Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

da_budman

Members
  • Content Count

    2,970
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by da_budman

  1. 1 hour ago, BladeRunner said:

    They stated as much?  Really?

    And, please tell, WHAT are the Democrats for again?  Because as of Today it's still "Not Donald Trump!".  And do you really want to get into obstructionism after their behavior the last 4 years?  Really?  Either you were living in a cave or you're being dishonest.  That's ALL they did was obstruct Trump.

    If you cant tell what the democrats are for then Id suggest you find some new news sources....Seriously. Also I If youre at all serious ( which I seriously doubt) Start with the platform from the democrats and the "platform"  from the republicans. You cant say wih a straight face there is any similarity.  As I said......  you have to actually give me a choice before I can even consider voing for a republican a this point.  

  2. 5 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

    Sorry, but I'm just not seeing this.  I think this is simply an excuse, IMO.

    Donald Trump is gone.  He ain't coming back.  He holds almost no power.  But I get that the Democrats want you to THINK that so they can scare you into voting for them.  They NEED to keep DJT front and center for people like you.  If that's how you feel, that's fine.  But DJT was a one time blip.

    The left has far more extremists in Congress on their side then the Conservatives do.  FFS, they LITERALLY elected Socialists/Marxists to their side.  And that contingent gets bigger every year.  But you're worried about Trump?  Really?  Have you looked back at the 20th century to see what Socialism/Marxism has done to countries?  But Trump is the issue?

    1 of 3 things are true.  You either missed the 1 page "platform"  issued at the republican convention where they stated as much,  you are convenienly forgetting it,  or youre hoping I didnt read it.  That in fact was the gyst of the republican plaform.  Until he republicans decide he stand for SOMETHING other than obstructionism Im not sure there is much of a choice to be made.  Im not necessarily in favor of everything the democrats want to accomplish but at least the are FOR something.  

  3.  I can only speak for myself but as a centrist democrat in the past ( who has voted for as many republicans for president as democrats) Im not happy with some of the policys proposed by the far left but until such time as the republicans stand for SOMETHING Im more entrenched on the left as I have ever been in the past.  When the republican partys platform is " we are for anything donald trump wants us to be for" and at time seem to be we are against anything the democrats   I cant see myself voing for a republican any time soon.  It seriously saddened me to vote straight democraic party but untill such time that the republican moderates  get control of their party back I highly doubt I will be voting republican.  

  4. 11 hours ago, Ghost Rider said:

    She's a phenomenal actress, but I saw a clip from last night and she literally looked like she rolled out of bed, threw on the nearest thing she could find to wear, and then walked on stage. 

    Kinda like her character in the movie huh.  Probably was on purpose.  

  5. Does anybody know anything about Sypr  (sypris solutions) ?  the mrs wants to invest in the company on recent news of  a government contract  to produce elecronics for deep space projects.  She seems to think its a good invesment because its a local company (I  know I know lol)  Any reason to believe this stock will go way up from is current 4 dollars a share (or lose a substantial amount) ?  

  6. Just now, Zow said:

    Haha yep you may have stayed at a Holiday Inn last night. 

    Blakely is a very important case for reasons I'll state shortly. However, for now, one needs to understand that each jurisdiction lays out sentencing ranges for particular crimes. These ranges may have a presumptive starting point with then a floor and a ceiling that effectively binds a judge from exercising wide discretion or going rogue or whatever. For example, in my jurisdiction, if one is convicted of selling meth (and assuming no enhancements) a defendant faces a range of sentence from 5-15 years with a presumptive sentence of ten. 

    Using the meth sales example above, a sentencing hearing will be each side's chance to argue to a judge why he or she should go up or down in the range. Somebody like me will argue "mitigating factors" such as maybe a lack of criminal history, my client's age, whether my client may have been under the influence during the offense, etc. A prosecutor may argue "aggravating factors" such as presence of an accomplice, pecuniary gain, harm to a particular victim, prior convictions, etc. A judge's job is then to weigh and balance these factors and determine an appropriate sentence within the range. So, for example, a judge may agree with defense that the defendant was high when he sold meth and he's young but then also find that the state proved that the defendant had sold drugs before and made a bunch of money. The judge may then find a "tie" (or, more professionally put, that the factors "balance each other out") and sentence the defendant to the presumptive term of ten years. 

     

    However, in some states (such as MN), a court can actually go outside these ranges (called "deviation") should the factors justify doing so. 

    Prior to the Blakely supreme court case, these aggravating factors and mitigating factors were really kind of whimsically submitted to the court without a real high burden of proof. Blakely held that such a setup was unconsitutional because the state should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the aggravating factors in order the the defendant to get a fair trial and for the judge to use them. Blakely went as far as to permit that a jury should determine these aggravating factors (but for, possibly, a defendant's prior convictions) if a judge intends to consider going outside the statutory ranges.

    Now, the above may sound good, but juries obviously have less experience than judges and don't really have a relative basis of comparison as a judge. They also likely don't know the implications of these factors. So, a defendant may waive the right to to a hearing where the state has to prove the factors beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury because a defendant surmises that proof of such will be easy and the jury essentially won't care at that point whereas a judge may find a factor weak or may, in a roundabout way, exercise some discretion and not find a particular factor was proven so that a defendant's sentence is not subject to the high end. Put differently, a judge may determine in his own mind that the ceiling of a particular sentencing range is just grossly unjust regardless of the aggravating factors and refuse to find them so he can justify a lower sentence. 

    I only assume that Chauvin's counsel strategized that they'll have a better shot with the judge re aggravating factors and/or that maybe they intend to work out a stipulation as to which would be proven. I suppose it's also possible that the court has somehow tipped its hand that it intends to stay within the range. 

    Thanks for your time explaining this.  Now I can head back over to the Holiday Inn  and wait for a slip and fall so I can better pull off this Lawyer charade and makes  me some money !!!!! 

    • Laughing 1
  7. Just now, Zow said:

    The word is very likely "Blakely" - which comes from a case where a particular procedural ruling was made that I'll explain. I'm pressed at work right now but will try to answer your question before I leave. 

    So are these Blakely hearings just normal procedure or does this mean the Judge anticipates the possibility of enforcing a sentence outside the norm for this particular crime or set of crimes and he is making sure it doesnt trample Chauvins constitutional rights?  (as you can tell I read the article and understood it just enough to be dangerous)  

  8. Just now, Zow said:

    1. Yes, absolutely. There were technically three different theories but they related to his intent and the latter two were arguably lesser includeds of the first. 

    2. I don't anticipate the mere fact he was convicted of all three being a valid appeal issue.*

    *I don't know whether this was litigated before or during the hearing.

    Quick quesion about the sentencing.  After the trial but before the verdict in the court room the judge held a motion that I inerpreted to be about agravated circumstances whereby Chauvin waived his abiliy for a jury to decide that matter and instead let the judge decide.  I was brought up again today for scheduling reasons.  It was a 1 word "name" if that helps you understand what Im even talking about.  My quesion is am I misunderstanding what that is about and if not how can that hearing affect the senence Chauvin will get?   

  9. Just now, Doug B said:

    Correct -- no names have yet been released.

    ...

    I've heard some testimony on the radio, but I've not watched any of the Chauvin trial on television. During television coverage, are jurors every shown clearly enough to identify them? Or are they typically out of camera shot, or out of focus?

     

    They arent on camera at all.  Heck the defense attorney said he cant even see some of them.  

    • Thanks 1
  10. 20 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

    how many years were we all told Trump and Russia were together? How many still believe that ?  I bet the % is still high here that believe it  -  and that was always the problem, not a foreign country manipulating - it was Trump being involved (you forgot to add that)

    is that an extreme view in your mind ? 

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-poll/despite-report-findings-almost-half-of-americans-think-trump-colluded-with-russia-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKCN1R72S0

     Nearly half of all Americans still believe President Donald Trump worked with Russia to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted after Special Counsel Robert Mueller cleared Trump of that allegation.

    Im surprised that number isnt higher and I am one of them.  When the Mueller report sas A  Manafort shared polling informaion with the russians  and B Pretty much the whole inner circle of Trump took a meeting with a member of the russian government  in  an atempt to get dirt on Clinton and C  people within the Trump circle repeatedly lying about all  their contacts with russians I cant honestly think why people would think anything BUT there was coordination between the russians and trump on some level.  Do I think Trump ran everything he did through the russians and vice versa before it was done?  Of course not but to say there was no coordination going on doesnt really fit the facts.  

    • Like 1
    • Laughing 1
  11. Lots of great ideas here....My idea is about the playoffs....  We have 8 teams that make the playoffs which means  we have had more than a few champs over he ears come from he 7th and 8th spots...so short of cutting back on plaoff spots  (ive tried,  ive tried)  Im going to try again  to get them to agree to letting the teams actually pick their  opponent each week of the playoffs.... That will ensure 2 things...1  that the top teams get to play who THEY THINK  is the weakest  team  left to be picked and 2 and even more importanly...if they pick poorly there will be plenty of trash talking and egg on the face of the person who made the choice.  😆 

  12. 1 hour ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

    Probably the simplest answer and the one we go by, of course.

    but it’s nice to understand the rule on a QB slide.

    Unfortunately I’m not a lot closer to that yet. :lol: 

    and you dont really want to be...(I know you think you do but you really dont)  Let the pros handle this so that you dont have to wade into the minutia.  

    • Laughing 1
  13. On 11/24/2020 at 4:24 PM, da_budman said:

    o used KC,Dallas,AZ,seattle,baltimore,miami,Atlanta,TB bucs,pitt, GB,la chargers
    d used buff,tenn,cleveland,rams, AZ, Indy,philly,KC, pitt,GB,carolina

     

    o  las vegas

    d ny giants

    change This to  las vegas O

    New orleans D  

  14. 3 hours ago, Razors Edge said:

    This is a cowards way out in my opinion.

    Dual eligibility, no, not for anyone. But allowing a guy who is only suppose to be a QB today based off media reports is the weakest thing MFL has done.

    Taysom hill played multiple position, this guy is a WR and is an emergency QB clearly. Calling him a QB is a way for them to keep paying customers happy. 

    This is the loophole it was intended for. Picking up a guy late who may get snaps at QB. Picking up a guy who is a QB who will be allowed to play TE, weaksauce.

    How so?  he guy is being brought up to play QUARTERBACK and as such should be listed that way.  If not for the lack of quarerbacks he wouldnt be brought up.  There are never intended loopholes... just people who try to take advantagh of an unusual situation.  We dealt with this in my league years ago when cordell slash stewart played.  When he was a gadget player he could be played at wr BUT the day he became pitts staring QB  he had to be played as such.  Its for differen reasons but hinton is being brought up to play QB  not wr.  

     

  15. 1 hour ago, Dez said:

    Not to try and outdo you but I have.....

    I have 44 Pitt Defenses

    I have 21 James Conner

    I have 11 Diontae Johnson

    I have 23 JuJu Smith-Schuster

    I have 6 Chase Claypool

    I have 10 Justin Tucker

    I have 22 Baltimore DF's

    I have 9 Lamar Jackson (but I know I already have to replace him) 17 Dobbin (same deal)

    I have Mark Andrews on my #1 overall FFPC main event team

    No what you have is too much time on your hands.  😆

    • Like 3
×
×
  • Create New...