NoCalMike

I like how Trump doesn't think there is a "plan" to tackle student loan debt. There's a plan......just ask your appointee Betsy DeVos. No one likes it. It's terrible, but there's a plan.

Yes Nikki Haley, when people think of the confederate flag, the first name that comes to mind is certainly........Dylan Roof.

I met Robert Englund at a convention a couple years ago. Had him sign my NOES blu ray franchise set. I assumed everyone was asking him Nightmare on Elm Street questions, so I decided to ask him about a random movie he did called Galaxy of Terror, this total sci-fi b trash movie. His face lit up from being asked something off the beaten path and he started going into tons of stories about the cast and filming. It got to the point that I started to feel bad about the people waiting behind me. Haha. Super cool dude. I also learned from him that he and Mark Hamil were roommates and Robert Englund auditioned for something in the same building they were doing auditions for Star Wars, so when Robert Englund got back home he told Hamil he though he would be a great fit for Luke Skywalker and talked him into going to the audition.

I am not a police officer, nor do I have any kind of training on police procedure, so I will ask for conversation's sake. In a situation like this where the chopper had sights on the truck, police cars in pursuit, would it not have been better to have allowed the UPS truck to get out of a major traffic jam spot, sort of lead them away and then pounce where the risk to civilians was much lower? The UPS driver is going to be in danger regardless, hard to get around that fact, however thinking of what could possibly go wrong by not only opening fire in the middle of the highway surrounded by civilians in their car, and then on top of that running to those vehicles to take cover? It just doesn't come off well in a procedural sense.

With Trump recently almost resigning to the face that impeachment is a foregone conclusion saying things like "If you're going to impeach me, do it fast" has me thinking that once this hits the Senate, Trump & The GOP are going to go with the full-on martyrdom route, about how such a great man like Trump is being put through this and every witness the GOP calls will be asked questions having nothing to do with the actual articles of impeachment and just asking why they hate Trump so much.

I think with Trump, he feels that anything that can fogged up and made gray is something he can survive. What he doesn't want is his name being stuck to something that is indisputable. When it comes to his taxes his entire shtick is how much of a genius he is and that he pays little to no taxes because of his brilliance. However, if his taxes indeed reveal and confirm things that have popped in the past like say, giving two completely different tax returns to different parties in order to get favorable deductions on property? There is really no getting around that. There is already the good chance either he or one of his accountants forged the signature of someone. The person interviewed said it was their signature but they 100% did not sign off on tax returns for that dollar amount. So there are things there in his taxes that go far beyond "Russia stuff" that can be stuck to him.

That explains procedural-wise how it is decided, but I am wondering what compels the 4 chosen members to vote the way they do. Lets pretend that politics are not part of the decision. Are there arguments presented to the court ahead of time as to why they should/should not take the case or does the Supreme Court look over the ruling of the lower courts and try to identify something compelling about the case outside of how the lower courts ruled? What I am getting at is, if the Supreme Court looks at the ruling of the lower courts and see that they ruled 100% with what the current laws are, then outside of politics what would compel the Supreme Court to even hear the case? So far as this tax returns thing has made it through the court it seems like the only defense Trump's team has ever put forward is, "I am the President, and I don't want to" Is the Supreme Court really going to look at that defense and say, "hmmm, he has a point, I think we need to hear this case?" Is Team Trump actually challenging the laws on the books or are they just simply trying to make the case that the President should have absolute immunity against anything he does being investigated into because he's the President? (assuming politics are not a part of the decision I mean)

Speaking of....did Mike Pence lock himself into an underground bunker? Where has he been?

Sean Hannity, why didn't you ever mention you were a Redskins fan?!

Right. The video seems to suggest the UPS truck was toast, they weren't going to be able to flee. At that point I thought what might happen was more cops continue to show up, maybe they create a perimeter and evacuate civilians from the area. The situation was sticky, but it never seems like a particularly great idea to just start unloading your guns in the middle of an area where civilians are sitting idle. At the least they could use a situation like this to examine future policy to work on continued ways to limit "collateral damage"

Couple things that I am late on: The Barron Trump thing? She never "attacked Barron Trump." But I did find it especially rich that Melania rose out of her coma to tweet about it when she has continued to be silent about her husband's continual bullying and nonsense. Also, since Barr's hand-picked prosecutor found no wrong-doing or political bias in the Russian investigation, should we be eagerly awaiting Barr's press conference exonerating the FBI and other intelligence officials? Or is he just going to stay silent, bury the report and/or say he disagrees with the findings based on........nothing? Why would the Supreme Court even take up Trump's tax return stuff? There are laws on the books that the lower courts simply followed in their rulings. Same with the congressional subpoena stuff. They should just tell Trump's lawyers to go away and follow the lower court's rulings.

Oh hey that reminded of when I saw Deicide in San Francisco circa 2001ish and I managed to make my way up to the front before they started their set. When they all walked out on stage Glen Benton had a bottle of jack daniels and was pacing the stage. For a reason I'll never know, he stopped in front of me and poured a good amount down my throat. Now keep in mind I am not a JD fan, I prefer Jim Beam if pressed, but I must have been pretty loaded already at that point because I honestly don't even remember tasting the JD at all, it just went down. No way was I going to mess that up in front of Glen Benton and a club full of death metal fans. LOL.

Right. I assume 99.9% of criminals when caught claim they are innocent. Also I am beginning to wonder if a large portion of Trump supporters believe if the words "Quid Pro Quo" weren't said, then it means there wasn't one.

Speaking of Eminem. I have noticed how a lot of twitterverse and younger folks refer to their fan of someone/something as to "stan" for said person/thing. I assume that comes from Eminem's Stan song? Kind of weird it became a trend this many years after the song, of course it could have been around a lot longer than I realized and I am just noticing it the last year or so?

Last month when I saw Cannibal Corpse at a local club, the current guitarist for Slayer (Not Kerry King, the other guy who took over when Hanneman passed away) was in the crowd taking in the show. Got to say hello and shake his hand.