The Frankish Reich

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 ...

Yes, I do. I think we should limit it to murder cases with an aggravating circumstances, and where guilt is unequivocally established. Think the Buffalo Tops shooter, or the Boston Marathon bomber.

I live in a city that seems to have enacted an unofficial policy that driving with expired tags, or even no license plates at all, shouldn't be considered an offense. It's like a game now, counting the number of expired/no tags that I see on my daily commute. Yesterday: I followed a no-plates car on the interstate. Cop pulled up right behind me. I changed lanes so he could clearly see. And nothing happened. Just drove along his merry way. I'm sure there's some "racial bias" theory behind it, but whatever - I am the fool who continues to pay my registration fees and in turn pay the salaries of those cops who aren't pulling over those drivers ...

Since you don't trust the police or the judicial system, this should be right up your alley!

Of course they do. Dig deeper and you'll see how conflicted Americans are on this. Ask "should asylum seekers have the right to a hearing to see if they qualify to stay" and most people will say yes. So that portion of people in the country illegally would be exempt. I'm not arguing with this poll. This strikes me as accurate. What I'm saying is that this is how we got in this situation - at some point, the right to a full hearing conflicts with the desire to deter illegal immigration. Things like "build the wall" or "Illegal immigration benefits us" do nothing to advance a coherent policy agenda. (Insults will be relegated to that other thread)

See what I mean? We have devolved into "I know you are but what am I"

Insult Comic is not in your skill set.

You should really return to your study of the Frankfurt School. Some very dense texts there. But James Lindsay, masseur par excellence, will help you. 280 strokes at a time.