|
Post by achilles on Jul 21, 2019 14:36:22 GMT
Okay, this is a rather boring policy thing but it has personal resonance, so I include it. HUD, (Housing and Urban Development), has denied $80 million to Typhoid City, (Los Angeles). This was a grant LA had applied for. No, this isn't Trump's grudge against California in action, it dates back to Obama, who had the same problem with Los Angeles; namely that they were violating the ADA, (Americans with Disabilities Act), like crazy. Needless to say, to qualify for those grants, you MUST comply with federal law.
So what are they not doing? Well, the ADA is rather complex, but it boils down to the construction of a building---it has to be usable to disabled people, as is right and moral. I had to deal with that with my parents' house, which was very much unfriendly to people with disabilities. Things like are the doorways wide enough for wheelchairs, can people who are mostly confined to said chairs use the bathroom or kitchen. Things that most people, including me, never think about...until it happens to them or their loved ones.
Los Angeles has one month to resubmit their grant application...but I must stress that if a grant has requirements, you MUST meet them.
|
|
|
Post by achilles on Jul 21, 2019 14:50:34 GMT
So, during a livestream about a double murder in Canada, this happened: Just when I thought I'd recovered from the trauma of the Cats trailer, this happens. Oh well, I guess if you can't laugh at a good old fashioned double murder...you're...normal?
|
|
|
Post by achilles on Jul 24, 2019 13:08:31 GMT
So, working from home today, and caught a bit of the Mueller hearings. I think I might try using a jackhammer on my skull instead. A few observations, though. Mueller seems confused. Weird. Looked suddenly very uncomfortable when some Repub rando asked him about the origins of the probe. Then an even more uncomfortable when the same Repub rando caught him in a lie shading what he said in his report, where he claimed the word "collusion" which isn't a legal term or a crime is synonymous with the legal term "conspiracy", compared to his testimony seconds before, where he claimed it wasn't. The point being just how far the report went in clearing Trump of collusion charges.
|
|
|
Post by Amoebas on Jul 24, 2019 16:06:05 GMT
I'm listening to it (at work) and I've been taking his 'confusion' as trying to figure out where in the report the congressperson is references about. Questions that state the page numbers don't seem to have this 'delay'.
|
|
|
Post by achilles on Jul 24, 2019 16:42:48 GMT
I'm listening to it (at work) and I've been taking his 'confusion' as trying to figure out where in the report the congressperson is references about. Questions that state the page numbers don't seem to have this 'delay'. But I've been watching him. His facial expressions, confusion, worry when he was asked about the origins of the probe, and I've seen him asked questions where the page number was supplied him and there was still a confusion delay, usually with and expression of bewilderment. And his refusal to answer questions about bias and appearance of bias in his hiring....AND selective prosecutions, (he avoided prosecuting people associated with Clinton while prosecuting people associated with Trump), seems fishy. I can't really see an innocent reason as to why he wouldn't talk about that. Regardless, I don't see anything changing as a result of this. The real action, and I suspect why he looked so worried when asked about the origins of the probe, will be when the DOJ's IG issues his report. But if you believed Trump was guilty of pretty much everything, then you still will. And if you thought he is pure as the driven snow, well, you will still think the same.
|
|
|
Post by achilles on Jul 24, 2019 17:50:58 GMT
I'm starting to feel sorry for Mueller; I've rarely seen someone so completely taken down. He should have refused to testify; now he looks incompetent, biased, a liar, and just mentally off.
I think it was a mistake as well for the Democrats; they've allowed the Republicans a shot at Mueller, and they're destroying him, and much of his case. What the Dems are getting out of it is the newsflash that Trump is impulsive and acts basically like Trump....something everyone already knew. You don't trust a guy like Trump, or necessarily like him. So what, everyone knows that, and the people who support him have already figured that in. What they haven't done is get Mueller to drop any believable bombshells.
The Repubs have honed in among other things, his obvious lies as to what he knew, and his team's bias about who they prosecuted, highlighting...oh damn, I thought he was just going to stroke out there...maybe take a break? But continuing with that sentences original intent...Mueller let lies to the FBI from Clinton associates go unprosecuted while throwing the book at Trump associates for the same crime.
|
|
|
Post by lordsimian on Jul 24, 2019 19:33:02 GMT
I'm listening to it (at work) and I've been taking his 'confusion' as trying to figure out where in the report the congressperson is references about. Questions that state the page numbers don't seem to have this 'delay'. But I've been watching him. His facial expressions, confusion, worry when he was asked about the origins of the probe, and I've seen him asked questions where the page number was supplied him and there was still a confusion delay, usually with and expression of bewilderment. And his refusal to answer questions about bias and appearance of bias in his hiring....AND selective prosecutions, (he avoided prosecuting people associated with Clinton while prosecuting people associated with Trump), seems fishy. I can't really see an innocent reason as to why he wouldn't talk about that. Regardless, I don't see anything changing as a result of this. The real action, and I suspect why he looked so worried when asked about the origins of the probe, will be when the DOJ's IG issues his report. But if you believed Trump was guilty of pretty much everything, then you still will. And if you thought he is pure as the driven snow, well, you will still think the same. He was assigned as special prosecutor to investigate specific issues with the TrumpWorld, and issues arising from his investigation. The Clinton boogeyman has nothing to do with it, and so has no relevance. He COULDN'T investigate the Clintons. Your argument is like saying the prosecutor who charged OJ Simpson was racist, because Jack The Ripper was Britis, and yet they didn't charge anyone with BRITISH ties for the Brown/Simpson murders, and their refusal to investigate a 110 year old cold case at the same time is awfully fishy...
|
|
|
Post by achilles on Jul 24, 2019 19:50:47 GMT
But I've been watching him. His facial expressions, confusion, worry when he was asked about the origins of the probe, and I've seen him asked questions where the page number was supplied him and there was still a confusion delay, usually with and expression of bewilderment. And his refusal to answer questions about bias and appearance of bias in his hiring....AND selective prosecutions, (he avoided prosecuting people associated with Clinton while prosecuting people associated with Trump), seems fishy. I can't really see an innocent reason as to why he wouldn't talk about that. Regardless, I don't see anything changing as a result of this. The real action, and I suspect why he looked so worried when asked about the origins of the probe, will be when the DOJ's IG issues his report. But if you believed Trump was guilty of pretty much everything, then you still will. And if you thought he is pure as the driven snow, well, you will still think the same. He was assigned as special prosecutor to investigate specific issues with the TrumpWorld, and issues arising from his investigation. The Clinton boogeyman has nothing to do with it, and so has no relevance. He COULDN'T investigate the Clintons. Your argument is like saying the prosecutor who charged OJ Simpson was racist, because Jack The Ripper was Britis, and yet they didn't charge anyone with BRITISH ties for the Brown/Simpson murders, and their refusal to investigate a 110 year old cold case at the same time is awfully fishy... No, his actual brief was to investigate "collusion with Russia", and he came across numerous crimes committed by Democrats or their operatives, and ignored them. Combine that with his lying about Fusion GPS, (the other explanation being that he is and was completely senile the whole time and was merely a figurehead), his attempt to say he would have charged Trump with obstruction if he could...to his admission in the second hearing that he...ah...misspoke there and actually meant they hadn't decided anything, probably after he reviewed his earlier statements plus his own report that he himself could be conceivably charged with lying to Congress. And all the other things he said or did that were fishy in the extreme, and it doesn't seem to have been an unbiased investigation. BTW, his original brief was something he expanded on, with Rosenstein's approval. To include a brief to investigate any crime uncovered in relation to the collusion investigation...which accounted for all the indictments he issued. Hell, even Democrats are calling it a win for Trump, the guy had no credibility between his odd behavior which suggests some mental issue, and his evasions and lies.
|
|
|
Post by achilles on Jul 25, 2019 16:45:58 GMT
Interesting, the NYT reports that the whole Mueller thing was a "Weekend at Bernies" type thing, that the aide who accompanied him was the person who actually ran the Mueller investigation, and that Mueller himself did almost nothing---which, along with his apparent condition, would explain why he barely knew anything in his own report. Interestingly, it seem that aide was also the lawyer for Hillary Clinton's IT aide, the one who set up her famous server.
Wonder if the Times is right, or just blowing rumors after that performance?
|
|
|
Post by achilles on Jul 29, 2019 18:45:05 GMT
So, there was a shooting at the Gilroy Garlic Festival up north from me, with three killed, (plus the shooter, but f*ck him). A 6 year old boy, a 13 year old girl, and a man in his twenties were killed. The shooter was killed by police who arrived and killed him within a couple of minutes. He cut his way through a fence to attend, bypassing metal detectors and security. The gun, an SKS, was purchased legally.
A word on that gun...it's a weird choice and not what you think. It predated the AK-47, and is a Soviet gun. But, while it IS a semi-automatic, it just well sucks as a choice to kill a lot of people as it has an internal magazine and you use stripper clips to load said magazine. The difference lies in the magazine, which can't be removed and swapped out like a magazine for an AK, you must insert the stipper clip which has the bullets pre-loaded, into the magazine, the remove the clip, leaving the bullets in the magazine.
Once again, it seems to be a mental health issue, as he was reported to have answered someone who asked him why he was doing it, and replied that he was angry.
In other news, Tesla wants to kill us all by introducing streaming video to...the driver of their cars. Err...I don't think that's maybe a good idea. Now, at present, or rather when the update is issued, it will only allow you to stream when the car is stopped and not running...but they plan to change that and allow streaming while driving when they gain approval for their self-driving cars. Which might be delayed JUST a bit until they can make their self-driving mode stop killing people. And until they get people to trust that feature, which for me might be about 70 years from now. Right now, the sensor systems on these cars are only fooled by rain. And snow. And bright lights. And dirt on the road. And hedges behind the road. And moving things on the road. And a few hundred other things. Yeah, maybe you want to sit behind the wheel of your Tesla when the self-drive is on, and pay attention to...the road.
|
|
|
Post by achilles on Jul 31, 2019 14:44:43 GMT
So...the debates, round 2. Most people thought Marianne Williamson won, which is amusing. I think because she's more genuine and more fun than the rest. She's batshit nuts of course, (apart from the crystal new-age stuff, she's also an anti-vaccine person), but fun, and seems like less of a phony than...absolutely everyone else running in either party for...anything. Yes, she'd be a disaster as President, but at least watching the world burn would be entertaining. There was another candidate...Delaney or something?...who also scored points by saying that announcing you want to take away the insurance of 180 million Americans would be Fed-Exing the election to Trump and was the next most Googled candidate after Kingdom of the Crystal Skull during and after the debate.
|
|
|
Post by achilles on Jul 31, 2019 20:55:07 GMT
And now I know. Now we all know why Marianne Williamson won last night's debate. Evidently, according to one of her...er...followers?...she's the only one in the race who is PROPERLY using chaos magic principles. And she had an..."occult task force" making spells during the debate to help her get air time...
And I guess she probably will land the coveted Alan Moore and Grant Morrison endorsements, with most likely death spells aimed at her opponents, each other, DC Comics, and rando fans who annoy them.
She probably also has the furry demo who all wanted to be blue space cats a while back, and the Bronies. Hope she stays in though, she's pure entertainment gold.
|
|
|
Post by achilles on Jul 31, 2019 20:57:19 GMT
No, seriously, she's not the weirdest candidate I've ever seen. Back when Ahhnold was running man for Govenator of....KaliFORnia, we had a porn star and Gary Coleman also running. Spoiler...either one would have been better than The Terminator.
|
|
|
Post by achilles on Aug 7, 2019 0:08:33 GMT
Is this even legal? www.abcbusinessnews.com/2019/08/rep-joaquin-castro-doxxes-trump-donors-in-san-antonio/What you have here is the twin brother of a Democratic Presidential candidate, doxxing Trump donors, mostly ordinary people, with the clear intent of inviting violence against them. If it IS legal, given that it is nearly alway used to incite violence against a political or other target, with no risk to the person doing the doxxing, (well, they ARE cowards), it should be looked into by Congress and the DOJ. But of course, many congressmen like to indulge in a little doxxing now and then, just for fun of course, so I won't hold my breath. But in the meantime, Castro should be punished by the House, (good luck thinking the Democrats will ever punish one of their own, especially one so close to their own hearts). Edit: I don't know what that little prick was thinking---it IS a Texas state third degree felony, punishable by 2-10 years in prison, and a fine of up to $10,000. And the AG isn't a friend of his. I imagine the DOJ might also want to look into that.
|
|
|
Post by liama on Aug 7, 2019 0:28:30 GMT
Is this even legal? www.abcbusinessnews.com/2019/08/rep-joaquin-castro-doxxes-trump-donors-in-san-antonio/What you have here is the twin brother of a Democratic Presidential candidate, doxxing Trump donors, mostly ordinary people, with the clear intent of inviting violence against them. If it IS legal, given that it is nearly alway used to incite violence against a political or other target, with no risk to the person doing the doxxing, (well, they ARE cowards), it should be looked into by Congress and the DOJ. But of course, many congressmen like to indulge in a little doxxing now and then, just for fun of course, so I won't hold my breath. But in the meantime, Castro should be punished by the House, (good luck thinking the Democrats will ever punish one of their own, especially one so close to their own hearts). Edit: I don't know what that little prick was thinking---it IS a Texas state third degree felony, punishable by 2-10 years in prison, and a fine of up to $10,000. And the AG isn't a friend of his. I imagine the DOJ might also want to look into that. That doesn't seem right.
|
|