Recent Posts

Show posts from buddies only

You know, FDR 16 years — almost 16 years — he was four terms. I don’t know, are we going to be considered three-term? Or two-term?

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/18/trump-at-nra-convention-floats-a-three-term-presidency-00158786

Cant wait to be gaslit for the next four years about how he’s “only joking” and “just being Trump,” only for him to stay in power past January 20, 2028 due to election “irregularities” and defending a third term on the basis of an obscure interpretation of the 22nd amendment.

"An obscure interpretation of the 22nd Amendment" like what?

I've decided to use the 22nd to demonstrate to people who don't know the difference between a political opinion and a legal opinion what the difference is.
"I'm entitled to my opinion."
Me: "You're entitled to your political opinion,  you're not entitled to have whatever legal opinion you want to have."
"What's the difference?"
Me: "A political opinion is an opinion a person has about what the law SHOULD BE. A legal opinion is an opinion about what the law IS. Take the 22nd Amendment: if you think it was a mistake and it should be repealed, so that presidents, in the future, can run for third terms and fourth terms and even fifth terms, that is your political opinion and you have a right to think that and to speak about it to try to persuade other people to agree with you. Or you can believe the opposite, which is that the 22nd was an excellent idea, it should not be repealed. You have a right to either of those political opinions. But if you have an opinion that nothing has to be done to the 22nd in order to give a former President - say, Barack Obama - the chance to run for President again, that is a legal opinion of yours. If you think Joe Biden might withdraw from the election this year, soon, and at the Democratic National Convention, the party can - it would be permissible to - nominate Obama, and he could get elected to a third, nonconsecutive term, then that would not be your political opinion, it would be your legal opinion; you are not entitled to have that opinion. Almost everyone else would tell you that you are wrong, you don't know what you're blathering about, and that you are making a fool of yourself. You simply don't have a right to think that and to say it. That's the difference between a political opinion and a legal opinion."

No one’s reading all that.

Congratulations on your good points/sorry, you’re wrong

Isn’t Raisi seen as Khamenei’s likely successor?

I expect that FL/TX will be 9% to right of nation anyways

Empoli - Udinese battle for 17th was so dull until stoppage time:

A high boot on the very edge of the box granted Empoli the PK they needed to take the lead and overtake Udinese in the classification.

Then in the 96th minute, a clear and blatant foul to hold and tackle the Udinese attacker from the open net went uncalled initially. The game was blown over until VAR overruled that.

In the 104th minute, Udinese finally converted from the spot for the draw. 1-1.

Udinese leads Empoli by a point heading into the final match. Empoli appears headed for relegation though still control their own fate, albeit with a win needed against Roma. They will need help from Frosinone if they only manage to draw.  All eyes on Udinese - Frosinone as Udinese looks to avoid relegation for the first time in 30 years.

This result also officially sends Sassuolo to Serie B.

So Scott is only leading by 8 not 15

So Scott is only leading by 8 not 15

Opt. 1, whoever wins will be at the benefit of underestimation. Full stop.

Markey is my favorite out of these.

Kennedy and Markey.

You know, FDR 16 years — almost 16 years — he was four terms. I don’t know, are we going to be considered three-term? Or two-term?

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/18/trump-at-nra-convention-floats-a-three-term-presidency-00158786

Cant wait to be gaslit for the next four years about how he’s “only joking” and “just being Trump,” only for him to stay in power past January 20, 2028 due to election “irregularities” and defending a third term on the basis of an obscure interpretation of the 22nd amendment.

"An obscure interpretation of the 22nd Amendment" like what?

I've decided to use the 22nd to demonstrate to people who don't know the difference between a political opinion and a legal opinion what the difference is.
"I'm entitled to my opinion."
Me: "You're entitled to your political opinion,  you're not entitled to have whatever legal opinion you want to have."
"What's the difference?"
Me: "A political opinion is an opinion a person has about what the law SHOULD BE. A legal opinion is an opinion about what the law IS. Take the 22nd Amendment: if you think it was a mistake and it should be repealed, so that presidents, in the future, can run for third terms and fourth terms and even fifth terms, that is your political opinion and you have a right to think that and to speak about it to try to persuade other people to agree with you. Or you can believe the opposite, which is that the 22nd was an excellent idea, it should not be repealed. You have a right to either of those political opinions. But if you have an opinion that nothing has to be done to the 22nd in order to give a former President - say, Barack Obama - the chance to run for President again, that is a legal opinion of yours. If you think Joe Biden might withdraw from the election this year, soon, and at the Democratic National Convention, the party can - it would be permissible to - nominate Obama, and he could get elected to a third, nonconsecutive term, then that would not be your political opinion, it would be your legal opinion; you are not entitled to have that opinion. Almost everyone else would tell you that you are wrong, you don't know what you're blathering about, and that you are making a fool of yourself. You simply don't have a right to think that and to say it. That's the difference between a political opinion and a legal opinion."