Not to get too OT, but Branca at least seems to have his reasons down pat for his opinions. You may think that they are rubbish takes, but they flow logically.
By contrast, Nick seems to float from an initial take of 'Fuck the State' to somewhere approximating Branca. On the rare occasions he differs, it is for... reasons... It never seems quite solid to me on the legal aspect, anyway. Ig he got it wrong, he could always grandstand on bad government...
The reason both come to similar conclusions is that the system is borked and puts people thro8gh a meat grinder. It needs to change, but it probably will not. I wouls still take Branca's advice and perspective if it gives me a 5% better chance of surviving the gauntlet.
It isn't entirely off topic. This goes to show that Rekieta was never really good at the logic portion despite being a lawyer (He's the pound the table type cause he has neither facts nor law).
Branca's argument is consistently his based off of the the following:
Innocence (provocation) , imminence, proportionality, necessity, avoidance, reasonableness.
What's wrong imho in his bootlicking is the (and most people's) interpretations of the avoidance (Should be no duty to retreat), proportionality (Punches are 100% deadly force), and imminence (Branca's "Your window immediately closes when he lowers the firearm he just shot at you" is bullshit - see Kyle Carruth) prongs. Plus the fact that civilians are held to a higher standard than police, which is bullshit (not to mind I consider the bar for self-defense to be egregiously high).
Nick's legal argument is generally either:
- "The government is incompetent, so therefore we should not trust them do anything" (Anarchy may not be preferable to tyranny)
- "Maximum freedums, don't tell me what to fucking do!" (Except when it comes to himself and degenerates)
Both of them are wrong in that "Jury should apply the law even if it is bad and only in the narrow judge defined scope"! Bullshit, it has been the ancient right of juries to assert all the facts of the case since at least 1649 (John Liburne) and jurors should be privy to lawyers arguing the law (You can tell who's arguing in bad faith). Obviously this doesn't work when you have borderline retards who can't think critically.
Does he really think we're that stupid?
1) He could go through his historical emails and remove those;
2) Most attorneys have assistants who see all correspondence. Nick knows what an NDA is.
1) He would either boomer it and toss it into the trash bin without actually deleting it, or he's too lazy.
2) Not to defend him, but since he's entered the political sphere with Keffals/Election arc (remember his boomer overturn the vote vids? I do), I can 100% see people gayoping by working for him to toss out the information on purpose regardless of the consequences.
Nick has always had ro drive a kid somewhere or do something, so unless he was lying all the way back in 2018, she seems to not really be the domestic type.
So his family is:
Him - An alcoholic degenerate and trust fund kid bread winner
His wife - On pills, does nothing all day
His nanny - ????
Drexel - Waiting to get Nick's kids into BDSM safely
THESE DAMN KIDS - (poor sods)
I don't see anything going wrong with this. Nope, none at all.