The Democratic Party will meet this week in Chicago to perform the final muscle movements of a Zombie nomination process, one that could have been something had the party decided on an open primary after defenestrating the President.
Bryan, this is no “indictment” (some pun intended) about your character (as I know it is the highest), but no lawyer on either side wants you in that jury box. You’ll weigh the facts - if either barrister is concerned about the strength of them (for or against), neither will want to roll that die. I made it to the box once. They were trying to seat the last juror and were having difficulty. I whispered to the juror next to me “I won’t be here long” and was promptly sent packing by both counselors without a single question. Oh well…civic duty fulfilled.
Thank Glod I am aged and can opt out of the duty. I have been a venireman in a few and thankfully selected for only one. It was a murder trial. I did my level best to get off the jury as I had no stomach to listen to the gory details. I had no luck as the perp and his lawyer knew I worked for NASA and the perp was a fan of space travel. Damn!!! The trial also F'd our vacation plans.
I worked hard to prevent a hung jury as one member bought into not guilty due to mental trauma/insanity. I worked on the member and the guy who was agitating the woman to get a clean guilty verdict. I don't give a shit about the mental conditions. Let the judge decide on the sentence. Light if very mentally unstable and what the law allows if normal.
I'd genuinely love to read more about what concrete +enduring+ harms the domestic policies of the Dem ticket will do to America. You do a better job than most I've found at helping me understand the conservative side from principles and values. I for one will earnestly consider any articles you care to write that select individual policies and give a principled explanation that acknowledges the good intentions but explains why they're horrible ideas that will do long-lasting damage.
I found your look at the presidential election interesting. As much as I find little to respect from either presidential ticket, the candidates running for the House of Representatives and Senate are frequently either far left or right and have no plans on fixing any problem. (Just the rambling thoughts of an old hermit.)
Most elected officials, like 90%, are doing their jobs representing their constituents. It’s the ones that constantly make national news that are up there for show and extreme positions.
A disappointing commentary. Rather than calling two candidates out for being weak, why do you believe they are weak. What has the VP done that you didn’t like. A tougher test is has she done anything good? If you say nothing then I suspect you’re disingenuous. No one, Democrat or Republican, as gotten where they are without impressing a lot of people.
I’m a left of center Californian who has never like the Vice-President. Her national track record is virtually nonexistent as she couldn’t operate across the aisle. Then Senator Harris was barely liked in her own party. She grabbed the stage by making sound bites and headlines with her aggressive attacks of witnesses she was questioning while at the same time not able to pass any of her own legislative proposals. Maybe she has changed, but as VP she cannot point to much.
That said, I’m no President Trump fan, but was his Administration a complete failure. No. He called out NAFTA correctly and renegotiated it (over Canada’s objections). He found a major flaw in our trade agreements in that they don’t take technological advancements into consideration and insisted that agreements have a future review period for adjustments to the agreement adjusting parts that are not working, accounting for technological changes or dropping out altogether. The new North American Agreement has a review period at 5-years and is limited in total to 25-years where then a new agreement will be negotiated.
Can anyone show what President Biden done as good? If not, then I suggest you’re disingenuous. We wouldn’t be a country still if Presidents Trump and Biden were as bad as the opposition says. The failing of candidates belongs to us, the citizens who do not have the time to actually research why they like or don’t like a leader. Basically, you get what you pay for.
Point being, if you have something to say, see if you can give a concrete reason why you don’t like that person, not some vague notion or derogatory comment about the opposition.
I’ve said before, if you choose not to vote for a presidential candidate (hopefully you’ll still vote down ballot), which is your right, then that’s a vote for President Trump. Democrats are good at getting popularity votes, but they are terrible at Electoral College votes.
Regarding Governor Walz, there was a time in our lifetimes when SD was represented by McGovern (the war hero), and Daschle, ND by Dorgan and Conrad, MN by Humphrey and much earlier, the liberal Republican, Ramsey. Iowa had Clark and Harkin. Walz has a similar background to all those gentlemen. He is a Midwestern politician back when the Midwest had a high growth factor and was a hotbed for such ideas as the American Disabilities Act (Harkin), stopping the Vietnam War (McGovern), or the Peace Corps (Humphrey). We will see similar ideas emerge from the Harris-Walz ticket. I am quite sure that only regressive legislation will be dumped on America by Trump-Vance.
Odds are good a settlement is reached and you won't even visit the court house. My father's old joke was that when the defense attorney asks if you can be unbiased, respond "they don't arrest 'em for nothing sonny." That is if you have better things to do than serve.
This idea will be received with howls, including "it's a republic dummy, not a democracy," but I recently wondered how many bills stuck in a dysfunctional congress would already be law ( or rejected) if the electorate could vote from their seats at home as on America's Funniest Home Videos. :-)
I don't disagree Harris is in a honeymoon period with the press - but there's nothing surprising or new about that. But to say the press is in the bag for her is demonstrably false:
* The Wall Street Journal is not in the bag for Harris
* Trump is *always* graded on a curve by the press - all press. Headlines consistently extract the most intelligible thing he has said, regardless of how small a part of the speech it was. They routinely ignore the vast bulk of his speeches
You can watch a Trump speech directly, and then look at the Fox News or WSJ coverage of the same speech and see for yourself.
Again, I'm not disputing the honeymoon with Harris that the rest of the news is having but I think it's important to keep in mind the overall landscape.
Here's something form the WSJ. I'm sure you can do a Google search and come up with a huge number of article in the MSM referencing this "joy" theme talking point.
The "curve" you refer to for Trump runs in the opposite direction from what you think. Yes, they do ignore the bulk of his speeches - to his detriment. He's taken out of context. Now, compare that to Biden - where they ignored his cognitive decline. I imagine you'll dispute that too.
Great example article - look at the actual title and subtitle: "Make Kamala Harris the Enjoyment Czar. I trust her and Tim Walz with joy, but not with everything else." So you've proven my point about WSJ. I never disputed with the rest of the media; I did point out that Fox News is far larger than the others.
Unfortunately for your narrative I have watched his speeches - hence my claim that anyone should watch his speeches and compare to the reporting. It's been a long running trend in right-wing news outlets to have a headline totally detached from the body of the article and/or the supplied video. It's fairly routine on the Fox News website - especially if it is not an opinion piece - to get a reasonable, balanced report *in the body of the article* - and to have that totally at odds with the headline. So I suspect most people following the right wings news are *not* watching Trumps speeches and just blindly accept the right-wing reports about how unfair the msm is.
I can tell you she's not slurring her words, she's not rambling, she stays focused on her main points, which is not something Trump is able to do. Is there other analysis you had in mind?
Congrats on jury duty! Hope it's an interesting case!
Brian, I almost couldn’t stop laughing at your characterization of Vance as Renfield. Thanks for an LOL
Bryan, this is no “indictment” (some pun intended) about your character (as I know it is the highest), but no lawyer on either side wants you in that jury box. You’ll weigh the facts - if either barrister is concerned about the strength of them (for or against), neither will want to roll that die. I made it to the box once. They were trying to seat the last juror and were having difficulty. I whispered to the juror next to me “I won’t be here long” and was promptly sent packing by both counselors without a single question. Oh well…civic duty fulfilled.
The peabrain finally remembered Clarence Darrow!!!!
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/DAR_JURY.HTM
Re: Jury Duty
Thank Glod I am aged and can opt out of the duty. I have been a venireman in a few and thankfully selected for only one. It was a murder trial. I did my level best to get off the jury as I had no stomach to listen to the gory details. I had no luck as the perp and his lawyer knew I worked for NASA and the perp was a fan of space travel. Damn!!! The trial also F'd our vacation plans.
I worked hard to prevent a hung jury as one member bought into not guilty due to mental trauma/insanity. I worked on the member and the guy who was agitating the woman to get a clean guilty verdict. I don't give a shit about the mental conditions. Let the judge decide on the sentence. Light if very mentally unstable and what the law allows if normal.
My conspiracy theory is that the evil genius threw the debate so as to set up the installation of Kamobama without the need for a primary.
I'd genuinely love to read more about what concrete +enduring+ harms the domestic policies of the Dem ticket will do to America. You do a better job than most I've found at helping me understand the conservative side from principles and values. I for one will earnestly consider any articles you care to write that select individual policies and give a principled explanation that acknowledges the good intentions but explains why they're horrible ideas that will do long-lasting damage.
This perhaps the third election in a row with a stoppable force running against an unelectable object.
You're more likely to be called for a civil suit.
I found your look at the presidential election interesting. As much as I find little to respect from either presidential ticket, the candidates running for the House of Representatives and Senate are frequently either far left or right and have no plans on fixing any problem. (Just the rambling thoughts of an old hermit.)
Most elected officials, like 90%, are doing their jobs representing their constituents. It’s the ones that constantly make national news that are up there for show and extreme positions.
My experience is that you show up on one day. They pick a jury and you are not selected. You go home. You receive a check in the mail in a week.
A disappointing commentary. Rather than calling two candidates out for being weak, why do you believe they are weak. What has the VP done that you didn’t like. A tougher test is has she done anything good? If you say nothing then I suspect you’re disingenuous. No one, Democrat or Republican, as gotten where they are without impressing a lot of people.
I’m a left of center Californian who has never like the Vice-President. Her national track record is virtually nonexistent as she couldn’t operate across the aisle. Then Senator Harris was barely liked in her own party. She grabbed the stage by making sound bites and headlines with her aggressive attacks of witnesses she was questioning while at the same time not able to pass any of her own legislative proposals. Maybe she has changed, but as VP she cannot point to much.
That said, I’m no President Trump fan, but was his Administration a complete failure. No. He called out NAFTA correctly and renegotiated it (over Canada’s objections). He found a major flaw in our trade agreements in that they don’t take technological advancements into consideration and insisted that agreements have a future review period for adjustments to the agreement adjusting parts that are not working, accounting for technological changes or dropping out altogether. The new North American Agreement has a review period at 5-years and is limited in total to 25-years where then a new agreement will be negotiated.
Can anyone show what President Biden done as good? If not, then I suggest you’re disingenuous. We wouldn’t be a country still if Presidents Trump and Biden were as bad as the opposition says. The failing of candidates belongs to us, the citizens who do not have the time to actually research why they like or don’t like a leader. Basically, you get what you pay for.
Point being, if you have something to say, see if you can give a concrete reason why you don’t like that person, not some vague notion or derogatory comment about the opposition.
I’ve said before, if you choose not to vote for a presidential candidate (hopefully you’ll still vote down ballot), which is your right, then that’s a vote for President Trump. Democrats are good at getting popularity votes, but they are terrible at Electoral College votes.
If you get called, and especially if you are empaneled on a jury, I will be curious to read your musings on our citizenry and electorate.
Will do!
Regarding Governor Walz, there was a time in our lifetimes when SD was represented by McGovern (the war hero), and Daschle, ND by Dorgan and Conrad, MN by Humphrey and much earlier, the liberal Republican, Ramsey. Iowa had Clark and Harkin. Walz has a similar background to all those gentlemen. He is a Midwestern politician back when the Midwest had a high growth factor and was a hotbed for such ideas as the American Disabilities Act (Harkin), stopping the Vietnam War (McGovern), or the Peace Corps (Humphrey). We will see similar ideas emerge from the Harris-Walz ticket. I am quite sure that only regressive legislation will be dumped on America by Trump-Vance.
Odds are good a settlement is reached and you won't even visit the court house. My father's old joke was that when the defense attorney asks if you can be unbiased, respond "they don't arrest 'em for nothing sonny." That is if you have better things to do than serve.
This idea will be received with howls, including "it's a republic dummy, not a democracy," but I recently wondered how many bills stuck in a dysfunctional congress would already be law ( or rejected) if the electorate could vote from their seats at home as on America's Funniest Home Videos. :-)
I don't disagree Harris is in a honeymoon period with the press - but there's nothing surprising or new about that. But to say the press is in the bag for her is demonstrably false:
* Fox News is not in the bag for Harris - quite the opposite - and Fox News is the most watched by a wide margin. Source: https://deadline.com/2024/04/cable-news-ratings-march-first-quarter-1235874337/
* The Wall Street Journal is not in the bag for Harris
* Trump is *always* graded on a curve by the press - all press. Headlines consistently extract the most intelligible thing he has said, regardless of how small a part of the speech it was. They routinely ignore the vast bulk of his speeches
You can watch a Trump speech directly, and then look at the Fox News or WSJ coverage of the same speech and see for yourself.
Again, I'm not disputing the honeymoon with Harris that the rest of the news is having but I think it's important to keep in mind the overall landscape.
In the bag. Not 100 %, but darn close to it. Where do you think all this talk of "joy" comes from?
Can you show me the articles on Fox News or WSJ that have this "talk of joy"?
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/kamala-harris-tim-walz-joy-czar-election-58fcdc91
Here's something form the WSJ. I'm sure you can do a Google search and come up with a huge number of article in the MSM referencing this "joy" theme talking point.
The "curve" you refer to for Trump runs in the opposite direction from what you think. Yes, they do ignore the bulk of his speeches - to his detriment. He's taken out of context. Now, compare that to Biden - where they ignored his cognitive decline. I imagine you'll dispute that too.
Great example article - look at the actual title and subtitle: "Make Kamala Harris the Enjoyment Czar. I trust her and Tim Walz with joy, but not with everything else." So you've proven my point about WSJ. I never disputed with the rest of the media; I did point out that Fox News is far larger than the others.
Unfortunately for your narrative I have watched his speeches - hence my claim that anyone should watch his speeches and compare to the reporting. It's been a long running trend in right-wing news outlets to have a headline totally detached from the body of the article and/or the supplied video. It's fairly routine on the Fox News website - especially if it is not an opinion piece - to get a reasonable, balanced report *in the body of the article* - and to have that totally at odds with the headline. So I suspect most people following the right wings news are *not* watching Trumps speeches and just blindly accept the right-wing reports about how unfair the msm is.
Maybe you can analyze Kamala's speeches for us?
I can tell you she's not slurring her words, she's not rambling, she stays focused on her main points, which is not something Trump is able to do. Is there other analysis you had in mind?