SectionC3

It’s impressive that he got them out considering he had a mouthful of Lysol, right?

Here’s the guess as to why BillsFan1959 took a legal mind honed by 35+ years of staring at a wall in a courtroom and deluding himself into thinking he is better equipped than the people who, you know, actually have the guts and smarts to get into the arena in the same room in which he stood idly by took his ball and went home on this one: https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2018/09/29/christine-blasey-fords-friend-clarifies-kavanaugh-statement/

Bottom line: you can’t name this purported “best friend,” and you can’t tell me how I’m “always wrong.”

Use tech and human safeguards in remote areas. Building a static wall there is a waste of money. Focus resources on more critical areas. If there isn’t a problem with illegals in, say, Big Bend National Park, we shouldn’t spend $1m/mile or whatever the cost of the wall is (I actually think it’s quite a bit more) in that place. I appreciate that there might be more long-term costs in such areas (e.g., paying people, cost of maintaining cameras, drones, etc.), but we probably would need such long-term measures even with the wall given the ease with which such a device may be breached. In other words, relying solely on wall in remote areas is a bad idea, so the concern with respect to human and technological costs probably isn’t a big one. Don’t put words in my mouth. I don’t believe that Trump called Vicente Fox or Fernando Valenzuela a rapist, or that he said that all Mexican women are rapists. I do believe that he has demonized Mexicans for his own gain. That much is sure.

Which best friend of Ford are you referring to? Does this person have a name? Or is it the woman who was downstairs at the party and, to paraphrase Ford, would not have known of what Ford characterized as her assault?

And yet you continue to ignore the question on the floor.

Still no answer from you, big fella. Let’s put your 35 years of courtroom experience to work and get some specifics about how I’m “always wrong.”

Based on the text size, that’s still a short flagpole. It’s also crooked, which some people might say is unbecoming. But if it’s how you want to represent yourself, I’m not going to stand in your way.

More gibberish from you. You asked for an answer and you got it. The fact that you don’t like it is on you. Let’s keep our eyes on the prize here. The question on the floor is how I’m “always wrong” on matters of law. I’ll take any further dodges on your part as an admission that you can’t answer the question. You’re weakening the detente again. I could have a lot of fun with the fact that you’ve posted an image with a pretty short flagpole, but I won’t. I will respect your sensitivity. I only ask that you engage in civil discourse moving forward, sir.

I can’t speak to what “many on the left” have said. With respect to immigration, like the vast majority of Americans I agree that we need secure borders. We differ on how to effectively accomplish that. I believe a wall is an effective measure in urban areas and high-traffic places, such as in San Diego and in parts of Arizona. More remote areas may benefit from different safeguards. I also believe that immigration should be accomplished legally. How “loose” the rules are in that respect, that is, how many immigrants should be admitted on an annual basis, I’m not qualified to say. What I do not believe in is demonizing a group of people for political gain. It has happened in this country with respect to African-Americans, Irish, and Chinese, and now it’s happening with respect Mexicans (and, arguably, Chinese again). It’s wrong on a variety of levels, and it’s an approach that I will not stand for. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-mexicans-rapists-remark-reference-2018-4

Comments like these will destroy our detente, sir. I was aware of your penis envy. I am becoming aware of your homophobia. I think we all would be better if you would keep both of those issues to yourself. This community will be better for it.

Which senators are those? For real. I’d like to know. That’s disgraceful if true. I didn’t realize this was a thread about COVID-19.

Let’s play nice here today. I just kept you off of the Snowflake List. We have a fragile detente, you and me, so let’s work on being civil and leave the sarcasm at the door, sir.

I don’t think I’m alone in never having seen or handled your “junk.” Based your attitude and temperament, I’d bet it’s pretty dusty. But let’s put those points aside. After you admitted your tiny baby hands issue, and after you kept on alluding to your related issue in response to innocent, innuendo-free posts that I made, perhaps I should not have made light of your problem. For that I apologize. I will be mindful of your sensitivities about humorous comments from randos on the Internet about your anonymous Internet personality moving forward. In the spirit of reconciliation, I won’t even put you on the Snowflake List over this incident. Consider that a small peace offering on my end.

Believe it or not, so do centrists and liberals. We just disagree on how it is to be done intelligently and effectively. Trump thinks a sea to sea static monolith is a good plan. I watched Narcos a couple of times and realized that 1980s technology will defeat a wall. I also realize that there aren’t a hell of a lot of illegals wandering around in the vastness of Big Bend National Park. So I think a sea to sea wall is a wasteful measure. Apparently conservatives agree with me since Trump couldn’t get the sea to sea edifice funded by Congress. So now Trump has savaged the Constitution to try to make good on a campaign promise that he lacked the skill to keep. If your conservatism is such that you support funding a sea to sea border wall through a national emergency declaration and through liberal use of eminent domain, that’s on you. Those aren’t the principles to which I ascribe. The only one insinuating anything is you. Maybe its Freudian, I don’t know. But I simply illustrated a context in which it would be bad to paint with a broad brush. If you took that as a suggestion that Trump has tried to demonize a largely poor foreign group for his own benefit and the benefit of his followers, there’s not too much that I can do about that. No he was distracted during public health and economic crises by his own baseless promotion a long-discredited conspiracy theory regarding a political foe.

You should mention that to third and short.

It’s impressive that you spent 35 years in and around a courtroom. It doesn’t seem that you paid much attention during that time. 1. Your actual evidence point is patently wrong. Her testimony is “actual evidence.” 2. Your point about corroboration is misplaced. Typically corroboration is required only where the only evidence against a defendant is accomplice testimony. The absence of corroboration frankly is common in matters involving attempted (but unachieved) sexual assault and delayed disclosure. 3. Your point about contemporaneous disclosures also is misleading. Such disclosures are not essential to a finding of credibility. Moreover, as I’m sure you know based on your decades of sitting in a courtroom and apparently paying little attention to what occurred there, sexual assaults — particularly those involving minors — often are not promptly disclosed given the shame and humiliation attached to those incidents. 4. I don’t owe you or anyone else an explanation for a matter of opinion. As noted, I indicated that I watched and/or listened to the entirety of the hearings. I heard her speak. I heard him speak. I thought about Bart, Squiggy, and the crew. And I drew a conclusion accordingly. As I’m sure you’re aware given your 3.5 decades of apparently blithely sitting in a courtroom, an ultimate finder of fact doesn’t have to explain its conclusion. But I’ll give you a thumbnail sketch of factors relevant to a determination like mine: plausibility, absence of bias, imbalance of shame/humiliation versus any possible personal benefit to be gained from testimony, sound recall, and manner of testimony. Now that we have that out of the way, let’s hear about how I’m “always wrong” on matters of law. The floor is yours, big boy.

Non-responsive. You’ve answered a question with a question.

Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive. Not too shabby in my book.

Hoax.

Vaguely reminiscent of Trump's bogus national emergency to unconstitutionally reappropriate funds for the border wall.

There you go again with your fake news. In point of fact I answered your question:

At whom have I "hurl[ed] insults?"

There you go again with your alternative facts. I said nothing of the sort. The issue of Flynn's guilt is resolved. Like it or not, he's guilty. And he'll be guilty again tomorrow, too. Maybe he gets to reopen that question, but as of this moment in time the issue of his guilt has been determined. Update: Just checked. He's still guilty. And the issue of his guilt has been resolved. Enjoy! I realize that you have a lot of notebooks to fill up with information about crackpot conspiracy theories, so time is short. Any chance you can fill me in on how I'm "always wrong" on legal matters? Solid post. You kept it short. Exactly your style!

You're the only one talking about illegal immigrants, my man. Not the issue here. I don't believe the statement was attributed to any person or group. It was illustrative. Did I misread? Now, if you're asking whether Trump and his cult have weaponized migration, the answer obviously is yes.