chuck schick

Seems like our law enforcement is based almost entirely on the fear of consequences of being caught... Rather than actually being stopped before/during the crime. So here we are with a seemingly endless stream of people who are either planning on dying during commission of the mass murders, or apparently don't really care what happens to themselves. I believe the only answer is to find SOME consequence that stops people from committing these crimes. This could lead us to some pretty dark places.....but is that where we are headed?

That would definitely make the most sense, and it might play out exactly that way. I'm just thinking that a.) they have to come up with a surprising/shocking resolution to this since we will have all summer to lead up to it, and b.) we know that the future Jimmy/Saul is still legally practicing law. So if Chuck follows through and this gets Jimmy disbarred, I would doubt he'd ever be able to turn around and practice again in the same town and in such a short time span. Even with a name change.

Here's my complete guess on what happens next: Rather than going to the authorities with his recording, Chuck instead plays it for Jimmy. He will try to once again blackmail Jimmy into leaving the profession or maybe even moving far away. In true Breaking Bad form, Jimmy will counter-move and whatever he does will end up killing Chuck. Of course Kim will unfortunately get caught up in the mess and will probably die too.

You guys have changed my opinion of Chuck a little. He is probably not "out to get" Jimmy, but is just more intent on protecting himself from Jimmy's antics. However....I don't think he's any more righteous than Jimmy; he just uses means that are technically legal to get what he wants. (For example, using Howard to be the bad guy in keeping Jimmy out of the firm). That's Chuck's comfort zone, and the method that has allowed him to get what he wants and still feel high-and-mighty about it. Jimmy is obviously more liberal with how he gets things done.

Ha...I never knew that Tio means uncle until just now (I took French in school). Always learning something new!

I think he's incapable of leaving well enough alone. He gets all that money (which was the whole point, originally) and still feels unsatisfied. He even stoops to buying a round at the bar, maybe trying to get whatever little kick he can get. But it turns out his real hot button is sticking it to guys like Tio, which he is obviously not done doing yet.

Not a bad idea. Strange that I don't think that move has been made since Reagan chose Bush as a running mate. Those 2 went at it pretty hard during primaries, but were able make it work.

I had the same theory with Enid and the Saviors' road blocks. The irritating thing about this show is they will (probably) never tell us how that whole operation got organized. Pulling off something so elaborate seems like there's a good back-story that should be told.

I'm adding this to my list-- just below some of the celebrity plastic surgery-- of things my future grand kids will say "You used to do it THAT way?!"

I would re-read the facts of the first Gulf war before referring to Bush 1 as murderous and brutal.

The same logic could be applied to those who want to take actions to address human activities that may be causing global warming. More government agencies and regulations, more subsidies and crooked deals with "green" companies. Follow the money. Not saying there's no issue here, but I'm not going to rip someone for being skeptical about what the causes and possible solutions are.

Just for arguments's sake, is what Trump said any "worse" than Obama's "No challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change" quote? I guess you're choosing between a simpleton and one who is delusional?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/14/concealed-weapon-owner-shoots-hatchet-wielding-attacker-in-wash-7-eleven/ There's at least one convenience store owner who would disagree with your logic. As would the police responding to the scene I'm sure.

Classic! Or from the Simpsons:http://youtu.be/4v7XXSt9XRM

Short term, you're probably right. But there's a chance that we may look back at this election favorably. For the first time I can recall (maybe Perrot in '92?) it's opened the door to non-establishment candidates having a viable chance of getting nominated and elected. Maybe we will see a 3rd party at some point? At the very least it seems like there will be rewards for those willing to stick their necks out a little.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/ $210 K a pop for 200+ Speaking engagements for Bill and Hillary...... A totally reasonable amount to pay for a little "pep talk" for the troops. I'm feeling REAL good about big changes to corporate policy over the next 4-8 years. She wouldn't be bad-mouthing corporations for populist effect, and then turn around and taking their money and deals would she? Naaaah

You're right, but I do think there's more at work here. There's an emotional element that is very hard to measure. Right now the Republican Party is trying to figure this whole thing out. But I think it's going to be extremely interesting when it boils down to Trump and Clinton. Of course Trump won't get the hard-core Dems or anybody that he's irreparably pissed off; but that other 20% of voters who can go either way? Who knows. I can see a scenario where people gravitate toward him. And it doesn't really have much to do with policy -- hell, I would say just as many guys have gotten elected thanks to their catchy slogans rather than with policy-- but he does hit the right chords just enough to pull people in. He gives the vibe that the job isn't too big for him...which is kind of amazing when you think about how ridiculous it must be to actually do that job! It should be a lot of fun watching this all go down.

Serious question: why? What about Trump makes you think he'll be a good president? (I'm not trying to be argumentative, I really want to know; others on the board have asked the other Trump supporter (bobis?) and he wouldn't give us anything to go on) I'm not quite there yet (I voted for Cruz yesterday), but I am inching toward Trump little-by-little. The best way to explain it is to compare it to a scene from Better Call Saul the other night (***spoiler alert***). Im talking about when Jimmy got onto the tour bus and explained why he was there, what it meant to the senior citizens, and how he could help. Jimmy seemed very comfortable in his own skin, and he was just talking WITH those on the bus--- not scripted, not panicky or reactionary. It gave the senior citizens a feeling of "Oh, well this guy knows how to handle this, so why not go along with him?" Listening to Trump's presser last night, I admit I got some of those same feelings. After the disappointment in W for dragging us into the war, the terrible duo of McCain/Palin, and the luke warm Mitt Romney, it's hard not to get a little depressed as a conservative. Now along comes this guy who can really boil down big, complicated issues with simple solutions. And if the first try doesn't work, well he will just move on to the next plan until it does. ( I of course know that some (or more) of the specifics he talks about are just talk....but weve all been conditioned by politicians to accept that by now.) In summary I suppose there's a little "What the hell... Let's give this a try" to what I'm saying; but I do also get a feeling of optimism and ingenuity from Trump that generally lacks in the other options.

I agree that it's bogus and is a strategic move only, but it's equally head-scratching to me that a person of voting age doesn't have SOME type of valid ID. It's all very weird.

Not as a dispute of your post, but my 2 cents added to it: Let's not leave the Dems off the hook on this topic... The gerrymandering is rigged by that side as well (we just had that happen in SE Virginia). http://www.dailypress.com/news/politics/dp-nws-redistricting-20160107-story.html And as far as election fraud issues, the ONLY reason the Dems are so up-in-arms about that topic is because they know they are getting the vast majority of those peoples' votes. If they were likely voting R, you wouldn't hear a peep. It's all politics.

You're right! By the time you get to the word "female", you've kind of forgotten that you said "woman" half a sentence ago.

I'm more annoyed by the cackling laughter from someone in the back of the room.... Maybe the bar opened early today.

. No, not at that point yet! Just thinking through scenarios

Really good points. Applied to TrueBlue's earlier comment about what a Trump Presidency (vs his candidacy) might look like, and I'm sort of rethinking things a little.

I don't think we ever need to worry about the federal government not being involved ENOUGH on most things. What I'm saying is let's not get it involved in EVERYTHING. It's pretty clear the framers set things up that way for a reason. And you make it sound like state and local governments are being run by 12 yr old boys or something.... I have a little more faith in people to figure things out themselves and make things right for its citizens over time. From "The Costitutional Role of the Federal Government" by Z. Mazurak: James Madison, the principal original author of that document’s original text who also wrote the first 10 Amendments, wrote in the Federalist Papers that “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” – Federalist Paper #45, paragraph #9.