Fergasun

Steph Curry wasn't a generational talent. Until he was. Guess what pick SGA was? 11th pick. I think it's silly to make assumptions about the talent in NBA drafts. No clear talent, perhaps. I am sitting here hoping that the Hawks pass on Sarr. But gettng the 2nd pick in the draft is great. Right now, it's Topic or Sarr for me.

From what I saw (when Nuggets had an 11-0 run) refs were in the Wolves head. That's not a good place to be. Granted, I agreed that Nuggets were getting away with contact and Wolves were being called close at their defensive end...

LOL @ Detroit.. Would you take the Spurs #4 and #8 for the #2 pick?

It's surprising there hasn't been a bigger expose in George Santos as well. Who funded him?

Teenage me would always be be flipping through the TV channels late night and notice something called "Roger Corman Presents..." and then go a few channels further until I got to what I was really looking for... "Emmanuelle in Space" or "Tanya Roberts Hotline". Sorry Roger Corman, I knew of your films, but I didn't know them.

This article didn't mention the NRA either. Cawthorn is also an interesting case. I am also wondering about big conservative donors. Looking at Thiel and Elon. Thiel, for instance endorsing and pushing Ron Paul for President. Is it possible that Russia/China wanted to torpedo a hawk like John McCain?

In 24 hours we'll know how the tanking works out. Am I wrong in just hoping to stay in the Top 3? Conspiracy me says San Antonio miraculously wins the #1 pick. I just did Tankathon a bunch and it went 6-6-5-6-4-5-4.... flattening the curve is not good for thr worst teams like us. A coinflip odds for the Top 4 pick is not great. I actually think the randomness is good as a near playoff team could win it, shockingly. We probably will not be happy.

Two encounters of the Karen kind.... NUMERO UNO This type of thing really grinds by gears. Not directly a "neighbor", but I felt this was very rude. I am channeling George Costanza with this, "We live in a society!!!!" Rant. I went to the cleaners to pick up my clothes. Beem going there for at least a decade (but not the point). I walk in and his wife (working in the back) says, "It will be 5 minutes." Ok. So they have a couch there, so I just sit on the couch to wait. Like any person would do who didn't want to stand and wait. 3 minutes later, an older lady walks in. Not elderly but probably 60s. She is dropping off clothes. I am sitting on the couch. She walks up to the counter. Owner's wife says, "It will be 2 minutes." Old lady puts her clothes on the counter. Obviously she saw me. 2 minutes later, owner comes walking from the back, "How may I help you." Lady starts talking. I step in, "Excuse me, I was here first." She makes some comment like, "Oh, I thought you had already been belped." Lady, 1) If I was being helped I would be standing at the counter. Not sitting in the couch (where maybe someone who didn't want to stand at the counter for 5 minutes would wait) 2) If you had wondered whether or not I was being helped, you could have just asked. You looked directly at me. 3) Just be honest. You should have said, "I tried to cut in line. My 3 minutes is more valuable than yours. I judged you to be a middle aged man I can jump ahead of. I am the type of person who doesn't care about others in society." Sorry, but you are a line cutter! NUMERO DOS Thursday I was walking my dog (really, she was just walking me) and another old lady who had 2 dogs is walking in the other direction. We are on the same sidewalk. I kind've move my dog over and put myself in the left hand side of the grass...but my dog just stops. Because she likes to stop and looks at dogs. This lady is also walking by and one of hers starts barking. It doesn't bother me, but this lady in a New Jersey accent goes off, "COULD YOU MOVE YOUR DOG PLEASE". Then as she walks by I hear her talking to her self like, "UNBELIEVABLE". I didn't realize there was some dog walking etiquette. I didn't care your dog was barking. They're dogs. If there is some "I will let you walk your dog past first" etiquette, maybe you should have asked me before going off on me. Or AITH?

Nothing on the Weisselberg tea from today? Apparently there is a contract for $750k for him to not cooperate with prosecutors. The state wants to introduce the contract to explain why he is not testifying. But they didn't subpoena him either. Could be some juicy hearing next week....

What a bunch of crap. This thread bump piqued my interest because I was looking for some reading for the airplane and happened on W.E.B Dubois "The Soul of Black Folk" in 1903. Holy crap - what would he be thinking now (probably "people still trying to create two worlds for black folk in America"). **** anyone who glorifies the old racist institutions. It was gutting for me to read that he felt more comfortable in Europe.

Picking up "Son of Fergasun" at college today. His school has an encampment. We were watching the police clear it out about 20 minutes ago. Downwind of the teargas.... yay. That stuff carries. They were still protesting while getting sprayed by tear gas and the pepper balls. We just happened to be there... (he wanted to watch). Cop was announcing unlawful assembly for 20 minutes. Protestor was "Why are you shooting us... we are a peaceful protest!!". While I am sympathetic with their message -- I am not gonna put myself in that position. That is dedication.

@tshile @Larry My understanding is as Larry states. He can deny the incident happened, but then it opens him up to questioning on that topic and he probably can't invoke the 5th when it comes to his relationship with Stormy. Then prosecution than can also ask him a thousand other questions related to the facts of the trial and he can plead thr fifth.

@gbear I was watching a Trump campaign event in Texas (2 to 4 months ago?) at an oil refinery (or similar) and the CEO openly said, "We are gonna do everything we can to get Trump re-elected." It was surprising to hear, but no one blinked an eye. $1B is a crazy sum though...

@China Trump is free to respond to her in the trial. That was why the mistrial was denied. A good lawyer would have recommend to just stipulate that the sex happened. That avoids her testimony. Trump did not do that (I would bet his lawyer recommended). Because they argued the sex didn't happen, she had to discuss it.

He can technically go up there, state, "I did not have sex with that woman" and then plead the 5th on everything else asked - right? Why doesn't he do that?

I do wonder what the point of going into so many details with respect to Stormy were. I guess Trump does have the chance to take the witness stand and testify in his defense (ie. "I never had sex with that woman!"). So, I suppose they could argue some of the details were necessary. Could you imagine them cross-examining Trump? "Now, Mr. Trump, I remind you, that you are under oath. Did you make Ms. Daniels spank you with a magazine that had your face on the cover?" There's no way they would put him on the stand; but you know he wants to testify in his defense.

.@ixcuincle The guy you quoted works for a "pro-Israel think tank."

And I just thought this was the "October 7 revenge tour" and Israel's goal was to colllectively punish as many Palestinians as possible (kill, displace, starve, economically ruin) until they got tired and agreed to another ceasefire which inevitably gets broken. What are the 2 million people of Gaza supposed to do while the IDF rolls through? None of that has been clear. I think the killing of the Israeli hostages waving white flags at them is an indication of the IDF itentions.

Here is a good article on Israel reaction: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-fury-biden-threat-weapons-rafah-attack-rcna151221 GOP is going to be recalibrating their attacks on Biden. I predict a mix of "Biden abandons Israel" with "he's obviously cowtowing to the politics of leftist college students and Hamas supporters in Michigan." An Israel politician posted Hamas [heart emoji] Biden. The left is still gonna call him "Genocide Joe"... I mean the Russian influenced left. I think this is reasonable push back. I will just say this when it comes to our American Middle Eastern fiascos. Our track record indicates, we at least try to do the right thing and nation build / establish stability for the local population and gain allies. And when we do screw up, we admit our mistakes and back that up with cash. I mentioned reading about US soldiers accidently killing civilians a few pages ago... and our Army had a fund to pay families back. After 6 months we had paid out nearly $1M. That didn't stop the widowed and left with 1 child alive (out of 4) woman from the HRW article from cursing us. But I think it shows good faith. I don't remember us bombing hospitals either. "Destroy Hamas" is not an objectively achievable war aim when I am sure to Israel, every adult male between 15-65 is "Hamas". Funny how I don't see Israel talking about "Regime change" and "democracy". And right-wkng Israeli politicians in that article are still talking as if Hamas is a threat to the nation of Israel.

Wait. Is Trump arguing that Stormy made it all up?

Commenter in the article:

Cannon killed the trial post election when she did the special master stuff and it had to go to the 11th Circuit. We just didn't realize it. I personally think she is in way over her head on this. Unfortunately, the Court should have stepped in and said "Let's not assign one of the most important cases in American history to a brand new district court judge." If it was really some "random draw of straws", that seems really stupid and a case where a judge says, "yeah let's roll the dice again". So that's really a strike against the Court again.

I am still not convinced a newly-elected President can stop a criminal case like this, in the middle of the criminal process. I think the best he can do is hit the pause button. But, even that is debatable. I have not doubt multiple issues will end up with SCOTUS and I know how they will rule. It's going to be embarrassing. There are serious rule of law issues with that logic. I can see the Special Counsel going for a Court injunction to prevent that from happening. Maybe I am wrong and Trump can instruct the DoJ to give up the cases under "prosecutorial discretion". But, I am pretty sure the Special Counsel acts independently of DoJ. This is why we have a Special Counsel. He can't be removed for "he is going after the newly elected President". I just read the statue on how a Special Counsel gets removed. This is another Constitutional crises brewing. I think this is why the MAGA people are trying to invalidate Jack Smith's appointment.

I don't agree. This is on the GOP first. I blame McConnell most of all Not voting for the post January 6 impeachment effort was the biggest mistake ever for our country. As much as people want to opine how great Ford pardoning Nixon was (debateable). Senate GOP not impeaching Trump was the opposite. But, for some reason we don't talk about that. They voted against it in February. At this point, they could have said "Eff Donald Trump". At the very least, he would be banned from running for President again. We probably would have the criminal documents case, and the New York fraud case. I don't know if the January 6 trial would proceed. Jack Smith was named Special Counsel after the November 2022 elections. Probably clear that DoJ rules would prevent it 90 days pre-election. If I recall, there was a period where the consensus was "Donald Trump is done after January 6" and then around 2022 it became clear he was gunning for office again. You could argue that impeachment would have even foreclosed the Special Counsel. But remember, the J6 committee ran thru October 2022 and did a lot of the legwork on Trump. I don't even remember if documents were on anyones minds.

It's ridiculous we need to have a new law. But if a former President is charged with Federal crimes and still running for Federal elections, the case needs to be fast-tracked by the Court system to occur prior to the general. I get that summer 2023 is late to indict (and holdovers prevented it). But, it's enough time to provide justice. And how odd is it that we need like a million rules for one specific candidate. It should be clear he was, is, and will always be unfit for office.