Enhance

People refer to each party or a political viewpoint generically here all the time, yourself included. "Libs" this. "Conservatives" that. I think if you gave BRB an opportunity to clarify instead of just banally saying what amounts to 'WRONG' then your conversation might prove more fruitful. You'll also notice he clarified his statement with the following "You're saying that isn't successful all the time......Yes, I know that." But, hey, don't let that get in the way of a good pissing match. I agree, but what I said still holds true. A Trump endorsement can be influential and there are significant portions of the Republican party still beholden to him. Why they are at this point is still troubling.

I don't want to put words in BRB's mouth, but I think what he is trying to illustrate is that Trump is still an incredibly influential element in the Republican party. More specifically, I think it's clear that Trump still holds a fairly ironclad grip on his base. His base does not make up 100% of the Republican party, but it does make up a significant enough portion that conservative political strategists are having to take it into account. Many Republicans have acknowledged that Trump's endorsement in political races remains influential, although it obviously does not guarantee victory. There are also unquestionably some factions and representatives of the party that are doing exactly what BRB is saying. If you try to dunk on Trump, they try to dunk on you. It would be unfair to cast that as a problem among ALL Republicans, but we know it is happening. Frankly, I'm still surprised (and disappointed) he remains such a fixture in the party.

Yep you and teach hit the nail on the head, but really the biggest thing is relationship building and the benefits that come from that. Most of the times I would meet up with a source or contact for coffee or lunch, we might talk about specific things going on that I wanted to report on, but we would usually talk about our lives, challenges we face at work, why certain things happen that make both our lives difficult, etc. That's probably a lot of what was happening with the story Devo shared. You wouldn't meet up with a high profile government employee for lunch in a public place to share government secrets. You'd probably do it just to get to know each other better and see how best you can help one another. That might include a lot of "off the record" details but those details may not be germane to a specific story.

Just quoting you Devo but the following isn't targeted at you, FYI. When I was a journalist, I had "unauthorized contacts" with law enforcement officials/government agencies and off-the-record conversations every single day. I know a lot of things I shouldn't technically know. Sometimes these meetings were at restaurants/bars or over coffee, but they were usually over the phone. That's because, in the eyes of PR people, public information officers, and leadership, any time you don't go through the song and dance of getting approval from them, they get all pissy. They always want to control the narrative and prevent anything that makes them look bad. People seem to be grateful for a journalist's work when it ousts something important, but based on some of those Twitter comments, I can tell some people see this as a "gotcha!" moment that is really isn't... at least not to the degree they want to make it. So, part of what this article is outlining is just part of being a journalist. We're encouraged and taught to do that in order to build rapport with sources, get the jump on stories, etc. In the VAST majority of cases, the relationship is productive, and most of what is talked about does not at all negatively impact investigations. Most of what is talked about is also not reported. If this kind of stuff didn't happen then journalists wouldn't be good watchdogs. I can't endorse stuff like the payola/plugola stuff in that article. That's unethical. But I would safely wager most of these 'unauthorized contacts' are just upset PR people being upset PR people.

It's relatively straight forward mathematics based on what I recall of the subject; most states have studied the matter and their conclusions have generally been in line that the death penalty is often more expensive than life in prison. It usually comes down to the fact that people sentenced to death often have a more robust, long and expensive appeals process that can last years or even decades. And by default, capital cases are much more expensive than non-capital cases. Additionally, someone sentenced to death will often be placed in more expensive special facilities than someone sentenced to life in prison... so they're eating up much more money. Meanwhile, someone sentenced to life in prison might go through the appeals process but overall those costs are usually less and then they're also not as likely to be in the high security special facilities. Some states (Texas) really push through executions, so that could be a place where life in prison is more expensive, but few states are like Texas in that regard.

The Inquisitor story line started off great - I just don't think the writing and the acting with that specific character has done it justice. It is over-acted and at times disconnected from the other plot elements and themes. I don't know if that's more of a her problem or a directorial problem, but Reva scenes have become less and less interesting as the story has gone along. Perhaps the best one so far was her Other than that though I've been really pleased. I think Ewan McGregor has re-captured the role nicely and the dynamic between him and Vader has been a lot of fun.

I've been enjoying the series so far, but, there have been some pretty glaring and bizarre writing decisions up to this point. And I'm not a fan of the way they've written Reva or the performance that actress is giving. So far I'd give it maybe a 6/10. We'll see the last couple episodes hold.

I think we should re-categorize Republicans from being "pro-life" to simply being "anti-abortion." In the literal sense, they often contradict the term pro-life. Republicans have regularly fought against policies aimed at protecting and promoting life and well-being, all under of the guise of 'wanting to limit government over-reach' and protect freedoms... when it's convenient to them. Gun control is perhaps the most prominent example but there are a number of others, particularly in the social program realm. Too many Republicans want to force you to have a baby and then provide relatively unfettered access to the gun that may one day kill them. If they were truly "pro-life," they'd acquiesce to the truth that wrangling in our gun violence problem involves not only mental health resource improvements but also serious and aggressive changes to our gun culture and policies; which, yes, could make it way more difficult to own a gun. And the best (or worst) part is this - this is what most Americans want. Most Americans want stronger gun control. It's the bureaucrats and special interest groups who are preventing this.

Yeah the full screen pop up ad is serving a bit intrusively right now. I’ve noticed it specifically on mobile when changing threads and logging in

Follow board guidelines or don’t - either way, you’ll decide your own future. Testing your luck with a mod isn’t a good strategy. Please stay on topic. This point won’t be argued further.

I referenced 200+ years of court precedent that didn’t change until 2008. I also made several other points your response neglected to address. Also, we can do without the quips and ‘gotchas’. You can take those to another message board.

This quote might shock some people. "[The 2nd Amendment] has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." - Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Berger, a conservative, in 1991. The legal consensus surrounding the 2A for the majority of our country's history was that the right to bear arms was not an individual right, but rather a right for those called into military service i.e. a militia. And that's what the actual language of the 2A talks about - a militia. The U.S. SC did not rule that the 2A guaranteed an individual the right to own a gun until 2008 by a slim 5-4 vote. Up until that point, every other time the court had ruled previously, they had ruled that you did not have that right. And to this day, the court has still concluded that gun ownership is not an absolute right and is subject to limitations. What we're seeing and have been seeing for decades now is a lobbying effort by groups like the NRA, as well as anti-democratic push by certain politicians and presidents (who don't represent the popular vote of this country), pushing policies on people who don't actually want them. I'm all for hunting. I'm all for responsible gun ownership. But I'm also all for more strict gun control and much stronger barriers to entry/ownership. Most of this country is. And it's pretty clear that most of the apprehension towards more strict gun control is largely a result of successful manipulation by gun rights lobbyists with deep pockets and a financial agenda.

I don’t understand why they’re being associated in the first place. Is there some context I don’t know about? Likely, a statistically insignificant number of people are taking their children to drag bars (which, in most places I’ve seen, almost always require entrants to be of legal age in whatever municipality they’re in, or at least 16 years of age). Just seems like another baseless opportunity to trigger a voting base over something that’s not really a thing right?

The things these politicians come up with are just hysterically inept and awful. Would love to see the statistics on how many parents are taking their children to drag bars, but I think we can all safely assume there aren’t many, and it’s not enough to even try to make it a talking point in the first place. I also love the unstated but intentional evangelical inference that being a good parent and person requires church. Edit: BTW, I went to a drag show in Puerto Vallarta a few years ago. Incredibly entertaining and fun. Highly recommended.

That's what makes this conservative talking point asinine and unintelligent - there simply is no realistic or cost-effective way to protect all the places that have suffered a mass shootings.