The Frankish Reich

Yep, he's on the Mount Rushmore of political persecutions for sure. Next to Jesus. Just like Barabbas.

Just a clarification: he doesn't necessarily mean your Bible; just a Bible. And you can hold it upside down if you like. Yeah, well, y'all can taste the whip of love not given lightly

So ... where is Melania? Where's Barron? Is his schedule still all jammed up? Every other Trump kid showed up, even the seldom seen Tiffany. Don't you think your spouse would be with you while you await your fate?

Well thank God I was doing something honorable and American when that alert hit my phone. I was at the liquor store.

You just pointed out one of the reasons I hang out here a bit: I do not know any of these MAGA nuts in my real life. I mean, I know plenty of conservatives, plenty of Republicans, plenty of Trump voters. But they're all conservatives/Republicans first. They don't disparage anyone who hasn't kissed the ring of Trump as a RINO or a commie. But right here on PPP is where you'll find those types. So this is where I do my little anthropology.

Shiny, shiny, shiny boots of leather Whiplash girl child in the dark Comes in bells, your servant, don't forsake him Strike, dear mistress, and cure his heart The Ballad of Ron DeSantis, Slave to His Master, Donald John Trump (bootlicking so extreme it should be banned in Florida!)

And I do have some misgivings about that. But people also have to realize: the vast majority of candidates (even for President in these times) haven't: - worked with the publisher of the sleaziest mag in America to plant false stories about his opponents and to kill stories about how he banged a hooker - created false records all over the place to cover it up - and in other matters, preposterously overstated the value of his assets, including the square footage of his own condo

According to Ron DeSantis, no. And that means Trump won't be voting in November.

And I'll raise you an Andrew Johnson He won by 7 last time

And you want to be taken seriously. I mean, do you?

Shockingly, it turns out that insurance companies really like their private profits when things are calm, and socialized risk when hurricanes hit. And they know where to spend their lobbying money.

The leaderboard from the 2006 Tahoe golf tournament, "when Donnie met Stormy." Who is the athlete who confirmed the story? https://americancenturychampionship.com/media-center/event-archive/american-century-championship-2006-results/ My guesses (based on almost nothing): Wally Joyner. Clean-living Mormon former Angels 1B Trent Green. Just seems like a guy who wouldn't enjoy Trump's "locker room talk"

Lots of counts, not all exactly the same (Trump didn't personally sign some of the checks), so not surprising. If it goes undecided through tomorrow, I gotta think Trump will be feeling better.

So who is the unnamed "athlete" here? In a different context, the story mentions Ben Roethlisberger (unlikely to be offended by Trump's antics) and figure skater Scott Hamilton. Somebody is no doubt going through the leader board for that 2006 pro am. BTW, Trump finished 62nd of 80 in the amateur event. And yeah, that's even after he cheated.

The law is weird. I mean, not just the law here, but the law in general. War story: I'm a young lawyer. Writing a brief. Exactly this kind of issue. The applicable law makes no grammatical/logical sense - a party is liable if a shifting responsibility for an environmental cleanup is "a primary reason" for a doing a business deal. I write the brief, arguing that shifting responsibility was, indeed, the primary reason for the deal in question. My supervisor reviews it. Puts a big red pen mark crossing out "the" and a little ^ changing it to "a." I say, "but a primary reason doesn't make sense; there can only be one primary reason." [Look it up: "of first rank or importance." Two or more things cannot be of "first" rank. I was right as a matter of grammar and logic] My boss: don't do that. Don't put your own spin on the statute. It is what it is. Maybe later on we'll want to argue that there were two reasons, each equally important. I learned my lesson. Never paraphrase. Don't think you're smarter than the statute. It's written by regular men and women and sometimes weird language like this is a compromise.

I had to get an extension this year because I didn't get a 1099 on time. And here's the thing: the distribution was already reported to the IRS. A mailing to me confirmed that. So they already have the information, but they need me to reenter it. Idiocy. And Intuit will lobby this latest attempt to another quiet death.

I don't know about any recordings, but Penn Jillette (Penn and Teller) has for a long time suggested that Trump talked this way when he was on the show.

Another way in which government subsidies reward what we used to consider suboptimal behaviors.

That’s all well and good. But you’re arguing with the statute as written and as interpreted by higher NY courts. I’m not sure in the highest NY State court has weighed in on the isssue yet. If not, that layer of appeal would hear your (Trump’s) argument. Or if not, the Supreme Court could agree to hear the case under a “void for vagueness” US constitutional claim.

Good point. I think you've hit on the distinction!

I imagine this upside down flag thing will now be adopted by people on both sides of the aisle, depending on who won the last election. I hate it. Just as I hate "not my President" bumper stickers. Trump in 2016, Biden in 2020: they were/are everyone's President, and people who don't like that should work like hell to achieve a different result next time.

Paul Ryan is also almost completely responsible for pushing through "Trump's" sole legislative achievement: the tax cut.

How exactly is Biden to blame for a 1-day drop?

I do have issues with how the NY laws - as they apply to this case - are written and how they have been interpreted. In fact, as they've been interpreted, how would any intentional false statement NOT be for the purpose of violating some other law or laws? I mean, that's what makes it a felony. Do people just intentionally create false records for the sheer joy of it? I don't think so. They're trying to avoid taxation, or (in this case) public humiliation and even electoral defeat. So isn't every misdemeanor a felony? If so, is that a rational construction of criminal laws relating to false statements? But the law and its interpretation (so far) is clear, and it seems to me that the Judge got the instructions right.

True. Maybe it was another sucker move by me (akin to paying off my own loans early). Maybe I should've let my kids take big loans instead of small ones, then have those loans forgiven, then they could inherit the value, with growth, of what I put in their 529 plans ...