Yeah, npr had a story about choosing to play the audio of the journalists being shot on live tv. I totally did not agree with their assessment that it helped the story, and was appropriately placed into context. About the only place I can see these things being ok is online behind links. We have the technology.
Maybe I'm being sensitive. I personally don't mind these sorts of photos/videos/sounds, and actually do look for them when they are mentioned. But ghoulish is the right word for just putting them out front and center.
If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing
Yeah, npr had a story about choosing to play the audio of the journalists being shot on live tv. I totally did not agree with their assessment that it helped the story, and was appropriately placed into context. About the only place I can see these things being ok is online behind links. We have the technology.
Maybe I'm being sensitive. I personally don't mind these sorts of photos/videos/sounds, and actually do look for them when they are mentioned. But ghoulish is the right word for just putting them out front and center.
I was just listening to NPR on the way in to work and they interviewed one of the people who first started sharing the image around and he said people 'needed to see it' and that they shouldn't get to opt out of doing so
I understand the sentiment but no dude, eff off. You don't get to dictate what other people 'must' see, and neither does the WSJ
Yeah, npr had a story about choosing to play the audio of the journalists being shot on live tv. I totally did not agree with their assessment that it helped the story, and was appropriately placed into context. About the only place I can see these things being ok is online behind links. We have the technology.
Maybe I'm being sensitive. I personally don't mind these sorts of photos/videos/sounds, and actually do look for them when they are mentioned. But ghoulish is the right word for just putting them out front and center.
I was just listening to NPR on the way in to work and they interviewed one of the people who first started sharing the image around and he said people 'needed to see it' and that they shouldn't get to opt out of doing so
I understand the sentiment but no dude, eff off. You don't get to dictate what other people 'must' see, and neither does the WSJ
Some people literally cannot handle things like that. If your image is giving people nervous breakdowns and potentially scarring kids who are too young to properly process what they're seeing, then you are undoing any social "good" you may have accomplished.
Tax avoidance is not generally a cause of concern to the US (and the UK) governments because the kind of people who employ methods of tax avoidance are the kind of people who make up those governments
It's why you see far more political will to hammer benefit fraudsters than tax avoidance, even though benefit fraudsters cost a fraction of a fraction of the tax revenue lost through avoidance.
Major US corporations have been for years trying to get a one-time repatriation tax holiday. It happened once, and even with the proviso that the funds would go to employees (i.e., they'd hire people) instead of the shareholders it didn't work. Since then Congress has pretty consistently said "nope". I occasionally see news of a compromise floated but so far nothing has gone anywhere.
curiously, with the budget deficit being lower than forecasted, if they did a holiday and enough megabucks companies took advantage, we could actually have a budget surplus for one year
and then Obama would get to declare that both he and Clinton walked off into the sunset with surpluses
he could even get that honor guard to play the Guile theme instead of Hail to the Chief as he helicoptered off of the white house lawn one last time for effect
I'd actually be okay with a corporate tax holiday if it came right before the implementation of closing the ridiculous loopholes and the implementation of laws that would make corporate tax havens a thing of the past.
Really just to clean the slate, a kind of 'I'm going to turn around, and if that money is magically there in ten seconds, I promise I won't be mad and we'll just forget the whole thing ever happened'
like i think butters said, corporate tax dodging is a big deal, but the biggest deal in my opinion is really the tax cuts that you get from capital investment on an individual level. I would much rather see that change than corporate stuff.
+2
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
I agree with Langly agreeing with me!
Also, isn't the biggest problem with corporate tax dodging firms re-incorporating in other countries with lower tax rates like Ireland? Or at least is that not a more easily addressed issue?
Countries that were previously used for that have kind of learned their lesson, though. Since 2014, companies can't incorporate in Ireland without being a tax resident there, and companies that were already incorporated in ireland to avoid taxes have until 2020 to find a new arrangement, or else they'll be taxed as well.
EDIT: So yeah, it's fixable, and easier to fix than closing the personal tax loopholes.
Apple has a company in Ireland. It's been in Ireland for like 35 years. So it significantly predates their current success.
All (or at least most) of the money that Apple makes oversees goes to the Irish corporate entity, where taxes on importing money are extremely low (perhaps non-existent?)
So they'll pay taxes in whatever country their Apple store is in, which again, are very low in a lot of places relative to the US, then they'll bring the leftovers to Ireland for free or nearly free, and that money will stay there to be recycled into expenses and stuff oversees. So payments to manufacturers, etc. The idea that is just sits there and does nothing waiting to be imported back to the US isn't terribly realistic. They have all kinds of oversees concerns to finance, and that's how they do it.
You can't blame them for not wanting to bring it here.
So to be clear, they'd not taking your $200 iPod purchase and sending that money to Ireland to avoid taxes. They can't. They're doing this stuff internationally, where international trade laws tend to be looser, because they have to be because most countries are tiny and dependent on trade to just exist.
Jasconius on
+2
Options
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered Userregular
edited September 2015
This entire conversation just reminds me of all the Swiss banker stuff in Wolf of Wall Street.
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
edited September 2015
Conor Lynch at Salon says what I have cautiously been thinking for weeks: apart from his odious rhetoric on immigrants, Trump is the least terrifying GOP candidate based on the expressed positions and history of him and his competitors.
Of course, me and Conor are very White persons who might not be fully capable of appreciating how dangerous his populism or how capable he might be of swaying the electorate.
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
But the column does factor in the rhetoric and positions of the others outside of the immigration issues, where the others are gravitating towards him as we speak anyway.
In other Trump-news, he's going to sign the loyalty pledge before the second debate, meaning the third-party speculation is over (unless the establishment slights him or selects Bush. Then I think he will go full renegade on everyone).
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
Also, isn't the biggest problem with corporate tax dodging firms re-incorporating in other countries with lower tax rates like Ireland? Or at least is that not a more easily addressed issue?
I would suggest that the biggest issue in the corporate code (ignoring cap gains) is that it is stuffed full of exemptions. Virtually your entire expense roll is exempted from calculations of revenue. Smart companies, i.e., companies that can afford to hire a ton of attorneys, can evade most or all of their tax burden in what amounts to a shell game. Several notable firms have had bumper years in which they had a net negative tax burden due to government subsidies.
Meanwhile, for small and medium size firms without large bankrolls, the cost of playing that game is higher than their tax burden, so they just pay. The cost of playing the subsidy game is also too large, so they just go without.
So I'm proposing what so many Republicans have proposed over the years and then never seem to actually bother with once they're elected: reduce the corporate income rate to whatever nominal % of revenue is necessary to pay for eliminating every single exemption on the books.
But the column does factor in the rhetoric and positions of the others outside of the immigration issues, where the others are gravitating towards him as we speak anyway.
In other Trump-news, he's going to sign the loyalty pledge before the second debate, meaning the third-party speculation is over (unless the establishment slights him or selects Bush. Then I think he will go full renegade on everyone).
the phrase "contracts aren't worth the paper they're printed on" comes to mind.
Well yes typically when you remove someone's awful rhetoric they don't sound awful
That's not the point of the article. The article's subheading is basically "okay, ALL of the GOP candidates have the same awful immigration policy, so factoring that out, Trump is the least bad"
they're not saying he doesn't sound awful, just that his normalized awful is actually the lowest.
Conor Lynch at Salon says what I have cautiously been thinking for weeks: apart from his odious rhetoric on immigrants, Trump is the least terrifying GOP candidate based on the expressed positions and history of him and his competitors.
Of course, me and Conor are very White persons who might not be fully capable of appreciating how dangerous his populism or how capable he might be of swaying the electorate.
Donald Trump says a lot of fucking things, and just by sheer volume some of them are going to drift towards coherent human thoughts. Donald Trump is ten thousand monkeys at ten thousand typewriters, and there's not much value in trying to apply rational analysis to the eruptions of his primary noise hole.
Realizing lately that I don't really trust or respect basically any of the moderators here. So, good luck with life, friends! Hit me up on Twitter @DesertLeviathan
On the one hand, the article says that the rest of the republican field has kind of been veering towards Trumps rhetoric anyway, but I put the blame for that squarely at Trumps feet. We wouldn't be hearing about scanning immigrants like FedEx packages if Trump never got the ball rolling.
I also tend to think his financial policies (or musings, since he hasn't actually said anything about actual policy) is a bunch of hot air. "Simple tax code, middle class" is the B roll response for presidential economic ranting, and completely lacks any kind of substance or reason to pay attention without any other kind of context, imo. Romney said the same things, even after that Mother Jones video.
But the column does factor in the rhetoric and positions of the others outside of the immigration issues, where the others are gravitating towards him as we speak anyway.
In other Trump-news, he's going to sign the loyalty pledge before the second debate, meaning the third-party speculation is over (unless the establishment slights him or selects Bush. Then I think he will go full renegade on everyone).
the phrase "contracts aren't worth the paper they're printed on" comes to mind.
Hell, it's not even a contract. It's a "loyalty pledge," whatever that is.
A repatriation tax holiday has been repeatedly estimated to actually cost the government money over the long term. (For a number of reasons, but mostly because 1. the companies that are doing the right thing and routinely bringing some of their overseas profits back home use the tax holiday to front-load as much repatriation as possible into that year and 2. the previous 2004 holiday appeared to cause companies to store even more profits overseas in anticipation of a future tax holiday.) The last time Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation took a pass at the numbers in 2014, I think their estimates were that we'd see higher tax revenues for 2 years (~$10B/yr) but it would cost us ~$100B over a decade.
Trump strikes me as the sort who would just save-scum every pickpocket attempt though.
No, he's the type who would totally fail and quit the game in anger, and then tell everybody that it was totally easy and you're a scrub for not beating it as easily as he did
A local judge contends the U.S. Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage has derailed Tennessee's ability to determine what constitutes divorce — leaving one Signal Mountain couple married against their will.
Hamilton County Chancellor Jeffrey Atherton denied the divorce petition last week after hearing from seven witnesses and going through 77 exhibits. Among several reasons he cited in rejecting the couple's divorce, one was the Supreme Court's June ruling.
Atherton said the Supreme Court must clarify "when a marriage is no longer a marriage." Otherwise, he contended, state courts are impaired from addressing marriage and divorce litigation altogether.
"The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces," Atherton wrote.
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
edited September 2015
Monmouth, nationally, but only 366 registered voters so the MoE is 5 %:
Donald "Trump Trump Trump" Trump 30%
Ben "Keeping Trump from reaching fifty" Carson 18%
Jeb "Mitt sans the vim" Bush and Ted "Perma-scowl" Cruz 8%
Marco "Maybe he can win Florida" Rubio 5%
Carly "Business savvy" Fiorina and Mike "overturn posse comitatus" Huckabee 4%
Scott "Not so hott" Walker 3%
Christie/Kasich/Bitcoin 2%
It's an awful situation that many people are happy to ignore. To an extent I can agree with an attempt to expose people to that, like it or not. It's terrible, but it's also something people need to know about.
At the same time, I don't have children. Maybe I don't appreciate the impact.
I saw it this morning on Facebook and I almost cried. A few minutes later my almost three year old son fussed, I went into his room to tuck him back in, gave him a kiss and a hug, left his room and cried for about ten minutes.
A local judge contends the U.S. Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage has derailed Tennessee's ability to determine what constitutes divorce — leaving one Signal Mountain couple married against their will.
Hamilton County Chancellor Jeffrey Atherton denied the divorce petition last week after hearing from seven witnesses and going through 77 exhibits. Among several reasons he cited in rejecting the couple's divorce, one was the Supreme Court's June ruling.
Atherton said the Supreme Court must clarify "when a marriage is no longer a marriage." Otherwise, he contended, state courts are impaired from addressing marriage and divorce litigation altogether.
"The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces," Atherton wrote.
A local judge contends the U.S. Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage has derailed Tennessee's ability to determine what constitutes divorce — leaving one Signal Mountain couple married against their will.
Hamilton County Chancellor Jeffrey Atherton denied the divorce petition last week after hearing from seven witnesses and going through 77 exhibits. Among several reasons he cited in rejecting the couple's divorce, one was the Supreme Court's June ruling.
Atherton said the Supreme Court must clarify "when a marriage is no longer a marriage." Otherwise, he contended, state courts are impaired from addressing marriage and divorce litigation altogether.
"The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces," Atherton wrote.
A local judge contends the U.S. Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage has derailed Tennessee's ability to determine what constitutes divorce — leaving one Signal Mountain couple married against their will.
Hamilton County Chancellor Jeffrey Atherton denied the divorce petition last week after hearing from seven witnesses and going through 77 exhibits. Among several reasons he cited in rejecting the couple's divorce, one was the Supreme Court's June ruling.
Atherton said the Supreme Court must clarify "when a marriage is no longer a marriage." Otherwise, he contended, state courts are impaired from addressing marriage and divorce litigation altogether.
"The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces," Atherton wrote.
Is this the judiciary equivalent of that guy who really wanted to play some sort of gamebreaking homebrew in DnD being told that the rules don't allow him to use the build he wants and just being a big pissbaby about it? "Well I guess if the RULES don't even allow for me to be a half-fey/half-dragon which I totally justified, then I guess hybrid characters just aren't allowed!"
+17
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
edited September 2015
PPP head-to-heads!
Carson earns a tie with Clinton at 44%, leads Bernie Sanders 42/36. Carson is the only candidate with a positive favorability rating- 41% positive, 30% negative. He earns a tie with Clinton on the basis of a 43/35 advantage with independents.
The other candidates who come really close to Clinton are Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina, who are each down by just 2. Fiorina trails Clinton 45/43, and is down 39/38 to Sanders. Trump is down just 2 points as well at 46/44, and he leads Sanders 43/42. It used to be that nominating Trump looked like it would be an unmitigated disaster for the GOP but as he's gotten stronger in Republican polls, he's also gotten stronger in general election polling and is now doing better against Clinton than the perceived 'electable' candidate trio of Bush, Rubio, and Walker.
Carson and Fiorina would be lunchmeat in debates and oppo targeting. Nice to see Trump faring better in head-to-heads since that will help him in the primary - no matter what the match-ups say, Latinos would go for the democrat at Black voter levels if he was the nominee.
Carson earns a tie with Clinton at 44%, leads Bernie Sanders 42/36. Carson is the only candidate with a positive favorability rating- 41% positive, 30% negative. He earns a tie with Clinton on the basis of a 43/35 advantage with independents.
The other candidates who come really close to Clinton are Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina, who are each down by just 2. Fiorina trails Clinton 45/43, and is down 39/38 to Sanders. Trump is down just 2 points as well at 46/44, and he leads Sanders 43/42. It used to be that nominating Trump looked like it would be an unmitigated disaster for the GOP but as he's gotten stronger in Republican polls, he's also gotten stronger in general election polling and is now doing better against Clinton than the perceived 'electable' candidate trio of Bush, Rubio, and Walker.
Carson and Fiorina would be lunchmeat in debates and oppo targeting. Nice to see Trump faring better in head-to-heads since that will help him in the primary - no matter what the match-ups say, Latinos would go for the democrat at Black voter levels if he was the nominee.
This only makes sense right now because the entire media is hyperventilating about the Republican primary, but barely mention anything about the Democratic.
Carson earns a tie with Clinton at 44%, leads Bernie Sanders 42/36. Carson is the only candidate with a positive favorability rating- 41% positive, 30% negative. He earns a tie with Clinton on the basis of a 43/35 advantage with independents.
The other candidates who come really close to Clinton are Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina, who are each down by just 2. Fiorina trails Clinton 45/43, and is down 39/38 to Sanders. Trump is down just 2 points as well at 46/44, and he leads Sanders 43/42. It used to be that nominating Trump looked like it would be an unmitigated disaster for the GOP but as he's gotten stronger in Republican polls, he's also gotten stronger in general election polling and is now doing better against Clinton than the perceived 'electable' candidate trio of Bush, Rubio, and Walker.
Carson and Fiorina would be lunchmeat in debates and oppo targeting. Nice to see Trump faring better in head-to-heads since that will help him in the primary - no matter what the match-ups say, Latinos would go for the democrat at Black voter levels if he was the nominee.
This only makes sense right now because the entire media is hyperventilating about the Republican primary, but barely mention anything about the Democratic.
Also because no one besides GOP primary voters in the craziest states actually know anything about Ben "prison rape makes homosexuality happen" Carson. I can't imagine else in that PPP polling knew anything else about Carson than "Oh, an avuncular and smiling black fellow, just like Obama!".
A local judge contends the U.S. Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage has derailed Tennessee's ability to determine what constitutes divorce — leaving one Signal Mountain couple married against their will.
Hamilton County Chancellor Jeffrey Atherton denied the divorce petition last week after hearing from seven witnesses and going through 77 exhibits. Among several reasons he cited in rejecting the couple's divorce, one was the Supreme Court's June ruling.
Atherton said the Supreme Court must clarify "when a marriage is no longer a marriage." Otherwise, he contended, state courts are impaired from addressing marriage and divorce litigation altogether.
"The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces," Atherton wrote.
Posts
Maybe I'm being sensitive. I personally don't mind these sorts of photos/videos/sounds, and actually do look for them when they are mentioned. But ghoulish is the right word for just putting them out front and center.
I was just listening to NPR on the way in to work and they interviewed one of the people who first started sharing the image around and he said people 'needed to see it' and that they shouldn't get to opt out of doing so
I understand the sentiment but no dude, eff off. You don't get to dictate what other people 'must' see, and neither does the WSJ
Some people literally cannot handle things like that. If your image is giving people nervous breakdowns and potentially scarring kids who are too young to properly process what they're seeing, then you are undoing any social "good" you may have accomplished.
curiously, with the budget deficit being lower than forecasted, if they did a holiday and enough megabucks companies took advantage, we could actually have a budget surplus for one year
and then Obama would get to declare that both he and Clinton walked off into the sunset with surpluses
he could even get that honor guard to play the Guile theme instead of Hail to the Chief as he helicoptered off of the white house lawn one last time for effect
Really just to clean the slate, a kind of 'I'm going to turn around, and if that money is magically there in ten seconds, I promise I won't be mad and we'll just forget the whole thing ever happened'
Also, isn't the biggest problem with corporate tax dodging firms re-incorporating in other countries with lower tax rates like Ireland? Or at least is that not a more easily addressed issue?
EDIT: So yeah, it's fixable, and easier to fix than closing the personal tax loopholes.
Apple has a company in Ireland. It's been in Ireland for like 35 years. So it significantly predates their current success.
All (or at least most) of the money that Apple makes oversees goes to the Irish corporate entity, where taxes on importing money are extremely low (perhaps non-existent?)
So they'll pay taxes in whatever country their Apple store is in, which again, are very low in a lot of places relative to the US, then they'll bring the leftovers to Ireland for free or nearly free, and that money will stay there to be recycled into expenses and stuff oversees. So payments to manufacturers, etc. The idea that is just sits there and does nothing waiting to be imported back to the US isn't terribly realistic. They have all kinds of oversees concerns to finance, and that's how they do it.
You can't blame them for not wanting to bring it here.
So to be clear, they'd not taking your $200 iPod purchase and sending that money to Ireland to avoid taxes. They can't. They're doing this stuff internationally, where international trade laws tend to be looser, because they have to be because most countries are tiny and dependent on trade to just exist.
Of course, me and Conor are very White persons who might not be fully capable of appreciating how dangerous his populism or how capable he might be of swaying the electorate.
In other Trump-news, he's going to sign the loyalty pledge before the second debate, meaning the third-party speculation is over (unless the establishment slights him or selects Bush. Then I think he will go full renegade on everyone).
I would suggest that the biggest issue in the corporate code (ignoring cap gains) is that it is stuffed full of exemptions. Virtually your entire expense roll is exempted from calculations of revenue. Smart companies, i.e., companies that can afford to hire a ton of attorneys, can evade most or all of their tax burden in what amounts to a shell game. Several notable firms have had bumper years in which they had a net negative tax burden due to government subsidies.
Meanwhile, for small and medium size firms without large bankrolls, the cost of playing that game is higher than their tax burden, so they just pay. The cost of playing the subsidy game is also too large, so they just go without.
So I'm proposing what so many Republicans have proposed over the years and then never seem to actually bother with once they're elected: reduce the corporate income rate to whatever nominal % of revenue is necessary to pay for eliminating every single exemption on the books.
the phrase "contracts aren't worth the paper they're printed on" comes to mind.
That's not the point of the article. The article's subheading is basically "okay, ALL of the GOP candidates have the same awful immigration policy, so factoring that out, Trump is the least bad"
they're not saying he doesn't sound awful, just that his normalized awful is actually the lowest.
Donald Trump says a lot of fucking things, and just by sheer volume some of them are going to drift towards coherent human thoughts. Donald Trump is ten thousand monkeys at ten thousand typewriters, and there's not much value in trying to apply rational analysis to the eruptions of his primary noise hole.
I also tend to think his financial policies (or musings, since he hasn't actually said anything about actual policy) is a bunch of hot air. "Simple tax code, middle class" is the B roll response for presidential economic ranting, and completely lacks any kind of substance or reason to pay attention without any other kind of context, imo. Romney said the same things, even after that Mother Jones video.
Hell, it's not even a contract. It's a "loyalty pledge," whatever that is.
Just say no to repatriation tax holidays.
No, he's the type who would totally fail and quit the game in anger, and then tell everybody that it was totally easy and you're a scrub for not beating it as easily as he did
holy fuck I think my brain just exploded
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Donald "Trump Trump Trump" Trump 30%
Ben "Keeping Trump from reaching fifty" Carson 18%
Jeb "Mitt sans the vim" Bush and Ted "Perma-scowl" Cruz 8%
Marco "Maybe he can win Florida" Rubio 5%
Carly "Business savvy" Fiorina and Mike "overturn posse comitatus" Huckabee 4%
Scott "Not so hott" Walker 3%
Christie/Kasich/Bitcoin 2%
I saw it this morning on Facebook and I almost cried. A few minutes later my almost three year old son fussed, I went into his room to tuck him back in, gave him a kiss and a hug, left his room and cried for about ten minutes.
hahahaha holy shit
What a cockknuckle.
Is this the judiciary equivalent of that guy who really wanted to play some sort of gamebreaking homebrew in DnD being told that the rules don't allow him to use the build he wants and just being a big pissbaby about it? "Well I guess if the RULES don't even allow for me to be a half-fey/half-dragon which I totally justified, then I guess hybrid characters just aren't allowed!"
Carson earns a tie with Clinton at 44%, leads Bernie Sanders 42/36. Carson is the only candidate with a positive favorability rating- 41% positive, 30% negative. He earns a tie with Clinton on the basis of a 43/35 advantage with independents.
Carson and Fiorina would be lunchmeat in debates and oppo targeting. Nice to see Trump faring better in head-to-heads since that will help him in the primary - no matter what the match-ups say, Latinos would go for the democrat at Black voter levels if he was the nominee.
This only makes sense right now because the entire media is hyperventilating about the Republican primary, but barely mention anything about the Democratic.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Also because no one besides GOP primary voters in the craziest states actually know anything about Ben "prison rape makes homosexuality happen" Carson. I can't imagine else in that PPP polling knew anything else about Carson than "Oh, an avuncular and smiling black fellow, just like Obama!".
Nobody could make the South Park argument that the choices are the same in the end, that's for sure
I'm gonna go ahead and guess this guy is one of those judges who has to run for re-election.
Edit: Yep! And he ran as a Republican, because partisan elections for judges totally make sense.
Ideologically I feel like this would be the most distinct matchup.
but the judges run on political party platforms
holy shit