Jump to content

Dahobbs

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    13276
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dahobbs

  1. 19 minutes ago, BlackCat said:

    Is there any decent information available about how long the power will be out? We have somewhere to go, just trying to decide if we might as well go now. 

    Really depends on where you are. I'm told heights area is tomorrow evening. 

    We got limited power. I have an electric leaf blower and can help move some trees if anyone needs it in Timbergrove or Heights area. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  2. 13 minutes ago, Red Five said:

    I didn’t hear all of it, but John Kasich was on MSNBC earlier saying he thinks Biden is going to pull out. I don’t think he was basing it on anything other than these fucked up polls.

    Of the election?

    • Haha 5
  3. Still without grid power since 630 last night. Unfortunately, because I don't pay attention at all, my battery backup was only 40% charged when this hit. It lasted until a little after 2 am. I need the sun to come out and get some energy to house so I don't have to clear out the fridge and freezers. 

    • Like 1
  4. 1 minute ago, Red Five said:

    Stupid non-lawyer question. If the defense doesn't call a single person to the stand, isn't that kind of a message to the jury that they have no defense?

    In reality, I guess they couldn't find someone willing to perjure themselves?

    Not necessarily. Often times the prosecutor and the defense would call many of the same witnesses. The defense can either insert its case into cross-examination of the witnesses in the prosecution's case or it can recall the witnesses after the prosecution rests. It isn't clear in this case that Trump is going to have any other witnesses, so his legal team may just be going with the former strategy. 

    • Hook 'Em 3
  5. 2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

    Tariffs are always passed onto the consumer, and any tariffs will be met with counter tariffs, which hurt not only the consumer but whatever domestic industry is targeted. EV makers and auto makers in general aren’t some infant industry in need of protection. More competition is good. 

    Yes, tariffs get passed onto to consumers. But it doesn't matter here because the point is that China shouldn't be allowed to dump heavily subsidized product. The point of the tariffs isn't to tax the consumer, but rather prevent the product from being sold here at levels that would significantly impair our domestic manufacturing base. Further, while automakers in the US don't need protection from fair competition, they absolutely need protection from heavily subsidized dumping. Chinese automakers aren't building better products or building the same product for significantly less money. Rather, they are taking $ billions of dollars directly from the Chinese government so that they can unload vehicles at or below cost, drive out competition, and then own the market. That's exactly what killed US manufacturing for solar panels. Once our manufacturing base is weakened or destroyed, than the Chinese companies can charge whatever they want AND it isn't a capability that can be instantly replaced in the US. It takes a long time to build up a work force and institutional knowledge. 

    Were we talking about US companies, these Chinese entities would be subject to anti-trust litigation for anti-competitive practices, again, fueled by the Chinese government itself. 

    • Hook 'Em 9
  6. 1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

    Tariffs are stupid. By both Biden and Trump 

    Well, these tariffs actually make sense. I'm not sure how else you protect domestic production from very heavily subsidized foreign production. You could go tit for tat on subsidies I suppose, but could luck getting Congress to go for that. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  7. 31 minutes ago, Slacks said:

     

    How many times did I mention it? 

    But man, y'all are discounting people's stubbornness. This isn't about the 34 questions.

    There is a great chance that one person, maybe even two, are just going to say "No" because they've made up their minds, regardless of the question. 

     

    Everyone realizes that you're really stubborn. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  8. 3 minutes ago, AUS-97HORN said:

    i dont understand why we cant just sneak in a tomahawk (or 100) that we accidentally sold to Saudia Arabia 30 years ago and ooops it found its way to Ukraine and then every fucking Russian Airbase within 1500 Km of Ukrainian territory discovers them landing all at the same time one night. 

    It seems like as long as no one attacks Moscow or St Pete with anything other than a 50lb drone, Putin and Russia are shrugging off everything else that hits them. 

    Ukraine doesn't have anything to launch Tomahawks with. We're just now trying to rebuild an ability to have ground launched Tomahawks after scuttling our prior systems 30 years ago. I think we had a successful test either early this year or late last year. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  9. 53 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

    I appreciate the bravado Joe is showing in that video, but I think this is a bad idea.  I don't think Joe is as diminished as the opposition would like you to believe, but a debate is the prime setting to highlight his shortcomings (especially against Trump's bluster) and tailor made for out-of-context tiktok clips to go viral.  The average voter watches these for "vibes" more than policy talk, and I think the risk is much much higher than the reward in that regard.

    The only logical explanation is that the campaign believes these horrific poll numbers. 

    I disagree. Trump being a bully and generally un-presidential in debates in 2020 helped Biden. I think with no audience and the ability to mute Trump's mike, Biden would show much better in a debate. Trump is a rambling, stumbling mess right now, much more so than 2020.  

    • Hook 'Em 3
  10. 11 minutes ago, The Dog said:

    By answering "sure" to a yes/no question?

    No, that's the answer that I think is fine. @Huckleberry's proposal of "Well yeah, he broke the law" is the one that I think is potentially problematic. I wouldn't really lose much sleep over it or anything, but I do think it invites a motion for mistrial.  

    • Hook 'Em 1
  11. 19 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

    The defense can’t ask for a mistrial based on a question they asked can they? Because if that’s the case seems like there would be an “oops” question in every criminal trial that is trending against the defendant 

    Well, usually not, but a witness can flout the rules in a such a way to cause a mistrial. This would most often come up in the context of an expert witness, who would generally be instructed by their attorney on what the judge has allowed vs not allowed to come into the case and would have to tailor their testimony based upon those instructions. Here, you're talking about a highly inflammatory statement, directly commenting on an issue the jury is supposed to be deciding, from a fact witness who is a lawyer and should understand the line, and where answering the question doesn't require the extra bit of inflammatory testimony. I'm not saying it likely would have resulted in a mistrial, but I bet it would have appeared in a motion for one. I think Cohen's answer was good in that context. I think while he could have issued a more explicit statement, discretion is the better part of valor here.  

    • Hook 'Em 3
  12. 20 minutes ago, 'stache said:

    As a technical matter, witnesses cannot tell a jury their opinion on whether a defendant is guilty or innocent, because only the jury can make that determination, but in response to a question worded as such, I think an objection would be overruled, because counsel opened the door and the witness is allowed to provide a response. 

    You're probably right, but I would have some small concern that it could be used as the basis of a mistrial. I thought his answer, especially if it had a good delivery, had largely the same effect on the jury with less risk. 

  13. 1 minute ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

    why the objection? that's high comedy. but really, why was it sustained? because it's not a direct answer?

    The objection was to the question, it just didn't beat the answer. I believe both the question and answer were stricken based on the reporting I've seen. 

  14. 25 minutes ago, Texas Jeff said:

    A word of caution when looking at school ratings .... COVID caused school ratings to be all over the map and probably inflated scores.  I don't understand 100% of the system, but here's the basic idea:

    The state ranks schools in a set of categories.  Pre-COVID, they averaged all categories to get a rating for the school.  School ratings were averaged to get a rating for the district.  So a school could get a F, D, C, B, A in five categories and that would average to a C.  During COVID, "bad" grades were changed to "not rated".  So those same ratings could have changed to NR, NR, C, B, A during COVID for an average of B.  Now, post-COVID, the NR's are being changed back to what they were before so a F, D, C, B, A school is back to a C average.

    In extreme cases, schools got a F, F, F, F, A before the pandemic for an F rating, then during COVID got all NR's and one A ... which gave them an "A" rating, and are now back to F, F, F, F, A post-COVID for a brand new "F" rating.  Give it a few years to stabilize but I would not trust any school rating during the pandemic to reflect the real state of a school.

    I have seen test scores which show that eco dis populations were really hit hard by COVID and are struggling to recover.

    Well, I don't think that is what is happening here. Rather, the rating system was changed specifically to make schools look worse to justify more state involvement and more demand for a voucher system. 

    • Hook 'Em 4
×
×
  • Create New...