5
rando_calrissian 5 points ago +5 / -0

The problem with these places like NYC is that everyone with a pair of balls already left like 20 years ago unless they own property or have some kind of job that only exists in the city.

Think about it. You're some guy living in NYC in any time period in NYC except maybe the Giuliani years- you can go to FL or TX and have low taxes, guns, and no bullshit with a good job. You can own nice property for cheap, own a car have a kid without going bankrupt. Or you can stay in NYC and get taxed to death, deal with constant fucking crime, gun bans, all manner of bullshit and faggotry, hostility to children, car ownership, etc.

NYC is just full of shitty young professionals that leave after a few years when they want to do more than have 5 roommates in a shitty apartment. Nobody is fighting for NYC because the whole city is just a racket to suck money out of people's pockets for a few years until they leave.

If wall street ever leaves NYC, the whole place is done. It will just be a bunch of fags sitting around writing for bankrupt fashion magazines while urban youths mug them 3 times a day.

3
rando_calrissian 3 points ago +3 / -0 (edited)

Lawyer time:

  • UBS is a huge bank from Switzerland that is legit.
  • UBS SECURITIES CO LTD is a CCP slush fund that is 25 percent owned by the real UBS.
  • UBS Securities LLC is a third entity of unknown provenance.
  • We don't even know what jurisdictions these entities are registered in- are these all NY State corporate registrations?

You literally have to track down the registrations for each entity and then figure out who owns them and controls them. It can be quite opaque because you can be like Enron and hide actual ownership behind shells within shells and give them all misleading names.

Know Your Client is basically the program that attempts to burrow through all this shit so that some Iranian guy with sanctions can't pretend to be a legit business to funnel money.

2
rando_calrissian 2 points ago +2 / -0

If he's so bothered by the threat of hanging, has he tried not being a fucking traitor? You were elected to protect the constitution. Find your fucking spine and stop the steal already.

It's sad looking at "lifelong conservative republicans" not realizing that we're loyal to Trump because he fights for us. We're not loyal to these sleazy chamber of commerce republicans because they're trading away the country for 30 pieces of Chinese silver. Same goes double for the democrats.

35
rando_calrissian 35 points ago +35 / -0

Okeefe is a fucking warlord. I'm in awe. I think Zucker shat his pants when he realized what was going on.

7
rando_calrissian 7 points ago +7 / -0 (edited)

The legal profession basically consists of:

  • legal education- wildly profitable, built off student loan debt, etc- left wing as fuck and 99 percent useless. You could shoot nearly all the law professors and close about 95 percent of the schools and nothing of value would be lost.
  • biglaw, biggov- the highly paid guys who work for all the big corporations- generally left wing because it's fashionable and when you're in the cool kids club you do the fashionable things. Biglaw clients are always trying to save a buck so it's very easy to find yourself at the wrong end of a restructuring because some asshole wrote a program that automates 50 state surveys or discovery searches or something.
  • shitlaw- the guys who represent ordinary people- not much money here unless you're one of the lucky few who do good in PI or hit it rich in some obscure field as it's taking off. Like for example, you're a guy who does criminal defense already and then you realize there's some government program that lets you make bank defending average no-money defendants or you're already doing patent litigation or M&A and suddenly the level of works picks up in a huge way. If you aren't already established at least somewhat you'll be like the last vulture who shows up to a picked clean carcass.
  • the inactives- 99 percent of the profession- the sad fucks who went to law school and washed out or never got hired anywhere. Also the sad fucks who got hired somewhere and then washed out because the industry is a meat grinder with about 1 bit of paying work for every 1000 people with a bar license.
16
rando_calrissian 16 points ago +16 / -0

I think it says a lot that not being buried under a mountain of debt is considered a superstar outcome.

It's sad when your average shitbird client has a higher net worth than you because he smoked crack and stabbed a random hooker instead of going to law school.

33
rando_calrissian 33 points ago +35 / -2 (edited)

Anyone who is smart won't become a lawyer. The whole industry is a fucking mess and the job security sucks. I have first hand experience with this and have since moved on from practicing.

For the average person, your ideal path into law is:

  • graduate top 10 undergrad, get 170+ on LSAT, go straight into a top 3 law school
  • get onto some sort of non-shit journal and write a few shitty articles, get a good clerkship, summer at a good firm, get an offer from a good firm
  • since the big firms are all still up-or-out and there hasn't been a path to partner since probably the 80s, your best case scenario is to stay in long enough to pay off your debts before you get booted and have to work as a public defender in bummfuck, idaho.

More likely path into law is:

  • be too old, not diverse enough, not hot enough, etc
  • don't go to an elite enough school
  • don't get good enough grades/good enough law review/etc (law school grading is a crap shoot)
  • don't get a good enough offer (outside of biglaw which is like 200k associate salaries it drops down to mid-low 5 figures for the rest of the profession, assuming you aren't in an eat-what-you-catch scenario, which is very likely)
  • end up doing criminal defense, family law, probate, PI, etc (ie, shitlaw) instead of biglaw
  • never pay off your debts

Realistically if you aren't related to a fortune 500 CEO, a big name politician or a biglaw partner, your chances of enjoying practicing and paying off your student loans are not that great.

edit- btw, I paid off all my debts a while back, I'm just telling it like it be edit2- also, there will be success stories from every graduating class in every school no matter how shitty- the problem is that you aren't going to be that success story any more than the average guy playing basketball is going to get into the NBA let alone become the starting lineup of the 90s Chicago Bulls.

2
rando_calrissian 2 points ago +2 / -0

Fucks sake, someone just link Lin Wood to the research thread on here already. I'm not on twatter or I would do it.

Log is for the right pilot, but he intermingled all of his flying logs, including for clients other than Epstein, which is reflected by the reg numbers of the planes. This particular plane is owned by a billionaire pharma guy who gives loads of money to Wayne State. This John Roberts was dean of the law school when this flight took place.

2
rando_calrissian 2 points ago +2 / -0

Is this the FBI equivalent of putting out a tannerite-filled dog for the ATF?

2
rando_calrissian 2 points ago +2 / -0

Well does that one minute indicate:

  • the time the tabulators ran from beginning to end
  • after all tabulators had finished, the time the results from particular counties were reported from beginning to end

It wouldn't surprise me if all the votes for Biden came from one area in Seattle and the rest of the state went 80 percent for Trump. Even before electronic voting/cheating was a thing, that was how most democratic states went. Florida is the same way only the democrats vote first instead of last. Makes it slightly harder to cheat.

1
rando_calrissian 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah it does certainly look like that. If that's the case, it's kinda of scary. To me it just looks like common sense that you can't derive exact vote totals from that data- you're always going to end up with fractions left over unless you go out to like 20 decimal places and even then you're going to need to round away the leftovers.

But that sort of common sense comes from years of doing math in computer programs and dealing with the aftermath of idiots doing math incorrectly in computer programs. I guess if programmer can fuck up this sort of stuff, a lawyer definitely can't.

I'm guessing that the reason no one warned her is the math guys are all off programming instead of practicing law (which makes a ton of sense from a financial perspective).

1
rando_calrissian 1 point ago +1 / -0

If Powell is really basing a lawsuit off exact vote totals derived from the NY Times feed (ie, take 3-4 significant digits percentile (which is obviously rounded) and work backwards from vote totals), she's going to get in big trouble.

I've said before that the average lawyer/judge is retarded when it comes to math and comptuers, but I still keep getting surprised.

I need to download her complaint and go through it (I have a law/computer/math background) but I've been too busy with family shit lately (just had a kid).

1
rando_calrissian 1 point ago +1 / -0

But we are talking about regions that were all running dominion software- so all the parts of the dubious feed would be dominion feed- passed through edison, but no one has suggested edison was doing anything more than collecting feeds and passing them on to the media.

1
rando_calrissian 1 point ago +1 / -0

As I said in the other thread, the problem is actually the courts, not section 230. Congress needs to pass a new law that wipes the slate clean and puts in new rules NOT WRITTEN BY GOOGLE.

--quote--- The problem isn't actually what's in the 230 statute, it's what the courts have done with it over the past 20+ years.

230 started off doing the basically uncontroversial bit of saying that:

if you are a guy who just passes information (like a newspaper distributor) you aren't responsible for the bad things that people use your service to say
if you are producing content, you are liable for the content

The problem is that the courts have turned that into "nobody is liable for anything except directly producing content" which leaves a huge gray area for censorship and promotion of other people's content. So they can make one candidate's actual scandals disappear while they can make sure everyone sees a false rumor about another candidate.

Getting rid of 230 won't actually fix the problem which is the fucking courts acting like a shield for google and facebook.

1
rando_calrissian 1 point ago +2 / -1

The problem isn't actually what's in the 230 statute, it's what the courts have done with it over the past 20+ years.

230 started off doing the basically uncontroversial bit of saying that:

  • if you are a guy who just passes information (like a newspaper distributor) you aren't responsible for the bad things that people use your service to say
  • if you are producing content, you are liable for the content

The problem is that the courts have turned that into "nobody is liable for anything except directly producing content" which leaves a huge gray area for censorship and promotion of other people's content. So they can make one candidate's actual scandals disappear while they can make sure everyone sees a false rumor about another candidate.

Getting rid of 230 won't actually fix the problem which is the fucking courts acting like a shield for google and facebook.

3
rando_calrissian 3 points ago +3 / -0

All the bushes were terrible for nominations. Besides Thomas, it's just been a complete shitshow.

Souter (far left) Thomas (the most based justice in a century) Roberts (sneaky/center left) Harriet Fucking Miers (retarded) Alito when Miers crashed and burned (based)

5
rando_calrissian 5 points ago +5 / -0

I wish I had spent like 6 months paychecks on ammo back in 2004.

view more: Next ›