Biden Out of Race

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
UscGhost said:
Absolutely.

Hard to fight the government when it has unlimited resources and the power over your FCC approval
Click to expand...
Agree. We have seen that for your side and my side. As opposed to us going at each other, we should try to band against the other, other side (gubment). That is why government should be smaller. We always see the winds of political power change. That is why our forefathers would not like government this large or a government that gets to change meaning of words and/or laws easily.
 
Southpaw said:
Really wish you’d just admit you’re defending it bc it agrees with your politics. Your analogy falls apart when you have to answer what law Kimmel broke, like you broke the law by speeding.
Click to expand...
Not all. I am not defending it. I don't like it. I didn't like it when they appeared to be doing it to the other side. If we play this game with the government, the people lose. I mentioned above the violation law. But it doesn't appear to matter, bc Reuters said ABC wanted him to apologize before all this. He doubled down with a worse monologue so they pulled him regardless of the possible investigation. It doesn't help make it as black and white as we would like it to be.

Without being wordy, I was trying to point out that you could claim foul any time the government investigated you. It becomes a gray area that politics loves playing in. "We didn't do anything but investigate for an FCC violation (or russian collusion)." But sometimes someone is breaking the law so.... you actually do want them to investigate. The problem develops when perspective dictates what is "warranted" and what isn't.
 
BobLoblaw78 said:
I believe it can't be political lies/propaganda on public broadcast. It overall has to be for the good of the public (which would be difficult to define). Usually you get an exemption for comedy, but he made it obvious there was not a joke.
Click to expand...
None of those are anything close to a law
 
BobLoblaw78 said:
I believe it can't be political lies/propaganda on public broadcast. It overall has to be for the good of the public (which would be difficult to define). Usually you get an exemption for comedy, but he made it obvious there was not a joke.
Click to expand...

That is the argument.

The stronger argument is that Carr was threatening ABC and it's owner based on speech he didn't like.

There's actually a newer SCOTUS case I was unaware of until yesterday called NRA v Vullo that deals with government persuasion vs government coercion that is pretty relevant here.

"Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the Court's unanimous decision, favoring the NRA, stating that "[g]overnment officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors".

The decision further held that government officials cross the line into impermissible coercion when they engage in conduct "that, viewed in context, could be reasonably understood to convey a threat of adverse government action in order to punish or suppress speech".

That seems like a reasonable standard and one Carr violated IMO.
 
BobLoblaw78 said:
I believe it can't be political lies/propaganda on public broadcast. It overall has to be for the good of the public (which would be difficult to define). Usually you get an exemption for comedy, but he made it obvious there was not a joke.
Click to expand...

It’s interesting that we hold talk show hosts to a higher standard than presidents nowadays.

BobLoblaw78 said:
Agree. We have seen that for your side and my side. As opposed to us going at each other, we should try to band against the other, other side (gubment). That is why government should be smaller. We always see the winds of political power change. That is why our forefathers would not like government this large or a government that gets to change meaning of words and/or laws easily.
Click to expand...

It’s not government size that’s the issue. You can have a government of 1 person who can “change the meaning of words and/or laws easily.” The issue is when the government is beholden to the ultrawealthy and corporations. The government has been completely co-opted by billionaires and corporations in this country. The result of that is the government no longer functions for the benefit of the people. The government as it currently functions exists to help further consolidate the power and wealth in the hands of those ultrawealthy. Our forefathers didn’t have a “size limit” of our government. The intention of our forefathers was to have the government be a tool of the people to defend our individual rights against those that would try and take those rights away. Foreign nations and corporations are examples of entities that might try to erode those rights.
 
BobLoblaw78 said:
Not all. I am not defending it. I don't like it. I didn't like it when they appeared to be doing it to the other side. If we play this game with the government, the people lose. I mentioned above the violation law. But it doesn't appear to matter, bc Reuters said ABC wanted him to apologize before all this. He doubled down with a worse monologue so they pulled him regardless of the possible investigation. It doesn't help make it as black and white as we would like it to be.

Without being wordy, I was trying to point out that you could claim foul any time the government investigated you. It becomes a gray area that politics loves playing in. "We didn't do anything but investigate for an FCC violation (or russian collusion)." But sometimes someone is breaking the law so.... you actually do want them to investigate. The problem develops when perspective dictates what is "warranted" and what isn't.
Click to expand...
No.

Based on the timeline of events, kimmel gave his soeech, THEN the FCC chairman came out and said that he didnt like what kimmel said, and suggested that the FCC could revoke ABCs licenses (direct government censorship). Then ABC caved in.

There was no claim of an violation of a specific FCC rule. Nor an investigation.
 
UscGhost said:
None of those are anything close to a law
Click to expand...
It sounds like you are saying FCC violations are not laws. They are, so I am puzzled. You can/will argue that he didn't break it. That is what investigations are for, to determine if a law was broken. Hard to argue that it was a threat versus being transparent with investigating a violation.
 
rowsdower88 said:
That is the argument.

The stronger argument is that Carr was threatening ABC and it's owner based on speech he didn't like.

There's actually a newer SCOTUS case I was unaware of until yesterday called NRA v Vullo that deals with government persuasion vs government coercion that is pretty relevant here.

"Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the Court's unanimous decision, favoring the NRA, stating that "[g]overnment officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors".

The decision further held that government officials cross the line into impermissible coercion when they engage in conduct "that, viewed in context, could be reasonably understood to convey a threat of adverse government action in order to punish or suppress speech".

That seems like a reasonable standard and one Carr violated IMO.
Click to expand...
Could be reasonable to some but not others. It also depends what is definition of threatening versus "notifying someone of possibly impending investigation." All in the eye of the beholder.

I see this as an endless cycle that I don't want part of. This same lens should have the same conclusions drawn when shined on trump and his NY trials. If you disagree no matter what semantics you use, I believe that to be intellectually dishonest.
 
arkgal said:
11
He's been to Disney 5 times but never to universal studios. I never went to the latter, either.
Click to expand...
Then definitely Universal, unless y'all don't like Harry Potter as that's a big part of all 3 parks (I haven't been to the newest yet so can't comment on that one).

Stay at one of the 3 top end resorts so you get unlimited line skipping in the 2 older parks.
 
GravelRider said:
It’s interesting that we hold talk show hosts to a higher standard than presidents nowadays.
Click to expand...
I don't believe the president is allowed to get on latenight and intentionally lie.

(Maybe you meant Trump shouldn't have blamed the left from the get go. I would agree. He had no need to bc most ppl with a brain assumed as much. Kind of an unforced error and unnecessary to say.)
GravelRider said:
It’s not government size that’s the issue. You can have a government of 1 person who can “change the meaning of words and/or laws easily.” The issue is when the government is beholden to the ultrawealthy and corporations. The government has been completely co-opted by billionaires and corporations in this country. The result of that is the government no longer functions for the benefit of the people. The government as it currently functions exists to help further consolidate the power and wealth in the hands of those ultrawealthy. Our forefathers didn’t have a “size limit” of our government. The intention of our forefathers was to have the government be a tool of the people to defend our individual rights against those that would try and take those rights away. Foreign nations and corporations are examples of entities that might try to erode those rights.
Click to expand...
I hear you but disagree. We can oust one politician. You can't oust 10,000 as easily. Plus, it appears as the government has gotten bigger it has more easily been co-opted by billionaires.
 
BobLoblaw78 said:
Could be reasonable to some but not others. It also depends what is definition of threatening versus "notifying someone of possibly impending investigation." All in the eye of the beholder.
Click to expand...

Sure. That would be for a judge/jury to discern. It doesn't mean there isn't a standard. The standard is "viewed in context, could this be reasonably understood to convey a threat".

BobLoblaw78 said:
I see this as an endless cycle that I don't want part of. This same lens should have the same conclusions drawn when shined on trump and his NY trials. If you disagree no matter what semantics you use, I believe that to be intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...

I disagree. -shrug-
 
UscGhost said:
No.

Based on the timeline of events, kimmel gave his soeech, THEN the FCC chairman came out and said that he didnt like what kimmel said, and suggested that the FCC could revoke ABCs licenses (direct government censorship). Then ABC caved in.

There was no claim of an violation of a specific FCC rule. Nor an investigation.
Click to expand...
I think you have committed to your version. I was surprised at the new report and adjusted my position based on that.

So if there was no claim of violation nor an investigation, you think that supports your side? If there were neither then why cave so quickly at so little of a suggestion? Again, I will trust ABC knows more and acted accordingly.
 
BobLoblaw78 said:
It sounds like you are saying FCC violations are not laws. They are, so I am puzzled. You can/will argue that he didn't break it. That is what investigations are for, to determine if a law was broken. Hard to argue that it was a threat versus being transparent with investigating a violation.
Click to expand...
There was no fcc violation either though


On its website, the FCC acknowledges that the First Amendment limits its power over speech, including in regard to the public interest.

"The FCC has long held that ‘the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views,’" the FCC says. "Rather than suppress speech, communications law and policy seeks to encourage responsive ‘counter-speech’ from others. Following this principle ensures that the most diverse and opposing opinions will be expressed, even though some views or expressions may be highly offensive."
 
Last edited:
BobLoblaw78 said:
I think you have committed to your version. I was surprised at the new report and adjusted my position based on that.

So if there was no claim of violation nor an investigation, you think that supports your side? If there were neither then why cave so quickly at so little of a suggestion? Again, I will trust ABC knows more and acted accordingly.
Click to expand...
It's already been discussed.

Abc caved because disney is relying on the fcc for its approval of its purchase of Fubo

And Nexstar needs FCC approval for its merger. This approval requires the FCC to grant them an exemption..which they are under no legal obligation to do so...

There has been no FCC violations

So the government pressured ABC/Disney to shut down kimmel otherwise they basically wont allow those purchases/merger.

The FCC panel hadn't even met to discuss any possible violations, let alone accuse ABC of a violation. And there is no rule that they violated.

The FCC chairman went on a maga talk show and said he didn't like Kimmels opinions and directly threatened ABC
 
Splenda88 said:
Who is the craziest?

Ilhan Omar vs. Nancy Grace

www.yahoo.com

"You Belong In Rehab, Not Congress": The Internet Is Feral Over The Feud Between Nancy Mace And Ilhan Omar Because Of Her Reposts About Charlie Kirk

Things got hairy, to say the least.
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com
Click to expand...

I mean, I read the article and I don’t see much that Ilhan said. My guess is if she actually said something about Kirk it’d have been plastered everywhere and Ilhan would be back in Somalia, since the Trump gestapo has come for everyone who actually said something.

Mace is very likely intolerable in person. Reminds me of Boebert, minus all the family issues. Just insane. But she’s a congresswoman in SC gunning for a bigger job. The reality is she can say whatever in the world she wants so long as it’s directed toward liberals. She’s getting reelected.
 
Southpaw said:
I mean, I read the article and I don’t see much that Ilhan said. My guess is if she actually said something about Kirk it’d have been plastered everywhere and Ilhan would be back in Somalia, since the Trump gestapo has come for everyone who actually said something.

Mace is very likely intolerable in person. Reminds me of Boebert, minus all the family issues. Just insane. But she’s a congresswoman in SC gunning for a bigger job. The reality is she can say whatever in the world she wants so long as it’s directed toward liberals. She’s getting reelected.
Click to expand...

-Reads a buzzfeed article
-“I think Trump would deport a sitting congresswoman”
-Wonders why conservatives jump to insane conspiracy theories and calls them dumb or propagandized for doing so

I think I found the intolerable person in this mix
 
Southpaw said:
I am reading this thinking you’ll be perfectly fine if the next democratic president has the FCC shut FoxNews down in its entirety after they’re critical of a democratic agenda.

Or that suddenly you and the other conservative who like your post are now suddenly okay with everyone losing their jobs over Covid (which every conservative lost their friggin mind over at the time).

Why do you play politics and are unable to see this for what it is? Why is it okay for Trump to poke fun at Pelosis attacker with a gag Halloween costume post on social media, but now democrats should lose their job if they’re critical of Charlie Kirk’s actual works while also confessing it’s awful what happened to him?

I really don’t understand any of this. Well I understand it perfectly fine, but people being unable to see bothsidesbad or call out the bothsidesbad and that all of it is bad for a supposedly free speech democracy, is really frustrating.

Let’s just fast forward to the point where we fire every college professor and every media personality who ever voted for a Democrat or said something negative about Donald Trump or someone he’s associated with. I wish everyone could see the ridiculousness of this and that it’s flat out government suppression of free speech.
Click to expand...
Becuase they went after Trump

Notice Alvin bragg (manhattan DA) who prosecuted Trump for having stormy Daniels tax deduction

I don’t hear a peep out of Alvin Bragg trying to go after the national football players president (nfl pa) did the same illegal strippers tax deduction. Yet Alvin Bragg is not going after hjm

I ask this same question to my democratic lawyer prosecutor and they said it’s up to prosecutor discretion …..

You guys don’t get it. They went after Trump for BS stuff. So it’s pay back time.

Alvin Bragg is a hypocrite prosecutor.
 
aneftp said:
Becuase they went after Trump

Notice Alvin bragg (manhattan DA) who prosecuted Trump for having stormy Daniels tax deduction

I don’t hear a peep out of Alvin Bragg trying to go after the national football players president (nfl pa) did the same illegal strippers tax deduction. Yet Alvin Bragg is not going after hjm

I ask this same question to my democratic lawyer prosecutor and they said it’s up to prosecutor discretion …..

You guys don’t get it. They went after Trump for BS stuff. So it’s pay back time.

Alvin Bragg is a hypocrite prosecutor.
Click to expand...

I ignore all of your ‘hey man if you jaywalk it’s the same as murder!’ bothsidesism nonsense. No disrespect but I don’t really read your posts. I’m sure I’ll get slammed for it by the maga clan but honestly I don’t view the world as you do. And I don’t really care if I’m wrong about that. So I choose not to engage.
 
aneftp said:
Becuase they went after Trump

Notice Alvin bragg (manhattan DA) who prosecuted Trump for having stormy Daniels tax deduction

I don’t hear a peep out of Alvin Bragg trying to go after the national football players president (nfl pa) did the same illegal strippers tax deduction. Yet Alvin Bragg is not going after hjm

I ask this same question to my democratic lawyer prosecutor and they said it’s up to prosecutor discretion …..

You guys don’t get it. They went after Trump for BS stuff. So it’s pay back time.

Alvin Bragg is a hypocrite prosecutor.
Click to expand...
In regards to the NFLPA president. He expensed the strip clubs...he didnt tax deduct them. So it wasnt an illegal act.

It was a violation of NFLPA policy and he was forced to resign.

And no, the government pressuring companies to fire people who dont support their beliefs is entirely a violation of 1st amendment.
 
www.reuters.com

Trump to impose $100,000 fee per year for H-1B visas, in blow to tech

The Trump administration said on Friday it would ask companies to pay $100,000 per year for H-1B worker visas, prompting some big tech companies to warn visa holders to stay in the U.S. or quickly return.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com

This is a great idea. Good American jobs for good American college graduates. Prevents companies from undercutting our citizens with h1b hoping to gain citizenship here.

If someone is talented or necessary, the company or organization can eat the cost.

Also should allay physician fears of foreign docs coming without American residencies
 
aneftp said:
Becuase they went after Trump

Notice Alvin bragg (manhattan DA) who prosecuted Trump for having stormy Daniels tax deduction

I don’t hear a peep out of Alvin Bragg trying to go after the national football players president (nfl pa) did the same illegal strippers tax deduction. Yet Alvin Bragg is not going after hjm

I ask this same question to my democratic lawyer prosecutor and they said it’s up to prosecutor discretion …..

You guys don’t get it. They went after Trump for BS stuff. So it’s pay back time.

Alvin Bragg is a hypocrite prosecutor.
Click to expand...

You've finally come up with an example. Congratulations! Only a year and change late for a relevant discussion.

1. Is that a case that Alvin Bragg could prosecute? Does that fall within his jurisdiction?

2. Isn't this a developing story? I see one report that it was sent to investigators back in July of this year.

3. Is the total amount paid to strippers less than $5k? Could he have already reimbursed the association privately? Could it be resolved in small claims court if not?*

4. Isn't this materially different from felony charges associated with misappropriated campaign donations?

Just a few questions off the top of my head that suggest this case is not nearly the same as Trump's case.

*Lloyd Howell, former NFLPA director, charged union for strip club visits: Report
 
PainInTheAnes said:
www.reuters.com

Trump to impose $100,000 fee per year for H-1B visas, in blow to tech

The Trump administration said on Friday it would ask companies to pay $100,000 per year for H-1B worker visas, prompting some big tech companies to warn visa holders to stay in the U.S. or quickly return.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com

This is a great idea. Good American jobs for good American college graduates. Prevents companies from undercutting our citizens with h1b hoping to gain citizenship here.

If someone is talented or necessary, the company or organization can eat the cost.
Click to expand...
Or leave the country.

That's the line conservatives are always using when increasing corporate taxes gets proposed, right?
 
PainInTheAnes said:
Yeah no, every major company is staying here. They are giving billion dollar contracts to AI talent, they’ll eat this cost.
Click to expand...
Not really.

Companies will just have another cost reason to export jobs overseas.

Fed is already warning of significant expected negative US economic consequences of decreased immigration
 
rowsdower88 said:
You've finally come up with an example. Congratulations! Only a year and change late for a relevant discussion.

1. Is that a case that Alvin Bragg could prosecute? Does that fall within his jurisdiction?

2. Isn't this a developing story? I see one report that it was sent to investigators back in July of this year.

3. Is the total amount paid to strippers less than $5k? Could he have already reimbursed the association privately? Could it be resolved in small claims court if not?*

4. Isn't this materially different from felony charges associated with misappropriated campaign donations?

Just a few questions off the top of my head that suggest this case is not nearly the same as Trump's case.

*Lloyd Howell, former NFLPA director, charged union for strip club visits: Report
Click to expand...

UscGhost said:
In regards to the NFLPA president. He expensed the strip clubs...he didnt tax deduct them. So it wasnt an illegal act.

It was a violation of NFLPA policy and he was forced to resign.

And no, the government pressuring companies to fire people who dont support their beliefs is entirely a violation of 1st amendment.
Click to expand...
Expense is business tax deduction. Bragg can go after both of them the company and the employee. If he wants to.
 
rowsdower88 said:
You've finally come up with an example. Congratulations! Only a year and change late for a relevant discussion.

1. Is that a case that Alvin Bragg could prosecute? Does that fall within his jurisdiction?

2. Isn't this a developing story? I see one report that it was sent to investigators back in July of this year.

3. Is the total amount paid to strippers less than $5k? Could he have already reimbursed the association privately? Could it be resolved in small claims court if not?*

4. Isn't this materially different from felony charges associated with misappropriated campaign donations?

Just a few questions off the top of my head that suggest this case is not nearly the same as Trump's case.

*Lloyd Howell, former NFLPA director, charged union for strip club visits: Report
Click to expand...
Using strippers and hiring cars for them is just the same as what p Diddy did also.

There are many versions of what they can prosecute. They just choose not to do.
 
aneftp said:
Using strippers and hiring cars for them is just the same as what p Diddy did also.

There are many versions of what they can prosecute. They just choose not to do.
Click to expand...
Except what P diddy was ILLEGAL

Nflpa Pres didnt commit a crime.

Important distinction
 
UscGhost said:
Not really.

Companies will just have another cost reason to export jobs overseas.

Fed is already warning of significant expected negative US economic consequences of decreased immigration
Click to expand...

Ok, nothing lost then. Why bother bringing in the engineers from elsewhere and undercutting American employees when you can outsource?

If the job is something that needs to be done locally, local workers should be hired.

Fed didn’t warn of inflation with Covid stimulus. Not exactly a trustworthy institution
 
PainInTheAnes said:
Ok, nothing lost then. Why bother bringing in the engineers from elsewhere and undercutting American employees when you can outsource?

If the job is something that needs to be done locally, local workers should be hired.

Fed didn’t warn of inflation with Covid stimulus. Not exactly a trustworthy institution
Click to expand...
Because...if the price difference is massive, like it would be with the visa fee, then it changes the cost benefit analysis

If Americans want those jobs, they should be better qualified then
 
PainInTheAnes said:
Ok, nothing lost then. Why bother bringing in the engineers from elsewhere and undercutting American employees when you can outsource?

If the job is something that needs to be done locally, local workers should be hired.

Fed didn’t warn of inflation with Covid stimulus. Not exactly a trustworthy institution
Click to expand...
They were more concerned with widespread economic collapse...of which they largely avoided and the US did quit well compared to other countries.

So seems the fed did a great job there
 
UscGhost said:
Because...if the price difference is massive, like it would be with the visa fee, then it changes the cost benefit analysis

If Americans want those jobs, they should be better qualified then
Click to expand...

The price will be lower for American workers for jobs that cannot be outsourced.

If non Americans want those jobs, they should come here, work low skill jobs for awhile, get naturalized and then get those jobs.
 
UscGhost said:
They were more concerned with widespread economic collapse...of which they largely avoided and the US did quit well compared to other countries.

So seems the fed did a great job there
Click to expand...

They didn’t warn us that inflation was coming. Probably should have seen that coming but they denied it as long as they could or didn’t know it would.

Not a trustworthy institution after that blind spot.
 
PainInTheAnes said:
The price will be lower for American workers for jobs that cannot be outsourced.

If non Americans want those jobs, they should come here, work low skill jobs for awhile, get naturalized and then get those jobs.
Click to expand...
Hard to do when Trump is slowing down immigration (both illegal and legal)

But ya, makes alot of sense for an engineer to come here and work for taco bell instead of space x.
 
UscGhost said:
Hard to do when Trump is slowing down immigration (both illegal and legal)

But ya, makes alot of sense for an engineer to come here and work for taco bell instead of space x.
Click to expand...

Space x will pay that fee for a talented foreign person. That’s the point of the policy. If the job can be outsourced they’ll outsource it. If they cannot outsource it they will preferentially hire American workers, unless there’s someone they really want from a foreign country.
 
PainInTheAnes said:
www.reuters.com

Trump to impose $100,000 fee per year for H-1B visas, in blow to tech

The Trump administration said on Friday it would ask companies to pay $100,000 per year for H-1B worker visas, prompting some big tech companies to warn visa holders to stay in the U.S. or quickly return.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com

This is a great idea. Good American jobs for good American college graduates. Prevents companies from undercutting our citizens with h1b hoping to gain citizenship here.

If someone is talented or necessary, the company or organization can eat the cost.

Also should allay physician fears of foreign docs coming without American residencies
Click to expand...
Don’t foreign physicians usually get on a J1 after residency? The Trump administration makes a carve out every chance they get to stick it to doctors.
 
ambiturner said:
Don’t foreign physicians usually get on a J1 after residency? The Trump administration makes a carve out every chance they get to stick it to doctors.
Click to expand...

I think this protects American physicians from docs who didn’t train here getting special dispensation to work here without an American residency program
 
UscGhost said:
Except what P diddy was ILLEGAL

Nflpa Pres didnt commit a crime.

Important distinction
Click to expand...
Knowingly using a business card credit for strippers is illegal. That’s not an appropriate business expense. Same as trump stormy Daniels. He knowingly did it also.

The hospital I worked at just walked out the CFO of all people for using hospital credit card to book hotel for his mistress. She was chief nursing officer. Shades of cold play fiasco. Both married.

The Feds are already snooping around what other misappropriation of funds was used as well at the nflpa

You guys think Trump wasn’t targeted? The prosecutor got after any stupid small criminal illegal tax deduction.
 
PainInTheAnes said:
Space x will pay that fee for a talented foreign person. That’s the point of the policy. If the job can be outsourced they’ll outsource it. If they cannot outsource it they will preferentially hire American workers, unless there’s someone they really want from a foreign country.
Click to expand...
I do find the logic a bit inconsistent.

The GOP railed against minimum wage increases for decades it seems..under the logic that it would drove up labor costs, decrease hiring, cause outsourcing, etc

Now, we want to dramatically increase hiring costs, encourage more outsourcing, while doing nothing for local wages.

If i can't find local qualified labor, the options are either a qualified foreign engineer for 200k per year, a local unqualified person, or i just outsource every possible job that i can.

Meanwhile, that foreign engineer was previously living close by, provided higher quality labor, and he increased US tax revenue via his local economic activity
 
ambiturner said:
Don’t foreign physicians usually get on a J1 after residency? The Trump administration makes a carve out every chance they get to stick it to doctors.
Click to expand...
The shady doc at Tampa tried to steal my buddy anesthesia contract circa 2010 by under cutting the contract and payoff j1 anesthesiologists 150k a year.

Because j1 docs so desperate to stay in USA. 150k in 2010 still better than whatever Indian docs got paid.
 
aneftp said:
Becuase they went after Trump

Notice Alvin bragg (manhattan DA) who prosecuted Trump for having stormy Daniels tax deduction

I don’t hear a peep out of Alvin Bragg trying to go after the national football players president (nfl pa) did the same illegal strippers tax deduction. Yet Alvin Bragg is not going after hjm

I ask this same question to my democratic lawyer prosecutor and they said it’s up to prosecutor discretion …..

You guys don’t get it. They went after Trump for BS stuff. So it’s pay back time.

Alvin Bragg is a hypocrite prosecutor.
Click to expand...
Who is “they”? Does Kimmel work in the Manhattan DA on weekends and conducted the investigation? That’s why Trump had to come after him? You’re seriously arguing that because the President actually committed a crime, he’s justified in illegally attacking anyone who isn’t loyal to him??? Let alone the fact that Trump is openly taking billions in illegal bribes, so spare me the tears that he got a slap on the wrist for a small fraction of the crimes he’s committed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Backing out of a locum assignment
Replies
8
Views
2K
SRYSPAC
S
A
Biden guilty on all counts
2 3 4
Replies
154
Views
7K
DocMcCoy
DocMcCoy
A
Anesthesia out of network, facility and surgeon in network
Replies
24
Views
4K
JStarMD
J
Planktonmd
Are anesthesia residents too stressed out these days?
2 3
Replies
147
Views
8K
arkgal
A
MirrorTodd
Ins and outs of a production based model?
Replies
28
Views
3K
AppTrail
AppTrail
Top