WHO HAS THE BEST CHANCE FOR DEMOCRATS

 

These are who I believe have a shot at taking the White House if The President’s momentum on the economy takes a downturn.

Tulsi Gabbard – Congresswoman from Hawaii and combat veteran who is as close to the middle as you will get for the Democrats. The one knock would be her age. At 39, her age at time of election, she would be the youngest person ever elected and experience will play a factor but maybe not against President Trump who is brand new to politics but not the presidency. The plus, she will be 39 and have a forward thinking mindset. She would also have almost 20 years of government work by that time and did I mention she is a combat veteran, a Major in the armed forces, that’s awesome. Her salutes come with more experience than most men have.

Kamala Harris – Senator from California, Ms. Harris is a skilled and seasoned former State Attorney General. Don’t let her effervescent smile fool you (not pictured) , she is extremely smart, tough, and a no nonsense of a person you will ever find. She is quick witted and insightful. The knock, she is from California. The only person to be elected to President from California was Ronald Reagan and he was a Repub, which might be the only way that can happen. Oh, and Herbert Hoover, he was a President right? If she was from… lets say…. anywhere else, she would have been guaranteed a victory. If Ms. Harris can pull off a victory, then she would have done what no man (I know she is a woman, every person with an eyeball knows she is a woman, I’m bringing attention to her ground breaking style) has ever done, be a Dem from Cali and win the Oval Office. Ms. Harris will smile and ask a question and by the time you answer she will have you admitting that there is no back door to politics and that she is the best candidate. Ms. Harris will have to pick a running mate from a State that can offset that problem. She should be careful who she aligns herself with because she will need the right people or it could kill her campaign.

Kirsten Gillibrand – A tough lawyer turned politician, Ms. Gillibrand is a natural leader. She comes from a state that has long history of taking the Oval Office. And who wouldn’t love to see two New Yorkers, Sec. Clinton was more midwest in temperament, go at it. Being from the same state as the current President, she would pose some very real challenges to President Trump.  The knock, she really isn’t that known, which I think is a plus, but her name recognition isn’t quite up there as Biden, Harris, or Sanders. The plus, well, you ever argued with an intelligent woman from NY? You have a better chance of winning the lottery twice on the same day then winning that argument.

Bernie Sanders – If it wasn’t for the debacle, lucky for President Trump, with the DNC, Sanders would have been President. The knock, the opposite of Gabbard, his age in the opposite direction. Sanders is a tough Senator that stands for what he believes and that’s to do the right thing. A motto that he carries on his sleeve. I voted form him in the primaries but was overruled by a bunch of dumbasses. If he shows some liveliness in a campaign, I think he can get it done. The plus, well, he is freaking Bernie Sanders, a man that got carried away by the police protesting injustices and the only person on the Dems that could have beat all the Repubs in 2016. There’s a bunch of Bernie’s, but only one Bernie Sanders. Feel the Bern, and let’s not forget his followers, the Bernie babies. This is the closest you get to Political stardom, and the whole time, Bernie remained humble and true to himself.

By the way, I’m a moderate, I believe in choice, from abortion to gun rights (oddly not marijuana). These candidates, most of them are centered and believe the same thing. I like middle of the ground politicians because I feel they can win over both parties and actually get stuff done.

FACT OF THE DAY!

right to counsel

The sixth amendment gives you the right to retain counsel, so if you have the monies to pay for counsel, then no one can interfere with that right.  The right to counsel is generally regarded as a constituent of the right to a fair trial.

“Nevertheless, where the right to be assisted by counsel of one’s choice is wrongly denied, a Sixth Amendment violation occurs regardless of whether the alternate counsel retained was effective”.

Kaley v. United States

134 S. Ct. 1090 (2014)   Cited 248 times   13 Legal Analyses

Describing the “vital interest at stake” in “the constitutional right to retain counsel of their own choosing,” as described in Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. at 146-48,150, and explaining that, “having the ability to retain the counsel [they] believe to be best – and who might in fact be superior to any existing alternatives – matters profoundly”

 

Rivera v. Marcus

696 F.2d 1016 (2d Cir. 1982)   Cited 65 times   
    • personState, Provincial or Regional Government
    • personGovernment
Holding that Plaintiff, who provided foster care for her half brother and sister, had liberty interest in preserving familial relationship and that termination of foster care agreement with state—without any notice of reasons for termination or any opportunity to retain counsel or be heard in subsequent proceedings—violated her rights to procedural due process

 

U.S.
v.
Gonzalez-Lopez

Not overruled or negatively treated on appeal info Coverage
U.S. Supreme Court Jun 26, 2006
548 U.S. 140 (2006)

In sum, the right at stake here is the right to counsel of choice, not the right to a fair trial; and that right was violated because the deprivation of counsel was erroneous. No additional showing of prejudice is required to make the violation “complete.”

BOXING: COMPUSTATS

charlo-harrison-compubox-punch-stats

I’m not big fan of compustats. The reason being is a person could land more punches but still lose if he/she is hurt every round, thus negating any compustat. The fights is generally won effective aggressiveness, general ringmanship, punches landed and the effect that punch had on his opponent. Let me first congratulate Tony Harrison, he got the nod and worked very hard for the victory. Let me also say that to be recognized as the best ever, you will always have to have at least one loss on your record. Apologies to Mayweather and Marciano. When Ray Robinson lost to LaMotta, Basilio, Fulmer, he came back to defeat these fighters, Fulmer with the perfect left hook, as it known today. What makes you great is not winning but coming back and beating the good fighter that got the best you previously. Resilience. If greatness was just based on being undefeated, then why would anyone fight anyone that has a chance of beating them. The reason Ray Robinson is the GOAT is because he fought people that had a chance of beating them while they were in their prime and he beat them, arguably when he was past has his.

The fight between Charlo and Harrison was a close match. Charlo did seem to go for the KO, mainly because he was looking for the Hurd fight and wanted to duplicate Hurd’s feat of KOing Harrison, probably in more devastating fashion and earlier then the current king of the 154 pound class did. If that’s true, we now see the dangers of looking past your opponent and thinking of the next opponent. Something trainers always say not to do. The fight was a closely contested match, which in my opinion saw Charlo eke out a win but Harrison was no slouch and concentrated on the man in front of him. That might have been the difference. Compustats actually back up my claim of Charlo winning but for pundits to say that the percentage of punches landed gives credence to Harrison winning would be misleading. Percentage is based on a mathematical equation of determining how close the number of punches thrown is to punches landed. If percentage mattered then the guy that just threw one punch and landed should beat the guy that threw 100 and landed anything short of 100 but more than 1. Unless that one punch knocked out his opponent, that one punch wouldn’t mean much nor would the accompanying percentage of 100% punches landed. I think we all realize that. This is not to take away from Harrison’s win, who aptly stated that the reason he won was because Charlo was going for the KO. Something he realized and used his opponents aggressiveness against him. Give Harrison the credit for being a smart boxer and adapting to Charlo’s style in the ring to secure his first title. I think a rematch is deserved and Harrison was gracious enough to offer it. Good for Harrison, a classy fighter.

DISCLAIMER

I wake up every morning with bunny ears which sometimes feel like radio antennas, which sometimes occurs during the day. If I have not clearly stated something about anything or anyone, while awake and coherent and not under the influence of anything, that damn wine and amazing Kreskin, then those views are not mine. (that’s a period at the end)

THOUGHT OF THE DAY

 

Superhero

There’s two ways to make yourself stand out. By your good deeds where people will put you on their shoulders or by pushing people down to make yourself look better. Only one actually moves you, the other moves people the wrong way.

#superhero #Ican’tdowhatyoucando

FACT OF THE DAY!

faceless

An example of a person that humbled me is a woman that came into the country illegally. Along the way she fought off a rapist, saved a person from getting murdered and when she got here, she bought her mother a house while she lived in attics and rented rooms..

HOW TO PICK A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE.

scotus 1

I never understood why a Supreme Court Justice is selected the way they are. They are the head of a separate part of government but are effectively kept out of the selection process. I always thought that the nine Supreme Court Justices should be the ones to select a suitable member, those that they unanimously agree on, nominate those three to five names and then have the other parts of government confirm one. This would promote continuity, non-partisanship, and legitimacy within the highest court of the land. Plus, it’s nice to work where everyone agreed on you. It would also end partisan bickering as now it wouldn’t matter who heads the Executive branch, a Dem or a Repub. Plus the way it is done right now is unconstitutional. How can you have a separate branch of government when the Judicial branch is dependent on the other branches for employment? The way it should work is 1) Have the Judicial Branch select qualified people, 2) Have the Executive branch nominate one 3) Have the Legislative branch confirm them. This ensures a separate and fair government. That scenario would be acceptable as it still meets the Appointments Clause of the Constitution and maintains the separation of government. But what do I know, I still haven’t figured out my VCR, which my son says is a cable box. Damn things are tricky.

This is just an opinion piece. I could be wrong about the whole premise. This is just my opinion. Everyone should form their own.