DJL

Having spoken with my father recently I can tell you that your version of politics and understanding of treason is not the same as all Vietnam Vets.

His game is terrible. I'm not looking forward to a debate between him and Trump for the pure cringe-worthiness of the two of them arguing like a bunch of geriatric neighbors.

Got it. More emphasis on what people could make of Biden's statement. I think there's more meat on the "You ain't black" statement then saying he's free of scandal. I don't think any of the examples in the video were very strong examples of scandals that Biden was a part of.

Trying to figure out if I'm the mood for another Benghazi conversation with someone who isn't up to speed on the many investigations that found no wrongdoing by all parties involved and has no idea what happened to the ACTUAL perpetrators of the attack. Ok, sure, what was Biden's roll in Bengazhi, what was Biden'ts roll in Fast and Furious?

Interesting move by France, $8bn towards incentivizing the EV industry. An important aspect of this is that it's always best to invest in the sector that shows the most potential for growth. Remember how everyone quotes the success of the nuke industry in France? Do you know how that came to be? https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52814074

I know this is just a jest but that statement hits on the root of upheaval in that region going back 1000s of years.

Your validation that he isn't scandal free is that he was a member of an administration in which another member is accused of scandal? Really, that's your one thing? Edit: Also, the video is lightweight. Really? 58 seconds of newscasters making vague "headline" accusations?

The analogy is of Brenthutch.

Ha, got it. The punchline flew over my head.

"Ah, help I don't understand the concept of growth! And I want to eat a potato chip but there's a soda in my hand!! Aaahhh!"

What he's doing is similar to how infomercials sell really stupid gadgets, the actor can't do some simple task like fold an umbrella or eat chips and drink a soda at the same time.

I know the context of your 2% is US sales. Globally it's 8% and it's growing very quickly. Projections put it at 1/3 by 2025 and getting to 50% globally in another 5-15 years. Next year are you going to say, "The pesky fact is that EV's account for 15% of car sales" and then each year keep ticking it up a few more %? Do you not know how growth works?

What better cover story than to create a fake website where the brain scans are passed off as those of a meth user. The CIA is going to great lengths to cover this up. And what better way to introduce vaccines to people on an unprecedented scale than a virus released to create a global pandemic. This is the SHTF. 4 8 15 16 23 42 4 8 15 16 23 42 4 8 15 16 23 42

That's actually part of what I enjoy about this, it's fun to pull apart their arguments and I enjoy reading up on the science involved in these things. Same went with the "9/11 was an inside job" thread that went on for so long. The arguments are beyond dumb but reading up on demolition and the psychology of how people fool themselves into believing things with no scientific foundation is quite interesting.

Got it. My perspective is "court of public opinion" as if I were going to hire him for a job and someone came forward with this information. I don't think this would ever see the inside of a courtroom so that didn't even cross my mind. In my opinion, one accusation is something to keep in mind but if I did not know the accuser personally then I would still give the person the job. It is simply not fair to allow a one person accusation to stand over someone's career and that's said in full knowledge that sexual assaults typically have no witnesses other than the accuser. When a second person comes forward that's when I say it's a pattern. With Kavanaugh that second person was Swetnick, however she turned out to be a complete nut and recanted her own accusations. As far as Reade goes she's still person number 1 and now her word is shown to be very compromised.

So, this is worth looking at but it may be part of an attack on her character. Just because she has lied about her credentials doesn't mean she didn't get assaulted. HOWEVER, this does remind me of the point in the Kavanaugh investigations when it was found that the second accuser (Swetnick) had very clearly been making things up. That was when I changed my opinion about Kavanaugh and agreed he was not someone involved in serial sexual assaults.

Text from the article because there's a firewall: As Tara Reade’s Expert Witness Credentials Are Questioned, So Are Verdicts By Lisa Lerer, Jim Rutenberg and Stephanie Saul Published May 21, 2020Updated May 22, 2020, 9:24 a.m. ET Defense lawyers in California are reviewing criminal cases in which Tara Reade, the former Senate aide who has accused Joseph R. Biden Jr. of sexual assault, served as an expert witness on domestic violence, concerned that she misrepresented her educational credentials in court. Then known as Alexandra McCabe, Ms. Reade testified as a government witness in Monterey County courts for nearly a decade, describing herself as an expert in the dynamics of domestic violence who had counseled hundreds of victims. But lawyers who had faced off against her in court began raising questions about the legitimacy of her testimony, and the verdicts that followed, after news reports this week that Antioch University had disputed her claim of receiving a bachelor’s degree from its Seattle campus. The public defender’s office in Monterey County has begun scrutinizing cases involving Ms. Reade and compiling a list of clients who may have been affected by her testimony, according to Jeremy Dzubay, an assistant public defender in the office. Roland Soltesz, a criminal defense lawyer, says he believes Ms. Reade’s testimony made a significant difference in the outcome of the 2018 trial of his client Victoria Ramirez. Both Ms. Ramirez and her co-defendant, Jennifer Vasquez, received life sentences for attempted murder, arson and armed robbery. “People have been convicted based upon this, and that’s wrong,” said Mr. Soltesz, adding that he “could care less about the politics of this whole thing.” Ms. Reade has accused Mr. Biden of assaulting her in the Senate complex in 1993, placing his hand under her dress and penetrating her with his fingers. Mr. Biden flatly denies her accusation. Questions about Ms. Reade’s education background were first reported by CNN. Ms. Reade told The New York Times that she had obtained her degree through a “protected program” for victims of spousal abuse, which, court records show, she suffered at the hands of her ex-husband in the mid-1990s. That history, she said, caused her to change her name, leading to confusion about her status at the school. She later received a law degree from Seattle University. But an Antioch spokeswoman, Karen Hamilton, told The Times that while Ms. Reade had attended classes, she was certain Ms. Reade had not received a degree. In her testimony in the 2018 trial, Ms. Reade was questioned about her degree by Mr. Soltesz. She testified that she received a liberal arts degree, as was stated on her résumé provided by the district attorney’s office. “The focus was political science,” she said, according to a trial transcript. Ms. Reade also told the court that she was currently a substitute teacher but had worked in domestic violence prevention for more than two decades and testified in more than 20 cases. Her career began, she said, in Mr. Biden’s office. “I was a legislative assistant,” she said, according to the testimony. “He worked on the Violence Against Women Act, the federal act.” Staff lists published in 1993 show Ms. Reade listed as a staff assistant, a different position from the legislative assistant job she cited in her testimony. Both titles are common in congressional offices, with legislative assistant indicating a slightly more senior post that involves working on policy. In multiple interviews, Ms. Reade described her duties as managing the interns, never mentioning any direct work on the Violence Against Women Act. In an interview, Mr. Soltesz described Ms. Reade as “well spoken” and “a good witness on the stand,” and said he was impressed by her experience with Mr. Biden. But both Mr. Soltesz and Scott Erdbacher, the lawyer for Ms. Vasquez, raised objections to Ms. Reade’s testimony, according to the transcript, saying they were skeptical that her work experience qualified her as an expert. The judge overruled them. Now, Mr. Soltesz says he is exploring whether he can reopen his case. On Wednesday evening, he emailed a network of more than 100 public defenders, alerting them to questions about Ms. Reade’s background and credibility. Monique S. Hill, a lawyer in another domestic violence case in which Ms. Reade served as an expert witness, said she also saw grounds to challenge the conviction. “Had I had the information that I have now, this case, in my mind, would have gone differently,” said Ms. Hill, who served as a public defender. The Monterey County chief assistant district attorney, Berkley Brannon, said that if Ms. Reade had misrepresented her academic credentials, the office would alert all defense lawyers involved in cases that featured her as an expert. “That would absolutely be of concern to us, and it’s something that the defense attorneys would need to know about,” he said. “We don’t want people that we call lying about anything.” He said the office would not make any move to contact defense lawyers until it was satisfied that she indeed had not obtained her bachelor’s degree. And, speaking hypothetically, he said that the extent to which a false academic claim would affect the cases she participated in would depend on how material her testimony was to the outcome. The Sixth District Appellate Program, a state-funded public interest law firm that represents low-income clients in the region, is also reviewing all the cases involving Ms. Reade. Ms. Reade maintains that she has an undergraduate degree, saying the school has no record of her graduating because of special arrangements put in place to protect her from her ex-husband. She sent The Times a screenshot of a transcript showing her with 35 course credits, her department as “BA Completion” and nothing listed under “date conferred” or “degree conferred.” According to the photo, she entered school on Oct. 2, 2000. Credits from her earlier studies at Pasadena City College were linked to her old social security number and name — the same one she now uses — making her worried that her ex-husband could find her and her daughter, she says. To protect her identity as a survivor of domestic abuse, Ms. Reade says she received her degree through the private assistance of the school’s then-president, Tullisse Murdock. She says she never received a diploma or requested one since she was “fast-tracked” to law school. “The president took it from the registrar and did it herself for complete confidentiality,” she said in an interview. But Ms. Hamilton, the Antioch spokeswoman, told The Times that it had spoken with Ms. Murdock, and that there was no such special arrangement with Ms. Reade. It takes 180 credits to graduate, and students earn up to a maximum of 45 for life experience or prior studies, according to the school’s website. Seattle University School of Law confirmed that Ms. Reade graduated with a J.D. degree in 2004. The school only considers accepting students with bachelor’s degrees, according to its website. But it would not share what degree Ms. Reade presented with her initial application, citing federal privacy standards. Lying in court is generally considered to be a crime, though one that can be hard to prosecute. To be considered perjury, usually the false statement has to be a knowing lie. Even if Ms. Reade was not found to have perjured herself, exaggerating qualifications as an expert witness could be grounds for reversal of a verdict. “An expert can only testify in certain circumstances,” said Mark J. Reichel, a criminal defense lawyer based in Sacramento who formerly worked as a federal public defender. “One of them is that they have expertise above the regular person. The jury is entitled to hear your qualifications.”

OMG. RAINED YESTERDAY, NO RAIN TODAY BUT NOW THEY SAY IT'S GOING TO RAIN AGAIN. THEY NEED TO MAKE UP THEIR MIND!!!

You don't need a supercharger in your garage. And you know you don't have to sit there and watch it charge overnight, right? Even you have to admit that the idea of very rarely having to go to a charge/gas station is amazingly convenient and considering most people have a very regular and low mileage commute that makes this an outstandingly cheap investment. I watch those lower end used EV's since it's what I'm buying next. The older ones (5 years) have an 80 mile range worse case, the newer ones are 150 to 250 miles best case. As soon as I see one for the right price that gets me to the DZ with 30% extra range I'll pick it up. Now as far as your "toys for rich boys" argument, that's a big factor of what paved the way for EV usage. Tax dollars well spent for what is now a thriving economy sector.

IN BEFORE BRENTHUTCH: "That's just more open water for fishing and shipping! YEAH! WINNING!"

Could you expand upon this? What direct actions of his are resulting in elevated incarceration?

I think what you're saying is that putting money into our socialist education system might give as much bang for the buck as our socialist military.

I think it's important to agree that any response we had was wrong. That's because this was a first shot deal and we were never going to do everything perfectly right. So, that leaves us with making a decision based upon the best information available to us and sticking with it. The lessons we learn from this will be available for the next occasion which could be 5 years from now or another 100.

I think a lesson these examples point to is that pandemic responses need to be organized in a regional manner. A very big issue we had is that we were so dependent upon a centralized decision making process that left us behind the curve.

I mean...I didn't get past #1 "Falsely accuse you of what they are in fact doing." How many different examples of that do we have? 1. Accusing HRC of using Clinton Foundation as a pay to play. Trump: Literally using Trump Foundation to channel election money for Trump's campaign and using Trump Foundation to LITERALLY pay $25,000 into the election campaign of a Florida AG who would decide whether to pursue charges regarding Trump University.