mobility is the percentage of single parent households in your region. Racial segregation, school graduation rates, and community involvement are also important factors. If you want to break the cycle of poverty, one of the best things that you can do for your children is find an apartment complex in a location where there are relatively more dual parent family units and better schools. There are studies that have examined the impact of voucher programs to assist with housing costs.  Take a kid out of the milieu of a high poverty area, and put them in a relatively lower poverty neighborhood with better regional factors previously mentioned, and they kids have measurably better outcomes including both income and propensity to become single parents. But they have to get out of that environment before high school age. After high school age, the move is actually counterproductive. As brisket points out, family unit is THE factor. Hold everything other than income level equal, and those low income kids have a puncher's chance.  Of course, in reality all of regional factors, income, family unit, parental educational attainment, etc are all interrelated.   

    Ummmm....."the odds" is the entire point of the bet.

    Economics isn't the sole factor in mobility....but it's a proxy and indicator for many of the things that ARE factors.  Your last "in reality" sentence is what it boils down to.

     

    It's easy for a guy with my family and upbringing not to be poor as an adult.

    It's hard for a guy who grows up in a poor household with a busted family unit to not be poor as an adult.

     

    Sure, any individual can beat the odds -- I could succumb to addiction, lose everything, and end up living under a bridge.  And the poor kid could beat the odds and found a billion dollar company.

    But if we're playing the odds....come one.  It just strikes me as fucking cruel and utterly dismissive to say from the top of the 20k foot mountain "hey, I got here, just climb!" when I started 1,000 feet below the summit, and I'm hollering that at someone who is starting at the base of the mountain, has never even seen the example of how a mountain should be climbed, and has shitty shoes and a windbreaker.  Sure, that kid may make it.  But don't bet on it.

  2. 4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

    You like Hillary, you think she's ok I see her for what she was a corrupt, criminal who would do anything  to get anything she wanted. Well she didn't get the presidency and we're better off for it.  Sometimes you need a bitter pill to get better and Trump might be the bitter pill, so that others think ng they can do what Hillary tried to do will think twice.

     

    What I find really pathetic is everyone here has friends who voted differently than they did, but it's here on an anonymous web site you have the (alleged) balls to call people a POS because they don't share your political point of view.  

    Please cite one post -- on this or any other forum -- where I said anything remotely close to "I like Hillary."

    Spoiler -- you can't.

    Had she been elected, I wouldn't fucking excuse her committing naked graft and corruption like Trump is.  If she was elected and proceeded to do HALF of what Trump has done, I'd want her run out of town on a rail as well.

    It's just amazing that you are so breathtakingly stupid to rail against someone who would "do anything to get what []he wanted" and is a "corrupt criminal"....and you don't see the fucking irony.  

    Deciding that Trump was the lesser of two evils is one thing.

    Giving that lesser evil a pass once he's in office is quite another.  You're an absolute idiot, but rest easy -- you ARE the American voter, in his purest form.

  3. 3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

    Onboard still can't figure out the quote function?

    Well, he repeatedly punches himself in the dick, finding certain actions to be complete disqualifiers when Hillary did them, but looking past them when Trump does them repeatedly, shamelessly, and in our face daring us to do something about it, so....

    z8t5y.jpg?a423480

  4. 9 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

     

    Jesus.  You truly have no sense of irony, do you?

    Trump has elevated THIS to multiple positions in his admin:

    Quote

    "We had a hierarchy in my office in Congress. If you're a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn't talk to you. If you're a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you."

    And Trump sends millions of US tax dollars to his properties, effectively EVERY SINGLE WEEKEND.

    Foreign powers are spending a fortune at his hotel in DC, directly channeling foreign dollars into the pocket of a man they want access to.

    Jesus, you're fucking glorious to watch -- you're repeatedly punching yourself in the nuts and asking us "see how bad I'm kicking that guy's ass?"  Yeah, man.  We see you.

     

  5. 3 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

    What you're describing isn't party politics.   It's never been done any other way, in either party.  The DNC is a national organization with the goal to win races and pursue a particular platform.   You don't get to represent the party in a general without some influence by them in the primaries.   If local candidates don't like it, they don't have to run as Democrats. 

    Two things can be true:

    1 -- it's perfectly appropriate for a party organization to "play favorites" in a primary  -- it's well within their rights.

    2 -- the Dems may be doing a shitty job of it, and may piss off their rank-and-file members in a way that costs the party much-needed support.

     

    When driving, oversteering is bad, as is taking your hands off the wheel altogether.  You gotta find the sweet spot.

  6. 1 hour ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

    read the first sentence and quit.

     

    1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    Gohmert is where I stopped reading.

    Anyone that openly campaigned for Roy Moore is not to be trusted.

    Perhaps y'all would like a copy of my new tell-all book, "The Wisdom and Insight of Louie Gohmert?"  It's a real page-turner.  I mean, just the one page....where I re-state the title...but still.

  7. Just now, Anastasis said:

    Its fucking amazing to me that the President's chief physician got plastered and belligerent during an international trip on business with the President, and nobody did anything about it, even quietly remove him from his post. And yes, kevwun, appointing the guy to the head of the VA takes it to a whole next level of incompetence.

    When the president isn't a responsible executive, but a narcissist who can't handle any of his decisions being challenged...you don't bring problems to his attention.  You hide them from his view, because he WILL shoot the messenger.

    I've seen it numerous times in various types of organizations.  If they have an incompetent, temperamental narcissist at the helm, those below him do everything they can to keep bad news from getting to him.  It makes for a HORRIFICALLY-run entity.

    Today, that horrifically-run entity is the United States of America.

  8. 1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

    Wow that was fucking fast!  Already in a filing like an hour later? 

    I suspect that the drafters were sitting in front of the TV with their fingers on the keyboard to edit a nearly-complete document.  Actually, that's one of my favorite things to do -- flip around a complex court filing in a matter of an hour or two.  It always throws the other side for a loop.

  9. Just now, TwiceHorn said:

    Oh, I agree that it is the thing to do, especially given the apparent volume of materials seized.  But, I can see pressure from the USAO/Criminal Division not to make their life any more difficult on attorney search warrants.  I, of course, applaud the difficulty.

    Yep.  The process on attorney search warrants is extra-difficult, and that's how it should be.  And if there's another layer in certain cases, tough -- better safe than sorry when it comes to the privilege.

  10. 2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

    And some would meh rep you for that.  I just laugh at you and say no wrong. Hillary would have carried on with her corrupt ways with a complicit press corps and a stack DOJ and FBI itstack DOJ

    Yeah, I mean, she might have used campaign funds for illegal purposes, or sent taxpayer funds by the tens of millions to her own bank accounts, or appointed people who see public office as their own slush fund.

    And we can't stand for a president who  would do that....right?

    • Like 3
  11. 2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

    if you are right Mojo, heads should roll far beyond Dr. Feelgood. 

    I'm sure the keen oversight of an executive branch focused on ethics and efficiency will get right on that.

  12. 15 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

    Yeah, if you knew anything about how Trump operates you were a fool to think he'd be anything but the swampiest president ever. And he is. He's filling the swamp to overflowing. 

      

    The thing is, he's not.  Let's be clear on the metaphors.  DC was, and in many ways remains, a swamp.  A swamp is populated by a set crew of predictable creatures.  Gators, snakes, toads, etc.

    He's drained a portion of the swamp....and replaced it with a cesspool, full of disease-ridden sludge, rank turds, and slime on top of slime.  He's managed to create a place that's more disgusting and harmful than the swamp that it replaced.  Incompetent, unqualified cabinet members and team members. Open and naked crooks, rooking the people for as much as they can while they're in office (including the POTUS himself, sending tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to his own businesses). Truly an amazing feat.

    • Like 1
  13. 3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that Michael Avenatti has done a little trolling in his time on earth.

    He's really fucking good at it.

    When you have an erratic fuckstick as an opposing party/witness, one of your strategies is usually to poke him until he blows up/says something stupid/insane.  With Trump on the other side, it's not that hard...but Avenatti is still bringing his A-game.

  14. 6 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

    “Because although Mr Cohen only handles a tiny slice of my client’s business, that tiny slice represents a substantial majority of the legal work Mr. Cohen performs.  Most of his seized files relate to my client and are protected by a privilege owned by my client.” 

    The posters I typically agree with are doing a lot of overreaching lately.  Trump is shady as fuck.  But don’t overplay your hand.  

    What percentage of Mr. Cohen's legal work is relating to your client, ballpark?

    And of the materials seized, what percentage relate to legal work -- that is, documents that might be protected by privilege, as opposed to documents that relate just to business and other matters?  I need to understand what  slice of the documents, overall, we're concerned about with respect to Mr. Trump?

     

    Trump created a reason to conduct that inquiry.  That was fucking stupid.

  15. 59 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

    Considering today’s hearing where a federal judge is considering whether it’s necessary to appoint a special master to review “thousands” of privileged communications, this has to be the dumbest thing he could have said. Seriously, so so dumb 

    "Counselor, just this morning your client said on global TV that Mr. Cohen in fact only handles a 'tiny, tiny little fraction' of his legal deals - so again, how am I to justify involving you in the process of reviewing documents with respect to an attorney who handles only a tiny fraction of your client's business?"

    50 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

    What a fucking dumbass.  And didn't he claim before that Cohen wasn't representing him with Stormy Daniels, but rather was acting on his own with her? 

    And yes, this.  He is a lying liar who lies as regularly and easily as most people breathe.  He says "I was never there."  A day later "Yeah, I was there, but I didn't do anything."  Wait till tomorrow, he'll say "yeah, I was there, and I did something that would be a crime if anyone else did it, but I'm the president, so it's okay."

    The dumbest people on the planet are the people who believe a SINGLE word that comes out of Trump's mouth, ever.  Turns out, we've got tens of millions of those dumb people right here, and they vote.

    • Like 1
  16. 6 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

    Nothing is final yet, but my crystal ball says the Court will allow for simultaneous review by the government and by Cohen/Trump/Trump Org. I also think it likely the Court will appoint one of the retired SDNY magistrates as opposed to any of the former prosecutors who worked with Giuliani. If that’s the case it won’t matter if Trump undertakes the priv review himself- he won’t be able to prevent the government from using the documents unless or until the Special Master agrees that the document is privileged. My prediction- not much will be privileged as I don’t think Cohen was providing much, if any, legal advice. Remember the government already said they’ve reviewed a lot of emails from alternative sources and concluded there were *zero* privileged communications. 

    I suspect your crystal ball is largely correct.

  17. 2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

    It's an interesting decision to invoke the 5th in a civil case since that CAN be used in the decision making process by the jury. I get that he won't be held in contempt since a statement in the civil case could be used against him in the criminal case (McCarthy v. Arndstein), but it really fucks up this civil case which will lead to even more shit tumbling out down the line. Man, he's a shitty lawyer lmao

    Asserting da fif in a civil case is a rear-guard action.  It's a tactical retreat, AT BEST.  If you're in a position where the BEST course of action for you is to invoke da fif in a civil case....you're in a bad position.

    hwmbe.jpg

    • Like 4
    • Haha 1
  18. Here's a quick summary from a pretty good blog on the implications of asserting one's fifth amendment right in a civil proceeding. It's as to Texas law, but the Texas rules of evidence are rather analogous to the federal rules, and I expect that the implications in a federal civil case are similar (the author even cites to federal cases on the matter; I confess that I've only had this come up in state court cases, never in a federal case).  His BLANKET assertion of the fifth amendment right may not stand up, and it has negative consequences just the same.

    Quote

    First of all, any party or witness in a civil case may be called to testify, whether they are facing criminal charges or not.  Second, witnesses in civil actions do not enjoy an unfettered right to refuse to answer questions on Fifth Amendment grounds. Finally, in a civil case it is perfectly permissible for a judge or jury to infer that a witness is guilty of wrongdoing if they invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in response to a question.

    .....

    when a witness in a civil case invokes the protections of the Fifth Amendment, the inquiry does not simply stop there. It is well-settled law in Texas that when a witness in a civil case invokes the Fifth Amendment, the assertion of this privilege is subject to scrutiny by the judge, who will determine whether the refusal to answer is made in good faith and is justifiable under the circumstances.  Such an inquiry is a delicate undertaking, because the witness cannot be compelled to disclose the very information that the privilege protects, but in order to uphold the privilege, it must be shown that answering the question is “likely to be hazardous” to the witness.

    .....

    Once it has been established that the witness has a right to refuse to answer a question, what happens next?  Simply stated, the judge or jury can infer that a witness committed the very crime that he was protected from testifying about.[2] But infer is all they can do. Invoking the Fifth Amendment does not give rise to a presumption of culpable conduct nor is it, standing alone, sufficient evidence to prove wrongdoing. Courts have routinely held that a Fifth Amendment claim of privilege will not substitute for other relevant evidence, pointing to the language of the U.S. Supreme Court case which first recognized the negative inference concept, that “the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.” 

    The failure to offer probative evidence in addition to the assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege leaves the fact-finder with only an inference, and because an inference is considered nothing more than a mere suspicion, the inference in and of itself does not constitute more than a scintilla of evidence. Therefore, without more evidence, the negative inference which is permitted in these circumstances will not support a finding of fact or raise a fact issue which precludes summary judgment.

    .....

    The bottom line is that in a civil case, the invoking of the Fifth Amendment is powerful evidence – juries instinctively understand that in order for a person to claim the right not to self-incriminate, there must have been incriminating conduct to begin with. When instructed by the court that they may consider this as evidence of guilt, most juries do not hesitate to do so.  So, while the Fifth Amendment claim may be used as the nail in the coffin of your opponent’s case, there will be no burial without something more.

    So, summary:

    His invocation of the Fifth Amendment may be too broad, and if the plaintiff asks for an inquiry, the judge may not accept it as to all testimony/issues.

    His invocation of the Fifth Amendment allows for an INFERENCE that the witness committed the crime at issue (which is often the same set of acts that give rise to civil liability).  The inference alone is NOT enough...but add some actual evidence on top of it, and it's pretty damned powerful.

×
×
  • Create New...