Elerond Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 45 minutes ago, smjjames said: I'm curious as to what and who notable lawyers thought should have been charged with something. Also, you (and the notable Norwegian lawyers) may or may not realize that Florida has the 'stand your ground' law, which is likely partially why no charges were brought. Still, it sounds like a horrible accidemt that would almost deserve a Darwin award. edit: The guy was certainly unaware of the confrontation the father in law had with another relative earlier that night. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fla-woman-marissa-alexander-gets-20-years-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/ Florida is strange place where you get 20 years in prison for shooting warning shot, but where it is just tragic accident that doesn't need any investigation when you shoot and kill somebody
Gromnir Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 31 minutes ago, smjjames said: If you read the article, the guy had a confrontation with other relatives earlier that night and the banging was at the back door, where you wouldn't really expect visitors to be. 20 minutes ago, Maedhros said: Haha, I don't think "Norway" is critizising the US, more like some Norwegian lawyers commented on it, and found it a bit strange that they did no investigation. Killing someone (whether an accident or not) is pretty serious stuff. And since it was a Norwegian citizen that died, it gets extra attention over here You get criticized for locking up a crazy amount of people for minor crimes, as far as I know. If you're found guilty of manslaughter, that's hardly comparable! florida has the castle doctrine. *shrug* by law it ain't inherent reckless to defend self and home with a deadly force. as such, there wouldn't be much to investigate. were the homeowner under the influence o' illegal drugs? 'less there were some kinda obvious evidence that the shooter had planned this, occam's razor says mistake... accident. at best you maybe find an argument for negligent homicide. we mentioned earlier in the thread how regardless o' how laws is written, mistake and accident do not get prosecution unless there is some other overriding factor. yeah, we punish all kinda people for all kinda minor stuff. nevertheless, in spite o' what recent cases and tv and movies lead you to believe, if cops and da believe is mistake or accident, then any intent crime typical goes unpunished. however, there is a whole bunch o' crimes we punish regardless o' intent. speeding ticket? toxic waste dump? drug possession? most crimes is actual mala prohibita as 'posed to mala in se and it don't matter what the defendant's intent were. confused? probable. is worth doing a quick looksee at mala prohibita v. mala in se if you are genuine curious. HA! Good Fun! ps we didn't actual watch the video, but he is wearing a cal hat, so... "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)
ShadySands Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 I wonder if it gets frustrating for you to try to explain the law all the time... and even more frustrating when we still don't get it. I had an old lawyer acquaintance back when I lived in NYC who I asked a similar question to and his answer was something along the lines of yes but generally better than hanging out with other lawyers 1 Free games updated 3/4/21
Gromnir Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 5 minutes ago, ShadySands said: I wonder if it gets frustrating for you to try to explain the law all the time... and even more frustrating when we still don't get it. biggest problem is vocabulary, which am suspecting is not actual accident. if law weren't arcane, then people wouldn't need lawyers... or at least not need as often. words like malice and intent don't actual mean same thing as they do in english. am suspecting lawyers as an industry has created impenetrable vocab just to make themselves indispensable. am thinking we mentioned at least once before how in spite o' fact most o' our acquaintances over recent years has been attorneys, and even 'mongst those we genuine respect, is few with whom we would wanna go to a ballgame. is not that we dislike fellow attorneys, but am finding we have little to talk 'bout with most attorneys save for law... and as am a Con Law guy, we get the kinda dismissive, "you poor soul" treatment from fellow folks in the profession. HA! Good Fun! 1 "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)
Gfted1 Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 I doubt it. Lawyers LOVE the sound of their own voice. "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa"
Maedhros Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Gromnir said: florida has the castle doctrine. *shrug* by law it ain't inherent reckless to defend self and home with a deadly force. as such, there wouldn't be much to investigate. were the homeowner under the influence o' illegal drugs? 'less there were some kinda obvious evidence that the shooter had planned this, occam's razor says mistake... accident. at best you maybe find an argument for negligent homicide. we mentioned earlier in the thread how regardless o' how laws is written, mistake and accident do not get prosecution unless there is some other overriding factor. yeah, we punish all kinda people for all kinda minor stuff. nevertheless, in spite o' what recent cases and tv and movies lead you to believe, if cops and da believe is mistake or accident, then any intent crime typical goes unpunished. however, there is a whole bunch o' crimes we punish regardless o' intent. speeding ticket? toxic waste dump? drug possession? most crimes is actual mala prohibita as 'posed to mala in se and it don't matter what the defendant's intent were. confused? probable. is worth doing a quick looksee at mala prohibita v. mala in se if you are genuine curious. HA! Good Fun! ps we didn't actual watch the video, but he is wearing a cal hat, so... Thanks for elaborating. You're saying that Florida has unique state laws, and that by law he did nothing wrong. I guess I just expected there to be some precedence for his extreme negligence to at least be investigated? ---- https://www.businessinsider.com/pro-trump-group-behind-aoc-protester-calling-to-eat-babies-2019-10?r=US&IR=T A crazed protester at an AOC town hall, shouting things like "we have to eat babies" and "bomb russia" to fight climate change, gave the Trump fanboys a lot of ammo the other day, with Trump calling AOC a wackjob for having such followers. "She didn't even rule out eating babies" Turns out the protester was a member of a cultlike anti-CO2 reduction group, trying to satirise those who...listen to scientists. Edited October 4, 2019 by Maedhros
Gromnir Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 9 minutes ago, Maedhros said: Thanks for elaborating. You're saying that Florida has unique state laws, and that by law he did nothing wrong. I guess I just expected there to be some precedence for his extreme negligence to at least be investigated? castle doctrine is not particular unique. majority o' states have a version. keep in mind is legal to carry and brandish a firearm in your home anywhere in the country. Gromnir may believe such behaviour is stoopid and prohibitive likely to result in a harmful or fatal mistake, as it did in this case, but such is law. jehovah's witnesses show up to proselytize and you wanna answer your door with your ar-15. is not inherent unreasonable or reckless to do so. more important, and again, we rare criminal prosecute mistake. shooting somebody who leaps outta bushes and growls is reasonable? not in our mind, but do you really wanna imprison a guy for a stoopid mistake? even if mistake is moronic and terrible we general don't criminalize. after all, negligence is ordinary a civil issue. for intent crimes we are seeking justice for folks who got genuine ill will. accidental kill the birthday surprise guy is subject matter for a far side comic as 'posed to fodder for criminal courts. shrug off and say this were yet another example of florida man? am understanding frustration. unsatisfactory. and again, am personal not sympathetic to shooter. investigate and find out there were no growling and leaping from bushes, shooter simple opened the door and shot. fine. gonna csi that and check for footprints in bushes and whatnot? ok. am not sure what the cops did, but am doubting they didn't at least ask questions o' witnesses. so, what else? keep in mind that if a month from now somebody discovers email evidence that the guy from norway were shot not 'cause o' accident but 'cause the shooter were a greenpeace fanatic who secretly loathed his norwegian in-law 'cause o' norway's stance on whale and seal hunting, then is not as if the shooter couldn't be prosecuted at a later date. were son-in-law who died trying to surprise somebody on their birthday. am suspecting cops quickly saw just how tragically perverse and utterly human the situation was. HA! Good Fun! "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)
Maedhros Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Gromnir said: keep in mind is legal to carry and brandish a firearm in your home anywhere in the country. Gromnir may believe such behaviour is stoopid and prohibitive likely to result in a harmful or fatal mistake, as it did in this case, but such is law. jehovah's witnesses show up to proselytize and you wanna answer your door with your ar-15. is not inherent unreasonable or reckless to do so. more important, and again, we rare criminal prosecute mistake. shooting somebody who leaps outta bushes and growls is reasonable? not in our mind, but do you really wanna imprison a guy for a stoopid mistake? even if mistake is moronic and terrible we general don't criminalize. after all, negligence is ordinary a civil issue. for intent crimes we are seeking justice for folks who got genuine ill will. accidental kill the birthday surprise guy is subject matter for a far side comic as 'posed to fodder for criminal courts. Well, not necessarily, because this was a very absurd happening - but I don't think intent should always save you when you commit a terrible mistake. Driving while drunk for example is a very, very moronic thing to do - which becomes particularily clear every time there's an accident because of is. Should the drunk driver go free because he didn't "intend" to hit anyone with his car? Or another situation I read about recently - Some guys having fun managed to make a huge rock fall off a cliff, and could face charges because it could've led to the death of fellow hikers below. Stupid mistake, or stupid crime? I lean more towards "no", because of the absurdity of the situation. But I can't help but feel that the enormity of the shooter's mistake should have some consequences. Edited October 4, 2019 by Maedhros
Gromnir Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 1 minute ago, Maedhros said: Well, not necessarily, because this was a very absurd happening - but I don't think intent should always save you when you commit a terrible mistake. Driving while drunk for example is a very, very moronic thing to do - which becomes particularily clear every time there's an accident because of is. Should the drunk driver go free because he didn't "intend" to hit anyone with his car? we explained earlier in the thread how drug use would alter, and have mentioned previous how drunkenness effective replaces intent from a legal standpoint. the intent to get drunk is, for purposes o' the crime, fulfillment o' the state of mind requirement. drunk isn't illegal, but driving drunk is. had requisite intent for the drunk driving criminality. drunk driving results in death o' another is not considered an accident, unless you were slipped a mickey or somesuch. can't check for alcohol level at this point anyway. if weren't already checked... not that would matter 'cause drunk in home is not illegal. HA! Good Fun! "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)
Hurlshort Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 9 minutes ago, Maedhros said: Well, not necessarily, because this was a very absurd happening - but I don't think intent should always save you when you commit a terrible mistake. Driving while drunk for example is a very, very moronic thing to do - which becomes particularily clear every time there's an accident because of is. Should the drunk driver go free because he didn't "intend" to hit anyone with his car? I lean more towards "no", because of the absurdity of the situation. But I can't help but feel that the enormity of the shooter's mistake should have some consequences. I think those consequences might be better suited in a civil case than a criminal one, though. Drunk driving is a heck of a lot different than shooting someone on your property.
PK htiw klaw eriF Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 I think it's safe to say that doing anything special for your inlaws is dangerous and that you should keep as much distance, emotional and physical, as possible. Especially if they're in Florida. 2 1 "Akiva Goldsman and Alex Kurtzman run the 21st century version of MK ULTRA." - majestic "you're a damned filthy lying robot and you deserve to die and burn in hell." - Bartimaeus "Without individual thinking you can't notice the plot holes." - InsaneCommander "Just feed off the suffering of gamers." - Malcador "You are calling my taste crap." -Hurlshort "thankfully it seems like the creators like Hungary less this time around." - Sarex "Don't forget the wakame, dumbass" -Keyrock "Are you trolling or just being inadvertently nonsensical?' -Pidesco "we have already been forced to admit you are at least human" - uuuhhii "I refuse to buy from non-woke businesses" - HoonDing "feral camels are now considered a pest" - Gorth "Melkathi is known to be an overly critical grumpy person" - Melkathi "Oddly enough Sanderson was a lot more direct despite being a Mormon" - Zoraptor "I found it greatly disturbing to scroll through my cartoon's halfing selection of genitalias." - Wormerine "I love cheese despite the pain and carnage." - ShadySands
Gromnir Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 5 minutes ago, Hurlshot said: I think those consequences might be better suited in a civil case than a criminal one, though. Drunk driving is a heck of a lot different than shooting someone on your property. yeah. the notion a person is getting away with something ignores what we said 'bout negligence being more appropriate to civil. we specific used examples o' doctor prescribing wrong medication or construction worker wrong building scaffolding when explaining texas cop case. make a mistake does not mean you ignore consequences. not go to prison is hardly the same as getting away with something. however, shoot somebody is fundamental different... but less so in USA as 'posed to almost anywhere else. sure, far more people die every year from prescription med mistakes than all firearm crimes and accidents combined. nevertheless, while meds may be as dangerous as firearms, the purpose o' the gun is to cause hurt or death. guns is different, or should be. if you use a firearm on a person, is expected somebody will be severe hurt or dead. prescription drug is not intended to harm. am getting the consternation and the dissatisfaction. we want to get justice for victims, and innocent people being shot and killed feels like a situation where justice is demanded. nevertheless, even when is an option for da to do so, we typical do not criminal prosecute mistake for intent crimes. is rare. is the exception. even the vehicular manslaughter stuff is rare unless is a repeat offender o' dui... or if the incident gets disproportionate publicity 'cause child dies or some other reason. HA! Good Fun! 3 "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)
smjjames Posted October 5, 2019 Posted October 5, 2019 Trump is desperately trying to find a scapegoat. IMO he should throw Pence under the bus some more, or maybe even Giuliani, which I suspect will happen at some point.
ManifestedISO Posted October 6, 2019 Posted October 6, 2019 he will; no one is immune from attack by a cornered psychopathic narcissist under threat of exposure and accountability if the president continues to call for 'impeachment' of Congressional Republicans, as he did with Romney -- likely jurors in a Senate trial -- removal from office may actually occur All Stop. On Screen.
Bartimaeus Posted October 6, 2019 Posted October 6, 2019 (edited) Witness from mentioned Guyger killer cop trial murdered in home by currently unknown assailant: https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Man-Fatally-Shot-at-Dallas-Apartment-Complex-562267151.html Theories currently abound on the perpetrator. (e): Also, my condolences to his family, but more importantly, I hope the person(s) responsible hang. Edited October 6, 2019 by Bartimaeus Quote How I have existed fills me with horror. For I have failed in everything - spelling, arithmetic, riding, tennis, golf; dancing, singing, acting; wife, mistress, whore, friend. Even cooking. And I do not excuse myself with the usual escape of 'not trying'. I tried with all my heart. In my dreams, I am not crippled. In my dreams, I dance.
Guard Dog Posted October 6, 2019 Posted October 6, 2019 9 hours ago, smjjames said: Trump is desperately trying to find a scapegoat. IMO he should throw Pence under the bus some more, or maybe even Giuliani, which I suspect will happen at some point. As far as throwing Pence under the bus, Pence might not be blameless. One thing is for sure though. Trump likely did not know he was wading into an ethical swamp. Even after three years he has no clear idea of what a US President can or cannot (or should not) do. Pence does know better. "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Guard Dog Posted October 6, 2019 Posted October 6, 2019 Well, I guess this is another way to go: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-blames-rick-perry-for-perfect-ukraine-call/ar-AAIlhHy?ocid=spartanntp How the Energy Secretary is "responsible" for all that is..... WTF am I saying? This is a Trump Administration. None of it makes any sense. "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
smjjames Posted October 6, 2019 Posted October 6, 2019 (edited) 6 hours ago, Guard Dog said: Well, I guess this is another way to go: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-blames-rick-perry-for-perfect-ukraine-call/ar-AAIlhHy?ocid=spartanntp How the Energy Secretary is "responsible" for all that is..... WTF am I saying? This is a Trump Administration. None of it makes any sense. That's basically what the link in my previous post was. Anyways, I wonder just how far the 'I was only following orders' defense would work out for Pence? Even though his political future depends on latching to Trumps ass as tightly as possible like a male anglerfish, he is expected to have some independence. Edited October 6, 2019 by smjjames
PK htiw klaw eriF Posted October 6, 2019 Posted October 6, 2019 hahahahaha governor goodhair got thrown under the bus hahahahahaha "Akiva Goldsman and Alex Kurtzman run the 21st century version of MK ULTRA." - majestic "you're a damned filthy lying robot and you deserve to die and burn in hell." - Bartimaeus "Without individual thinking you can't notice the plot holes." - InsaneCommander "Just feed off the suffering of gamers." - Malcador "You are calling my taste crap." -Hurlshort "thankfully it seems like the creators like Hungary less this time around." - Sarex "Don't forget the wakame, dumbass" -Keyrock "Are you trolling or just being inadvertently nonsensical?' -Pidesco "we have already been forced to admit you are at least human" - uuuhhii "I refuse to buy from non-woke businesses" - HoonDing "feral camels are now considered a pest" - Gorth "Melkathi is known to be an overly critical grumpy person" - Melkathi "Oddly enough Sanderson was a lot more direct despite being a Mormon" - Zoraptor "I found it greatly disturbing to scroll through my cartoon's halfing selection of genitalias." - Wormerine "I love cheese despite the pain and carnage." - ShadySands
Guard Dog Posted October 6, 2019 Posted October 6, 2019 1 hour ago, smjjames said: That's basically what the link in my previous post was. Anyways, I wonder just how far the 'I was only following orders' defense would work out for Pence? Even though his political future depends on latching to Trumps ass as tightly as possible like a male anglerfish, he is expected to have some independence. Actually his best hope at this point is to put as much distance between himself and the President. As far as his political future I'm not sure he has or wants one. He was not seeking any office when Trump picked him. He was term limited as Indiana governor IIRC was was leaving politics. "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Gromnir Posted October 6, 2019 Posted October 6, 2019 so at the very least there is three whistleblowers. there is a second whistleblower who has first-hand knowledge o' the events described by the person who had concerns 'bout trump's efforts with the ukraine. is also a third whistleblower who has raised issues 'bout interference with irs handling o' trump taxes. whistleblowers get special protections, so once the proverbial cat is out of the bag, there is some motivation for other whistleblowers to come forward to offer up evidence. admitted, am not an expert on whistleblower. one time in multiple decades we had even tangential involvement with a whistleblower case, and that were limited to straightforward complaints regarding a federal district judge. quick asides: Constitution doesn't require a vote for pelosi to unilateral start an impeachment inquiry, and am understanding why is political advantageous not to have such a vote. those moderate democrats, particular in the south, is gonna be forced to take a stand, albeit a minor one, on the impeachment issue. nevertheless, is the norm to have such a vote. Congress, when starting inquiries o' clinton and nixon had a vote. the notion trump is interested in stopping corruption and not in seeking to undermine a political rival is clear hokum, and yet it appears to be the repeated refrain from gop. https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1180146216790872072/video/1 also, trump is going hard after any republican who doesn't share the suicide pact mentality which is developing regarding impeachment inquiry. romney impeachment? ben sasse and susan collins has made comments which may expose themselves to trump's wrath. even so, can't current see a trend o' gop Congressmen abandoning trump. yeah, the actual numbers o' republicans abandoning nixon were never large, but were essential. am just not seeing the possibility o' something similar at the moment. we don't see pence and others leaving the bunker to save themselves. am thinking the big problem for the gop is that trump's previous bad behaviour has effective inoculated politicians and public alike. what our country deems too much to accept from a President has clear changed 'tween january 2017 and now. this administration needs to be an aberration. regardless o' what happens with trump, the extreme polarization needs end. 2019 cannot be the new normal. HA! Good Fun! "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)
Agiel Posted October 6, 2019 Posted October 6, 2019 51 minutes ago, Gromnir said: https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1180146216790872072/video/1 also, trump is going hard after any republican who doesn't share the suicide pact mentality which is developing regarding impeachment inquiry. romney impeachment? ben sasse and susan collins has made comments which may expose themselves to trump's wrath. even so, can't current see a trend o' gop Congressmen abandoning trump. yeah, the actual numbers o' republicans abandoning nixon were never large, but were essential. am just not seeing the possibility o' something similar at the moment. we don't see pence and others leaving the bunker to save themselves. am thinking the big problem for the gop is that trump's previous bad behaviour has effective inoculated politicians and public alike. what our country deems too much to accept from a President has clear changed 'tween january 2017 and now. this administration needs to be an aberration. regardless o' what happens with trump, the extreme polarization needs end. 2019 cannot be the new normal. HA! Good Fun! Quote “Political philosophers have often pointed out that in wartime, the citizen, the male citizen at least, loses one of his most basic rights, his right to life; and this has been true ever since the French Revolution and the invention of conscription, now an almost universally accepted principle. But these same philosophers have rarely noted that the citizen in question simultaneously loses another right, one just as basic and perhaps even more vital for his conception of himself as a civilized human being: the right not to kill.” -Jonathan Littell <<Les Bienveillantes>> Quote "The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, entity, or ideology becomes obsolete when it stockpiles the wrong weapons: when it captures territories, but not minds; when it enslaves millions, but convinces nobody. When it is naked, yet puts on armor and calls it faith, while in the Eyes of God it has no faith at all. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete." -Rod Serling
Gromnir Posted October 6, 2019 Posted October 6, 2019 17 minutes ago, Agiel said: problem for the gop is the beating taken were most felt among those who put country over party. republican voters did not forgive those who "defected." HA! Good Fun! "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)
Guard Dog Posted October 6, 2019 Posted October 6, 2019 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Agiel said: Everything is cyclical. In 2016 the Democrats were virtually destroyed. You could drive from Miami FL to Pocatillo ID and not pass through any state, county, city or congressional district controlled by the Democrats. Next year there is a pretty good chance they win both houses and the White House. Then they will go hog wild, stick their middle fingers in red America's faces, do all the s--t that they are howling about Trump doing and in 2022 they will lose congress. Then the cycle begins again. @Gromnir I do hope this is not the new normal. It would be helpful if the next administration comes in and strikes a tone of reconciliation. Pretty much the opposite of what Trump and Obama did. Not going to happen though. Especially if the next admin has Congress on their side. Assuming Trump fatigue is enough to cost him the election even if all bad acts are dismissed by his supporters. I know I'm sick of him. Edited October 6, 2019 by Guard Dog "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
smjjames Posted October 6, 2019 Posted October 6, 2019 4 hours ago, Guard Dog said: Next year there is a pretty good chance they win both houses and the White House. Not sure what you think the Democrats chances are of winning the Senate, but they have a majorly uphill battle to get a majority. Even flipping three is going to be difficult. Still, anything's possible. I could have sworn Obama tried, at least initially to take a reconciliatory approach, but the Republicans didn't want it, or act like they wanted it. Given how deep the polarization is though, I'm not even sure what a reconciliatory approach would look like other than maybe massively pivoting towards the center and the other side has to want to reconcile in order for it to even start in the first place.
Recommended Posts