Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    @waltshaub

    11 days before the House passed the infrastructure bill, Senator Rick Scott’s spouse bought $600,003 to $1,250,000 worth of bonds issued by the Dallas Fort Worth airport. Shortly before that, she bought $1,000,003 to $2,000,000 worth of water system bonds in Memphis.

    Comment


      Originally posted by philleotardo View Post
      @waltshaub

      11 days before the House passed the infrastructure bill, Senator Rick Scott’s spouse bought $600,003 to $1,250,000 worth of bonds issued by the Dallas Fort Worth airport. Shortly before that, she bought $1,000,003 to $2,000,000 worth of water system bonds in Memphis.
      Does that indicate inside information, or expectation that the bill would pass?
      Polite Red Sox fan

      Comment


        Originally posted by HfxBob View Post

        Does that indicate inside information, or expectation that the bill would pass?
        Both.

        Comment


          Originally posted by philleotardo View Post

          Both.
          So what was the inside information?

          What I'm getting at is, wasn't it well known that if the bill passed it would include a lot of money for airports and water systems?
          Polite Red Sox fan

          Comment


            Originally posted by JL25and3 View Post
            I think if Rittenhouse had been killed, it could equally be considered self-defense. I think the issue before the jury was whether Rittenhouse had a reason to feel scared, not whether his life was actually in danger. Having said that, I didn’t follow this trial as closely as many of you.
            I'm not sure I follow this. The point of self-defense is to prevent being killed. I think it's indisputable that he had many reasons to feel scared, although it's certainly legitimate to challenge why he was there in the first place.

            Comment


              Originally posted by philleotardo View Post
              @waltshaub

              11 days before the House passed the infrastructure bill, Senator Rick Scott’s spouse bought $600,003 to $1,250,000 worth of bonds issued by the Dallas Fort Worth airport. Shortly before that, she bought $1,000,003 to $2,000,000 worth of water system bonds in Memphis.
              This should be illegal, but let's not reserve our disgust on this behavior by party. We should all get angry every time we see elected officials profiting off investments that tie back to the policies and legislation they are tasked with crafting.

              Comment


                Originally posted by False1 View Post
                I'm not sure I follow this. The point of self-defense is to prevent being killed. I think it's indisputable that he had many reasons to feel scared, although it's certainly legitimate to challenge why he was there in the first place.
                How do you not see it? Rittenhouse was clearly a threat. He did in fact kill 2 people and wound a 3rd. That by very definition is a threat.
                Baseball is life;
                the rest is just details.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Yankee Tripper View Post

                  How do you not see it? Rittenhouse was clearly a threat. He did in fact kill 2 people and wound a 3rd. That by very definition is a threat.
                  I don't know about you, but if I think the presence of a group of people with guns are a legitimate threat to my well being, I'm probably not running around hurling death threats, racial epithets, chasing them when they are retreating, etc. By your logic there is not such thing as self-defense if there is a death attributed to it.

                  EDIT: Ohhhh, I think I misinterpreted John's post. I read it as "if Rittenhouse had been killed, the post-mortem it could have been viewed as self-defense." Which kind of defeats the purpose of self-defense. Whereas after reading your comments and re-reading his, I guess what he is saying is if any of the three involved parties had shot and killed Rittenhouse they could have equally claimed self-defense. If that's the case, I don't think we can make that hypothetical leap and looking at the evidence I'd say that there is absolutely no grounds for that statement, except for possibly Grosskreutz.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Yankee Tripper View Post

                    How do you not see it? Rittenhouse was clearly a threat. He did in fact kill 2 people and wound a 3rd. That by very definition is a threat.
                    To isolate it to one of the dead men, the question is whether Rittenhouse posed a threat to Rosenbaum before, or only after, Rosenbaum threatened Rittenhouse. The jury decided that it was only after.

                    If you kill someone in self-defence, it's kind of silly to argue that you posed a threat to them. The whole point is that they initiated the violence.
                    Polite Red Sox fan

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by HfxBob View Post

                      To isolate it to one of the dead men, the question is whether Rittenhouse posed a threat to Rosenbaum before, or only after, Rosenbaum threatened Rittenhouse. The jury decided that it was only after.

                      If you kill someone in self-defence, it's kind of silly to argue that you posed a threat to them. The whole point is that they initiated the violence.
                      I’d say if you kill someone in self defense, it’s kind of silly to argue that you didn’t pose a threat to them.

                      And remember, the threat only has to be perceived, not actual.
                      Russian warship, go **** yourself

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by JL25and3 View Post

                        I’d say if you kill someone in self defense, it’s kind of silly to argue that you didn’t pose a threat to them.
                        What is the point of that argument though? Let's say someone breaks into your house with the intent of robbing you, and they're armed. You surprise them, they take a shot at you, you shoot back and kill them. So by killing them you proved that you were a threat to them. Okay, so what?

                        In the Rittenhouse case the jury had to decide who initiated the threat, and they decided it was not Rittenhouse but the others. End of story.
                        Polite Red Sox fan

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by HfxBob View Post

                          So what was the inside information?

                          What I'm getting at is, wasn't it well known that if the bill passed it would include a lot of money for airports and water systems?
                          Well known to whom at what stage? The general public?
                          Scott’s already dabbled in a little Medicare fraud. I wouldn’t be giving him the benefit of the doubt on, well, anything.

                          Comment


                            Bail reform. Such a good idea:

                            The man arrested over the deadly Christmas parade attack in Wisconsin should have been behind bars following an arrest earlier this month, but was released on an “inappropriately low” bond days before the attack, the district attorney admitted Monday.

                            Darrell Brooks, 39, is charged with five counts of intentional homicide over the deadly crash on Sunday in Waukesha that left five dead and at least 48 injured, police said.

                            Brooks was out on $1,000 cash bail at the time of Sunday’s tragedy after he allegedly punched the mother of his child and purposefully ran her “over with his vehicle” in a Milwaukee gas station parking lot on Nov. 2, according to court documents.

                            He was arrested and charged that same day with resisting or obstructing an officer, reckless endangering safety, disorderly conduct, bail jumping and battery.

                            The Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office said Monday it had launched an internal probe into how Brooks was given such a low bond given the seriousness of the charges and his criminal history.
                            https://nypost.com/2021/11/22/waukes...opriately-low/
                            Calmer than you are

                            7/30/2017: The day the Minnesota Twins bought a prospect from the New York Yankees.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by ClownPickle View Post

                              Rittenhouse, who had no prior criminal history, had his bail set at 2 million when it was fairly clear on video the day after the fact that it was self defense

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by irishnotIrish View Post


                                Rittenhouse, who had no prior criminal history, had his bail set at 2 million when it was fairly clear on video the day after the fact that it was self defense
                                Speaking of Rittenhouse....

                                @ggreenwald

                                8h
                                Kyle Rittenhouse -- now free of all criminal liability -- did his first interview and said he believes systemic racism is a problem in the US and supports "BLM." If you think this will cause anyone to reevaluate their decree that he's a "white supremacist," you'd be incorrect.
                                @ggreenwald

                                8h
                                Rittenhouse has no reason to say any of this if he doesn't believe it. In fact, saying those things could undermine his self-interest, given that many on the right probably didn't want to hear them. There was never any evidence he was a "white supremacist" but that never matters.
                                @ggreenwald

                                8h
                                There are very few accusations you can make about someone more serious than publicly branding them as "white supremacist" or "white nationalist." But in liberal discourse, especially media discourse, there is literally no evidentiary requirement that must be met in order to do it
                                https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/statu...208139776?s=20
                                Calmer than you are

                                7/30/2017: The day the Minnesota Twins bought a prospect from the New York Yankees.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X