Taro T

W has followed the typical post-presidency model. Not sure what you meant by that. Except for Carter, they all stay out of the fray. (Even Clinton pretty much stayed out as much as one can when one's wife is SoS & running for Prez.)

When they were talking w/ Michael McKean in the after-show, he sounded like he believes Chuck is dead. Can't believe they'd have him survive the fire. Chuck's last words to Jimmy were very powerful & should help kick him along the road to Saul. If he were to somehow survive, the words lose (IMHO) much of their power & provide Jimmy another chance at redemption by caring for his now disfigured mentally unstable brother. And, dying by himself in the fire makes Jimmy's statement at the beginning of the season that Chuck would die alone & in pain prophetic. (Though not a particularly difficult call.)

At until ~2009 when he gets his own chemist & supply.

RIP Flounder Axelrod.

Really thought it was as simple as Mike needed someone to remind him that as moronic as Squat Cobbler was, he still had a family (not necessarily his own nuclear family) & his having absolutely no understanding of who he was dealing with he needed a guardian angel to keep from them wondering what happened to him. Plus, that would give him a chance to ask Ignacio what he needed to ask him.

Pretty much the only unethical thing regarding Sandpiper in that episode was Jimmy destroying Irene's position within her retirement home. He can justify doing it to help the rest of the plaintiffs, but he's just lying to himself about what & why he did what he did. The rest of it was everyone looking out for their own self-interest & believing that the rest of/all of the plaintiffs would be best served by that same outcome.

Ha. That's where Deutsch has those ones beat. Their nouns can be male, female, or neuter: der Herr, die Frau, und das Madchen.

Nice.

He is. & at a minimum the previous 2 were as well.

OK. No doubt politicians should remember that they represent ALL their constituents. The thing is, they tend to believe their plans/ solutions are correct & that since they are doing the right thing that they are acting on behalf of all their constiuents. Pretty sure that belief goes back as far as politicians getting elected goes. And remeber since the '88 election, only 1 person has gotten a majority of votes cast for President & neither time did that President crack 53%. Reagan is the last President that had a "mandate" IMHO (~45% more votes than the next guy & 97%+ of the EC). The past 5 were/are all leading a very divided nation.

That might be clear, but 1st, Tiberiod has never stated anything factual clearly, and 2nd, it would also be clear that a majority (~52%) of all votes cast for President were for somebody other than Madame Secretary. The mental midget claimed the D's flag bearer won a majority of votes cast. She did not.

Since when is 48.2% a majority?

Mike asked for a "favor" which was never explicitly provided on-screen. Thought it was presumed that the favor was the location of the good samaritan.

So you're good w/ life, but liberty & pursuit of happiness can go f' themselves? Having some "legislative body" in charge of what people are going to do rather than following what they have a passion for is a really good way to significantly lower productivity, output, & innovation. Realizing this is all in some highly automated future, but it's difficult to imagine how things continue moving forward from that point unless the machines can upgrade themselves because there's no incentive for the people to put in the effort to do it.

What possible incentive exists in your Utopia for ANYONE to be a plumber (which is a skill that's still required in a highly automated world) rather than an artist? Why would someone that wants to be in the medical field fight through 12-14 years of education & residency to become a specialist rather than just 7 or so years to be a PA? Why would someone with a difficult job innovate a more efficient way of accomplishing the task rather than simply not work as hard on it? Why would someone who loves learning ever give up being a "professional student" that would bring back a fraction of the return of that student going out and "working for a living" would? You take away incentive to excel & you will wind up w/ less excellence & innovation. And just out of curiosity who decides who does what jobs? Pretty sure you've said in your system that everyone has to produce to get that wage. Someone has to make that decision AND enforce it. (If you didn't state that, apologies, have you confused w/ someone else. But would still like an answer to the question.)

Don't forget her #1 biggestest fanboi of all, PJ. He might have voted twice if he could.

Don't know if it would be a miracle, but it definitely would be unexpected. Of course, w/ Jimmy's background (his admiration for his brother & wanting to follow in his footsteps; his ability to be an effective con man; & his seeming to truly want to help others) combined w/ his love of Kim could explain both his going to law school & his probable prodding of Kim to follow her dreams in that direction. Also, not positive, but didn't Ernesto start out in the mail room as well? (Even though, afaik, he doesn't have his own practice (nor even job at this point in the story). So, that could be something that HHM prides itself on & considers part of its corporate culture; giving kids w/ drive assistance in becoming lawyers themselves. It at least seems to be something Howard took pride in until this lateset flap.

Kim had started in the mail room & the firm helped pay for her attending law school. (Apologies if you were going in a different direction w/ your comment & already got that.) Because one of Chuck's worst nightmares was Jimmy becoming a lawyer, there was no way HHM would ever help Jimmy through law school.

So if some chick w/ a huge rack is strapping an ace bandage across those puppies to look less feminine; you make that happen? Can't see a lot of demand for it, but imagine there probably are some good perks w/ it. Where'd you go to grad school to pick up those "skills?"

So much for people trying to figure out the year from Howard's "35 year old scotch" comment. Good catch on the check.

The clip was from what was supposed to be his charity softball game that turned into just a home run contest to keep from tearing up Frontier Field today. Hopefully his prodding helps get a deal done.

It was a VERY poor decision. There was a reason they drafted him in the 2nd & he'd looked good in limited action in '93. He looked better in '94 preseason than Patton did. Keeping Patton over Parrella was a huge mistake.

Disagree om Parella. Really wanted the Bills to keep him. Would agree that releasing Ted Washington & Pat Williams were horrible decisions. An under the radar one that seemed rather innocuous & ended up hurting was releasing Mayhew who ended up starting against them in XXVI.

Short term, yes. But after it gets to the SC it SHOULD uphold the constitutionality of requiring the Senate to ratify treaties before they're binding. Assumes, of course, that they don't go looking to "international law" for precedent & stay within this country's laws for guidance. (Would be a lot more comfortable about that were either Kennedy or Ginsburg retired.) Which is STILL one of the biggest "pros" in having the current President. There's a lot better chance of having some checks and balances restored than there was w/ the alternative.