The Frankish Reich

People are kind of misinterpreting this. If you look at the map, the truly "higher income" areas of Manhattan - the Upper East and Upper Westsides - went for Cuomo. "Middle income" as applied to NYers means struggling to get by in a preposterously expensive city.

My limited experience with Finns agrees. Although my somewhat greater experience with Swedes agrees too!

New Yorkers are an annoying breed. They seem to believe that they cannot live anywhere else even though they constantly complain about the quality of life in New York. They should be able to afford to buy a nice rowhouse in Brooklyn or afford a relatively spacious apartment in Manhattan while working in poorly paid creative fields like "design" or something related to the arts and theater. And so they vote for anyone who sells them the pipe dream that NYC can become, at once, nicer and more affordable for them to pursue the creative lives they choose. And so NYC will become, at once, less nice and less affordable and they will move somewhere else.

Did you read it? What was wrong in it? it certainly explains more than anything else I’ve read since it is based on actual reporting - knocking on doors, talking to people, looking up public records, etc.

Hint: stare at it from a distance of 8 inches for 2 minutes and tell me who jumps out at you.

I still haven't gotten over my "no tax on social security" turning into "somewhat higher standard deduction provided that you are 65 and make less than $75,000."

True. But I'll try. If only to prove your point ...

Cross-posted from another thread: Not optimistic but i'll try.

I'm gonna try something here. You know how Reddit does an Ask Me Anything (AMA)? I'll start one on immigration and court procedure. I pretend to have expertise on a lot of things, but I really do know this field. Do you think we can keep it objective and not insulting? I'll try to note what is my opinion vs. what is the established law.

⬆️ I won't try to invade his safe space on that other site. Perhaps he shouldn't invade this open space. Oh, yeah, a mere 5 years around here. I'm a newbie. (translation: I have a life) I agree with this part. People should learn how to argue though, not to simply insult or gloat.

So ... why did you folks come back? You had your little club. You didn't invite in dissenting voices. You didn't have to use the "ignore" function because it was an ideal echo chamber. So ... why?

RIP guitarist Mick Ralphs. His lost (stolen) six-string razor inspired this classic. (He went on to make worse but more lucrative music in Bad Co.)

As far as actual policy goes, look at the farmworkers. An immigration attorney I knew who was active at the time of Reagan's "amnesty" bill used to joke that the way to eliminate a farmworker was to give him legal status. The Reagan "Special Agricultural Worker" path to legal residence applied to those who could show they were working in the fields; as soon as they got legal status, off to the cities they went for better paying/less back-breaking work. So how do we pick the crops without illegal aliens? Is there some kind of temporary visa that would work? Legalization doesn't. Keeping them illegal just allows them to be abused by their employers. Some say the old "bracero" program, where Mexicans worked seasonally and had money deposited into a Mexican account (to be withdrawn only when they returned) was better, but that program was fraught with abuses too. All I can say is that the current debate/positions is not productive. It ignores reality. It will never result in good policy, whether it is Biden's "let 'em in/let 'em stay" or Trump's "mass deportations." Congress: do your job. Listen to people who know the field. At least try to fashion sensible policy.

That graph above is from Krugman's blog. I've been involved off and on with immigration enforcement and policy ever since I got sworn in as a lawyer. I'm a realist. Neither political side has embraced realism for more than a few moments. Democrats typically think that because most immigrants, legal or illegal, are hardworking and generally law-abiding (save for that illegal entry), it follow that enforcement of immigration laws is bad. Republicans typically think that illegal entry is an offense to the very concept of a law-abiding nation, and that strenuous enforcement will right that wrong with little or no cost to Americans. In fact, they think it may be a net benefit. The reality is ... the reality. We have an illegal immigration system in America, and the American economy has come to rely on it. Both Republicans and Democrats need a dose of reality here.

Very well said. The constant thing gnawing at me: in order to get to this point, the US and even Israel have gone all in on the Saudis as the lesser of two evils. (In reality, it appears the Trump believes there is nothing evil at all about them.) Evil or not, have we overestimated the stability of that regime? Has anyone taken a close look at the ridiculous projects they've been funding while the oil money continues to shower down on them? Granted, the Saudi feudal rulers may well continue in place for long while - maybe even a generation or even two - but when it all ends it won't end pretty.

Damn fools be damned! For the record, I have never reported anyone at TBD to the mods for any reason. Ever. The simple solution would be to ignore a poster you find obnoxious. But perhaps first look up the meaning of "ignore."

https://www.startribune.com/a-devout-christian-with-failed-ambitions-and-an-arsenal-of-firearms-chooses-war/601375444 As usual, the mainstream media has done a far better job than the crackpot right (or left) at explaining the unexplainable. (Paywalled, but you all know how to removepaywall…) Kind of a lifelong loser, moving between bouts of religious fervor and cockamamie grandiose plans vs. nice guy introversion. I’m no psychiatrist but “bipolar” springs to mind. Not as sexy as a USAID modern MK-Ultra Manchurian Walzer, but a lot simpler and more credible.

DR got DR banned. Simple as that.

I am actually an iceberg fan. I never understood the foodie hate for it. Sometimes a cold/crisp/taste-free vehicle for for dressing and various accoutrements is perfect. Don't hate on iceberg. Hate on curly frisee.

I've asked myself that question many times. It just got to be a really popular "lifestyle" destination in the 2010s. Lots of newcomers (I've been about 25 years) with the pace increasing straight up thru COVID. Along with the influx of young/educated people came businesses relocating here. The same phenomenon as Austin, and now SLC. It is somewhat self-correcting though. Denver clearly now has a rep as a high cost of living location and we're seeing net out-migration. Watch out Orlando, it's coming for you! If you're a homeowner and don't need to move, you'll be cashing in someday ...

So embarrassed. Spell check, you let me down! Your gonna have to stop up you're monitoring.

Hunter Nation? Whatever. Just pull it.

Opportunity for me to be elitist foodie who criticizes iceberg lettuce eaters: you want ranch with that?

Yes, and the Senate Majority is absolutely free to override her by eliminating the filibuster rule. Which they don't want to do for obvious reasons. This was totally predictable when the Rs tried to jam all sorts of tangential things into a budget resolution act. Big. Bloated. Ugly.