'stache

The one thing he’s not lying about is that he would resolve both wars. He’d let Russia have Ukraine and would help Israel wipe out all residents of Gaza. Easy peasy.

Telling the truth about the other guy's lies is detrimental. This fucking country.

I disagree that it makes any difference. The average American's brain is mush. A good looking energetic younger democrat will still be hammered because of the gay or dead babies or Mexican immigrants all being MS13. But who knows, I just don't think anything matters anymore. The other old guy who talks like a true idiot has been deemed the winner of a debate. He lost by every metric that matters. The other guy is old and stuttered too much is not a legitimate issue, at least not under current circumstances.

How so? How do you convince people who are either completely brainwashed or too stupid to think through actual public policy that positions and competence are more important than bluster and how well you respond to a fat buffoon rambling on stage about his golf game?

I should be more specific, it's not the democrats fault that half this country's voters think he's a good candidate. There isn't anything the democrats can do to make them see reason. It's also not their fault that a bunch of people "in the middle" are more persuaded by his stutter during a dog and pony show than actual policy positions and competence in governance.

Biden's policies work. Trumps proposed policies are disastrous. Only in the USA is a stutter the difference maker in determining whether we should abandon democracy or allow a moron who lies constantly and is a convicted felon to hold power. Same with Newsom because California. I'm always shocked at seemingly normal people who feel the need to constantly go out of their way to make that an issue.

I just can't comprehend how it's the democrat's fault that Donald Trump is a legitimate candidate. The problem is the people. The fact that half the country will vote for a complete idiot while the other half demands perfection is maddening and is why democracy is about to die in the USA.

Again, a bit off the cuff because I don't do enough administrative law to know how losing Chevron will work in the real world, but there is some logic to it. The legislature enacts he laws, the executive executes the laws, and the judiciary interprets the law. If the executive issues regulations that are arguably not authorized by the legislature, there is logic that the judiciary gets to decide what the law actually means. I wholeheartedly disagree, however, with the idea that the executive agencies aren't "expert" enough to interpret the laws when enacting regulations. As for practical effect, in my limited administrative law experience, Chevron deference always felt like something that is written but that never actually limited the judiciary. "Under Chevron we are to defer to the executives interpretation, but we hold that the interpretation is incorrect as a matter of law." If one side argues its ambiguous and deference should prevail, the court simply say its not ambiguous and the executive is wrong.

I just skimmed the Law 360 article and it still isn't all that clear to me other than they say the court rules between the arguments from either side. The government argued that any obstruction whatsoever fell within the statute and the defendant argued that he had to have been charged with crimes involving documents. It sounds like it can be more than documents, but less than any type of obstruction of a proceeding. I'd say that storming the capital and shitting on lawmakers' desks specifically to stop Congress from certifying an election involves more than merely obstructing a proceeding. There was certainly specific intent to stop Congress from completing its proceeding that day. I haven't really followed the specifics so this is just my off the cuff thought.

Three second round picks feels like a lot but I’m on board. I like the Frenchie from yesterday too. Both should help defensively.

The alternative was on full display last night too. It’s the presidency not a fucking singing competition on ABC. You know what? Fuck it, let’s just go ahead and abolish elections anyway, who cares.

Thujone came out of retirement temporarily for this weeks aggy tears, but not Randy Duke?

If this is how we’re determining whether democracy should or should not exist it’s over anyway.

Then they’d say he focused too much on Jan 6 which doesn’t resonate with voters. There’s no winning, period.

Oh and if you go with Newsome, remember he’s committed the mortal sin of being from California. The vast majority of this country’s citizens are truly deplorable. None of this matters.

So what was actually said doesn’t matter. Cool. Trumps been a buffoon nonstop for a decade. He’s never been asked to go away. For those always crying that “dems don’t have a playbook” remember the rules are completely different. Yeah let’s get all 9 SCOTUS judges to be fascist because the other guy just feels too old. We deserve to lose democracy if that’s how it plays out.

Biggest bunch of pussy ass losers of all time. They’re all so fucking pathetic.

Old Devil is better, new font is better.

Lol, he hates attention whoring, but is being pushed further right, a side that is led by the most attention whoringest whore of all time. Oh yeah, but he totally doesn't like or support him . . .

That asshole just won't fucking stop. He'll get shut down again by the AG in the courts. I'd love nothing more than to punch him in the fucking face repeatedly.

I'm also curious that if the SEC cannot have internal courts, do immigration courts go away also? They are set up within the Department of Justice as Article 1 courts (Executive). There is a movement to place them under Article 2 (legislature), or a new branch of the judiciary (Article 3).

The Inside OU post above is from at least five years ago, but the problems remain. Here's a more recent discussion from September 2023. The source is full cloakroom and very unreliable on cloakroom topics, but this one doesn't appear to be affected by that, so I take it is relatively reliable. I mean, it's pretty obvious at $1B in debt doesn't get resolved in a matter of a few years, especially with the state continuing to cut more and more funding. https://ocpathink.org/post/analysis/wall-street-journal-highlights-ous-unfettered-spending-spree#:~:text=OU has %241 billion in,that OU effectively defrauded banks. WALL STREET JOURNAL HIGHLIGHTS OU’S ‘UNFETTERED SPENDING SPREE' The University of Oklahoma recently made national news—for the wrong reasons. An investigation by The Wall Street Journal (“Colleges Spend Like There’s No Tomorrow. ‘These Places Are Just Devouring Money.’”) found that some of the United States’ best-known public universities “have been on an unfettered spending spree” with the bill passed on to students—and OU was identified as one of the worst offenders. Between 2002 and 2022, the Journal found enrollment at OU increased 15 percent, but tuition increased by 36 percent even after adjusting for inflation. And, once student fees were included, the combined rate of growth was even more dramatic. “At the University of Oklahoma, per-student tuition and fees rose 166%, the most of any flagship,” the Journal reported. During that time OU spent tens of millions of dollars acquiring, remodeling, and maintaining an Italian monastery. Sadly, things may be even worse than The Wall Street Journal report indicated. OU has $1 billion in debt, and one official whose community bank bought bonds to finance a housing project at the college has complained that OU effectively defrauded banks. At the same time, OU is spending substantial sums of money in court fighting to keep citizens from viewing two taxpayer-funded reports prepared by the Jones Day law firm regarding alleged decades of false claims about OU’s fundraising and allegations of sexual harassment by former OU President David Boren. (The university spent $1 million in taxpayer funds on those reports.) OU officials’ responses to The Wall Street Journal are bizarre. In an Aug. 10 email, OU President Joseph Harroz, Jr., responded that “the average annual cost of tuition and fees at OU, after factoring in discounts, has decreased by 6% for Oklahoma residents compared to five years ago.” That’s only a drop in the bucket given the 166% increase over two decades, and it glosses over the fact that the modest reduction cited by Harroz occurred (in part) over his objection. In June 2022, Harroz asked the University of Oklahoma Board of Regents to increase tuition rates by 3 percent. The Regents shot down that idea and instead maintained current rates for all but out-of-state students. The response of one OU regent in a column published in The Oklahoman was no better. Notably, both Harroz and the regent stressed that OU will be playing sports in the Southeastern Conference next year. Apparently, SEC football games are supposed to make up for the 166% increase in tuition and fees. I like sports as much as anyone. But the core reason our state colleges exist is to provide an affordable education that allows people to move up the income ladder and provide for their families. If OU’s poor financial management closes the door of opportunity to Oklahoma students, weekend football games won’t make up for a lifetime of lost earnings.

So he uses legal sized notepads?

Saw him twice in person and voted for him at least once. RIP Kinky.