The Frankish Reich
-
Posts
13,455 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by The Frankish Reich
-
-
Just now, Westside said:
What the hell does that comment have to do with anything????
It is a response to a comment about the allegedly horrific infringements on our liberty from our COVID response.
So I'm pointing out that some of the same people who refused to wear masks then insist on wearing masks now. Albeit for different reasons.
Got it?
-
People are acting like the devaluation of the dollar is necessarily bad or unexpected.
Seems to me that it is the policy of the Trump Administration. It is Intro to Macroeconomics stuff that a devalued currency raises the cost of imports; all other things being equal, that should work to "improve" the balance of trade. It is a tariff by other means, plus it should also lower the cost of exports to foreign buyers.
Economists can argue about whether the downside to a devalued dollar outweighs that. But I have to assume that the current administration's economists would think that a devalued dollar is a good thing.
Here's an opinion from a noted economist that devaluation is a bad idea.
-
8 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:
The government has zero business deciding what should or should not be “misinformation.”
But it is in the business of deciding what is "harassment" that should be banned or punished as an exception to that free speech principle.
-
46 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said:
So the govt didn't infringe on civil liberties?
I'm sure the government horrifically infringed on the civil liberties of the various masked ICE officers who sued it for requiring them to do outrageous things like wear masks.
That was then, this is now.
-
5 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:
I agree with you here. A lot of speech is offensive, at least to some people, and for good reason. But a free society has to tolerate that because the risks and consequences of limiting speech may be worse.
But here's what I don't get: some of the people who support your viewpoint are the same people who say that Harvard should not tolerate exactly the same kind of speech made on its own campus.
So how valuable exactly is this notion of free speech?
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Orlando Buffalo said:
I missed the first time around, so I am asking your opinion, not the reasoning used, is calling for the genocide of a people harassment of people in that group?
2 hours ago, ScotSHO said:This argument is silly Franklin - insert black people instead of jewish and wowsers the analysis would be different. Remember way back to last week when you were offended by the super racist joke of having someone dance-off their judicial dissent?
Sorry, the question as posed initially asked for a, well, lawyerly response. Does calling for genocide (maybe not "genocide" but forced displacement of a people from their recognized land - think "from the river to the sea") violate college codes of conduct? So you got an answer from me that's not that different than the answer the Ivy League presidents gave: no, because unless it is aimed a particular people on campus, it doesn't fit the definition of threatened violence against those people, so 1st Amendment considerations mean we accept it as free speech.
There's another question: is it offensive? That one is easier. Yes. It is offensive to call for the elimination of a people from the face of the earth. Always and everywhere.
And a subquestion: is it offensive to say "from the river to the sea?" Is it offensive to say "Israel shall control Gaza and the West Bank and the Palestinian residents just have to move somewhere else?" I'm not so sure this one is categorical. It's a political question. UN declarations have always honored the principle of self-determination, but then the question is always "who is the self that gets to determine?" Displaced Palestinians and their offspring aren't voting in Israeli elections for obvious reasons. Russia, after forcibly killing or removing ethnic Ukrainians from much of eastern Ukraine, probably says "let's have a vote amongst the remaining (mostly pro-Russia) people about which country they wish to belong to." So this is more complicated.
But since people seem confused by my take, I'll repeat it: calling for the elimination of a people is always offensive and wrong. Depending on the context, it may be a violation of a college's rules, but that requires an examination of the rule and the conduct that allegedly violated the rule.
-
1
-
-
OK, I live in the Mountain time zone and I'm ready to go to sleep. Meanwhile, in the good old Eastern Time Zone ... a dozen personal grudge threads bumped up by the guy who complains about people who post too much?
Get. A. Life.
Goodnight.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, AverageAllensSuspensor said:
I get very confused when I watch documentaries about US criminal cases.
I think I kind of understand the jury system, although I would like to know how much input the judge gives the jury prior to the deliberation. I guess it varies. Having heard the things the laymen judges sometimes say during deliberation I would be very worried letting them deliberate on their own.
What really confuses me is the appeal system in the US. In Sweden you can always appeal to the court of appeal. And they will try every criminal case unless the sentence was just a fine (or if someone is found not guilty and the sentence would have been just a fine). It seem to vary in the US. Different in different states maybe?
All in all the legal systems are very different. Which is interesting but confusing.
What kind of law do you practise as a lawyer?
I did all kinds of things. Started out doing securities litigation, then spent some time as a federal attorney. Left the federal government but came back after 9/11 and did national security type work. You hear about people who signed up for the military after 9/11; I guess at my age by then this was the next best thing. Then spent most of the rest of my career in that type of work, generally national security related work (including plenty of immigration; again, the post-9/11 thing) and appeals work. Now I just pick up private work when I feel like it or when I think there's an important issue.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, AverageAllensSuspensor said:
Never on a jury. Do not have a jury system in Sweden (with a very rare exception). But I have tried hundreds of criminal cases as a judge.
In Sweden at district courts criminal cases are normally tried by a legally trained judge and three laymen judges. Each vote has the same "value". If it is a split (2-2) there will be no conviction. However at least 90-95 percent of the time the laymen will agree with the legally trained judge. And if not the court of appeal will usually change the verdict. In the court of appeal there are three legally trained judges and two laymen judges. In the Supreme court there are no laymen judges. But they rarely try cases.
The laymen judges are elected four years at a time. So no risk of getting called up if you do not want to "serve".
Legally trained judges are appointed "for life".
Thanks.
Interesting system from our U.S. perspective.
I've long lobbied for something like your "layman judges" - in other words, ordinary citizens who apply, are given some training, and then sit on juries for a period of time.
I'm a semi-retired lawyer who recently served on a jury. (Don't ask why they picked me; I have no clue.) Chaotic as our system is (and depressing as I watched people scramble and make up laugh-out-loud excuses to be excused from serving), in the end the 11 others with me took their job seriously and I thought we reached a fair and considered verdict.
-
33 minutes ago, JFKjr said:
Anybody follow the Karen Read trial up in Massachusetts?
I did, at least generally, and from what I saw I think the jury got that one right too. (DUI conviction but acquitted of murder/manslaughter)
-
23 minutes ago, JFKjr said:
I like that you've shifted from eggs to tomatoes.
Hah! I have no need for store-bought tomatoes until mid-October. I just picked the first ripe ones of the year.
-
2 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:
What a flaming pile of sh*t the democrats must be to lose to this guy TWICE! Right?
At least you didn't say THRICE
-
1
-
-
Not just saying the quiet part out loud. No. Actually boasting that he - the Attorney General of Florida - is going to participate in a sham of due process (note the quotes around the word "process") by having national guard JAGs play immigration judge in kangaroo courts. This out to get you disbarred.
-
Corruption. So prevalent now that hardly anyone notices.
Mr. Trump is suing for $20 billion, claiming that CBS deceptively edited a 2024 campaign interview with Kamala Harris. The version that aired, his lawyers recently argued, “led to widespread confusion and mental anguish of consumers,” including Mr. Trump.
CBS has released the full tape, and it shows that these claims are concocted. Yet the President has leverage over Paramount, because its merger with Skydance Media requires approval from the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC. Mr. Trump has reportedly turned down a $15 million settlement offer, and the Journal reported Wednesday that a mediator has proposed that the two sides settle the lawsuit for $20 million.
The business logic for settling Mr. Trump’s grievance is easy to grasp: What’s $20 million in grease money, if it might save an $8 billion merger? Unless, that is, a big payout to the President could be viewed as a bribe.
It’s obvious that Mr. Trump is relying on the threat of regulatory disapproval as leverage in the lawsuit. Does this really fit the federal bribery statute? What level of legal frivolousness is required before settling a civil suit becomes pretextual?
-
3 hours ago, JDHillFan said:
If you want to see a wisecrack of that sort as racism, by all means have at it. Really odd.
Since you asked:
No. I don't call this one racist. It is playing upon a meme. That meme has been shown to be untrue, but if you don't pay attention to the source, it could have come from a Jimmy Kimmel or some similar comic making fun of the made-up story about eating the cats and eating the dogs.
So yes, just a wisecrack.
Not like KBJ doing a little dance rather than writing a reasoned opinion, which is, in my expert opinion, simply and clearly racist.
And if this one ^^ supports it, it must be racist.
-
14 hours ago, Big Blitz said:
Hey wait! Those are our NYC Uber drivers!!
-
2 minutes ago, Wacka said:
So you support a pervert?
Of course not.
1. He should have been convicted for domestic violence assault. The hotel video tells the story. He paid off the victim.
2. He is, as the jury found, clearly guilty of the Mann Act crimes. Those have been criticized as puritanical things that should have fallen by the wayside decades ago, but they are still the law, and he still violated it. Given the circumstances surrounding the Mann Act violations, I hope he gets a very substantial sentence. I think he's exposed himself (hah!) to about 20 years. I'd like to see him get 5-10.
3. The RICO counts were a legal stretch, and the evidence just didn't clearly support them beyond a reasonable doubt.
There was a failure of the criminal justice system in allowing this perv to get away with his conduct for a long time, but that failure isn't fixed by charging unsupportable crimes now. In a weird way, justice has finally been done (assuming the sentence is sufficient).
-
50 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
Seems to me that manipulating questions and answers to influence the public flies in contrast to the public good, too. As for stupid lawsuits, we already have those. The Carroll civil suit against Trump is a pretty stark example of lawyers gone wild.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts though!
Look, "you edited your interview to make my competitor look smarter" is a theory that has no standards. It absolutely would not have succeeded at trial, and there are 1st Amendment issues that may have shot it down as a legal matter too.
In this specific case we once again see Trump's personal desires - to punish CBS for favoring Harris over him - run up against his total control of the Executive Branch and the very real threat that the FCC will do his bidding by messing with Shari Redstone's plan to sell the company. In this way it is a corrupt settlement. And everyone who's looked at it objectively has agreed.
-
1
-
-
Sean Combs (let's stop using his infantile nicknames) acquitted of the big RICO charges, convicted on the little Mann Act felony.
The jury got it right. Overcharged. Clearly guilty of a lot of domestic violence that wasn't prosecuted thanks to playoffs, now convicted under the old morals charge about transporting people (in a weird turnabout, people with penises) for the purposes of prostitution.
Sometimes juries really do work the way they're supposed to.
-
Troubled kid with a major Nazi infatuation.
No, that doesn't mean it's Trump's fault.
But don't we need to think about what's going on here? Why are boys obsessed with Call of Duty and Nazi crap? And why do at least a few of them turn into senseless killers? What role do absentee fathers play?
We could ask those questions or we could just go full catturd and desperately suggest transgenderism is at fault just to deflect blame.
-
33 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:
the ((((thing)))) is code for ((((the JEWS))))
-
2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
@The Frankish Reich this seems like a reasonable outcome, yes?
Yes and no.
For CBS/Shari Redstone, yes, as it allows her to do what she wants - sell the company by preemptively buying off the regulators.
As a matter of public policy, an awful outcome. An outcome that will embolden more stupid lawsuits like Gavin Newsom's very similar one against Trump.
-
1
-
-
Grok made up "facts" about the Idaho shooter. "Facts" that were reposted in the Right Wing Terrorism thread.
The mainstream media did not make up "facts."
-
3 hours ago, Roundybout said:
Rural hospitals are communism. Real Americans die from pneumonia in silence, right @Big Blitz?As Sen Ernst says, we’re all gonna die. Do your patriotic duty to save money for ICE and don’t run up that Medicaid bill
-
2
-
The Woke Right
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Sorry, I can't help it!
But seriously: some of these things are legal issues. We don't like someone's message. Should we censor it? Punish it? Or should we just live with it, criticize it, but accept it based on higher free speech values.