• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About PleaseBlitz

  • Rank
    The Pro Bowlers
  • Birthday 10/31/1979

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Birthdate
  • Redskins Fan Since
  • Favorite Redskin
  • Location
    Yuppie Headquarters
  • Zip Code
  • Occupation
    Law-talkin’ Guy

Recent Profile Visitors

4,341 profile views
  1. Vox: Elizabeth Warren has a plan to save capitalism

    Well you didn't specify. And yea, WF has been on the receiving end of multiple gigantic fines. The one with the most press was about them opening fake accounts for people b/c their sales force got paid more if they opened more accounts. That was the one where John Stumpf got grilled in front of Congress (and Warren did some excellent grandstanding) and ultimately lost his job (appropriately). But, in terms of actual harm to consumers, the consequences of the fake account scandal were not huge and therefore the fine wasn't massive. But once that happened, every regulator in the country dug into their practices. The billion dollar one (the biggest in the CFPB's history and maybe any financial agency's history outside of the SEC) was for adding unnecessary costs to mortgages and car loans. I think the thing that really hurts Wells is not the money, but the reputational damage. Both in terms of customers going elsewhere and regulators scrutinizing them much more closely than everyone else. I'm not crying for Wells here. They deserve everything that has happened. But your original comment that Warren cheered something that you deemed not worthy of cheering just struck me as weird.
  2. Vox: Elizabeth Warren has a plan to save capitalism

    Pretty sure it was a billion dollar fine. Which is significant, even if you are WF's size. That being said, I like Warren in the "influencer" role because she really does know financial policy, but I'm not sure I really trust her on most other topics. She's got plenty of time to convince me otherwise.
  3. You don't necessarily know that. He may have left selling alcohol out of ones car off the guidelines because nobody ever actually gets caught doing that because you can legally buy alcohol on every street corner in Philly. Because you can legally buy alcohol on every street corner in Philly, so it probably didn't warrant inclusion on his list of new policies. If someone had 750 lbs of weed, one imagines that would be Possession with the Intent to Deliver, which is included in his list of charges that should be brought, but diverted more (see pg. 2 of the revised polices). Pretty sure Newton was charged with drug trafficking, not simple possession. Edit: He pled his charges down to conspiracy to distribute.
  4. I have literally gotten that number of people to show up near the White House (specifically, Blackfinn), for no other reason than to get a drink. To my knowledge, the media did not dedicate hours of coverage to us. And we had very few counterprotesters.
  5. Think there aren't any strip clubs in Indianapolis? I can tell you (possibly from experience ), there are. And before you ask, "public place" includes "an enclosed area of a structure in which the public is invited or permitted." There are zillions of laws on the books that just aren't enforced as a matter of public policy. Hell, blowjobs are illegal in a dozen states (but those laws are not enforceable pursuant to SCOTUS rulings).
  6. Seriously. If I were the 2020 winner, I would tell Trump that I'll pardon him of any and all crimes at the end of my term IF AND ONLY IF he shuts the **** up during the transition and basically behaves like a decent human during my term. Then I would not pardon him.
  7. Vox: Elizabeth Warren has a plan to save capitalism

    I like the underlying idea, however, this reads to me like an attempt to shift the conversation to the left rather than something that could actually be implemented as she describes. That said, I think it's a great idea that if we are going to treat corporations as legal persons, they should get both the benefits and consequences of that treatment.
  8. I am likely to have a lot of thoughts on this thread. My first one is, thanks for posting. So my first reaction here is, your second sentence is correct, prosecutors/DAs have a ton of discretion about what cases to bring. You may want to think about it this in terms of the fact that prosecutors have extremely limited resources and time, so if they aren't using those resources and time to prosecute a specific flavor of crime en masse, they are probably applying those resources to other crimes. In other words, they aren't just laying down on the job, it's just a reprioritizing. My second reaction, related to the first about discretion, is that if he actively campaigned and said "this is what I am (or am not) going to do" openly, and was elected, then he should do what he said he was going to do. My third reaction is: Mick Mulvaney. .
  9. You people have much higher standards for equipment than I do. Or much higher “give a ****.”
  10. Nate said a lot more words than could. The point of the article isnt that nobody knows if Russia’s interference had any impact on the election. His point is that it is impossible to quantify using statistical metrics (which is what 538 does). Just stop.
  11. Well this is some impressive revisionist history. She won the popular vote by 4 million votes despite a foreign enemy interfering. I rhink you also checked every box in the conservative victim card in that one post. Edit: okay, ill stop feeding the troll now.
  12. Your link is saying that it’s impossible to measure. Here’s the conclusion: