Taro T

Speaking of showing cards, yours are clearly on the table.

Should he win, he won't contest the results. Should he lose on the 3rd, he won't contest the results. Should a few million vote popular vote margin w/ 300+ EC votes eek its way into a razor thin electoral loss a day or 2 before the EC convenes, heck yes he will contest. (& the D's will have been litigating for well over a month. But, but, that's different. )

Probably not the exact right place for this comment, but will put it here anyhow. Watching both sides really digging in to play for keeps with items like this SHOULD have people from both sides of the aisle wanting LESS federal government influence overall. If they're willing to spend so much on keeping power, the value of it has to be all that much greater. NO government employee should EVER get rich doing their elected or appointed duties.

Pretty sure back in the day that Mythbusters would end up ranking that one as "PLAUSIBLE."

Good luck with it. Hope your wife is home safe.

Good luck getting THAT through the House.

Who can blame him. Wouldn't you be angry if that was the only lap dancer you could afford?

Wtf? Who does he expect the NG to allow to vote that wouldn't have otherwise? Maybe he really is as dumb as Fredo.

What secrets did she expect to get out of the teddy bear by waterboarding him?

Had Sweden managed to protect their elderly, would've said they nailed it. But they definitely could've done better there.

Have had Sabres seasons for about 25 years, so easily 1,000. Tack on football, baseball, & concert tix would guess the total is ~1,500. The reason: clearly for entertainment.

Not trying to pile on here, really do appreciate having another rational liberal poster on this board that an & will carry on a cogent discussion, but did not find her allegations against Justice Kavanaugh remotely credible. Though agreed that they were worthy of additional investigation when 1st alleged, and they were investigated. There was no corroboration at all of her story, not even from people that were her friends & family. Details changed. He had several people corroborate his version of the party. She never brought these claims forward earlier, she attempted to bring the charges anonymously. She lied about her fear of flying. That's just for starters. You give her being a trained psychologist as a reason to give additional credibility to her story. IMHO, her having been trained in that subject lowers her credibility if it moves the needle either way as she'd almost definitely been trained in how to act & speak to appear credible. She may very well have been assaulted at some point in her life, but nothing she said credibly identified Justice Kavanaugh as having attacked her. That additional "victims" came forward with even more ridiculous & debunked claims is circumstantial but also lowers the believability of her allegations. Ymmv on that one.

Thanks for your response to my question in the other post. Your question about COULD a nominee reach 60 isn't quite the appropriate one now, unfortunately. Because pretty sure there isn't a single judge on the SC bench that would get to 60 TODAY. Though believe that all of them that were SCJ's 2 days ago (w/ the possible exception of Sotomayer) SHOULD recieve near unanimous approval were they coming up for nomination today. The appropriate Q IMHO is SHOULD the nominee get to 60. The system for selecting judges has become broken. IMHO the biggest part of that is due to Harry Reid's hubris, though that's not the entirety of it. Need to look closer at Barrett's or the judge from Miami's history, but right now expect either SHOULD be approved should she be nominated. (44's last nominee probably should've been approved as well, though truth be told am glad he wasn't.)

Capco, thanks for you comments so far on Justice Ginsberg. Am curious about the bolded. She didn't seem to hold this same opinion back in 2016. With that being the case, her view that a D should pick her replacement (let's be honest about why she was so adament about staying on the SC until 2021) sure seems to be based on politics rather than morals. Why do you view it as a moral stance rather than a political one?

Here's to hoping.

Were Roberts a solid conservative, you might have a point. Roberts often enough votes the way the establishment wants that 4-4 is the expected outcome.

RIP RBG.

Except it's rarely seen on TV. You have to go elsewhere to find it.

The lengths to which these guys are protesting gives hope that there really will be something to come of all this.

An equally annoying aspect of the coverage is that if you even ask for clarifications or seeing the underlying studies you are "anti-science." Would this walk back have ever occurred had the Big 11 not been shamed into finally starting their season?

The story was it was her mom that listened to the show. Maybe it evolved into her dad. Heard that story several years back.

Would REALLY like to hear the rationale behind that decision. Because if it's what is expected - the district superintendent is a world class Karen, it would be fun to hear her expose herself for being dumber than a post by penalizing the students because their parents aren't living life the way she wants them to do so; and if it isn't that, am expecting the answer will be entertaining in a really unfortunate way. Either way, wtf?

Would rather have the DA beholden to the populace rather than the Governor or the County Executive. (Even with your concern about conviction rate.)

My preference is for as little regulation as possible of the internet, regardless of the party in charge of the legislative &/or executive branch. But, when a platform injects itself in politics, unless it sets TOS very clearly in a neutral way AND enforces them likewise, they are acting as publishers & should be treated accordingly. So, they can do 1 or 2 things to stay out of court: 1. stay above the fray & treat all the political content in a similar manner (only removing/filtering it if it is obscene or if it violates copyright/other laws); or 2. carry water for their preferred politics & watch to make sure none of the billions of items on their site end up containing libelous material. Suppose they could do both. But seems from this vantage point that #1 is a lot easier & cheaper than #2. And it SEEMS that Twitter definitely and Facebook (which yours truly avoids like the plague) to a lesser extent are curating their content when it comes to politics. If they in fact are; then it won't be long until somebody reins them in &, again IMHO, everybody loses.

But the issue isn't whether the government is going to tell them what to publish; they aren't. The issue is whether the government should treat them like an ISP which generally receives immunity from libel actions due to the content of their subscribers or if the government should treat them like a publisher with editorial oversight of what gets published on their platform and therefore be liable to libel suits. They've enjoyed, and IMHO deserved, status as an ISP with the commensurate general immunity from libel. But recently, there has been a decided appearance of acting in the role of editor/publisher. Should that continue, then they absolutely should face the same scrutiny CNN or the WaPo or the Daily Caller recieve. And should a citizen be libelled, they should face the consequences if they continue to act like the WaPo or other publishers. They shouldn't get the benefits both ways. Jack Dorsey & his buddies are going to goad either the FCC or Congress (maybe both) into clarifying the status of Twitter, Facebook, Parler, & the like; and everybody will likely lose but the playing field will be leveled again.