leh-nerd skin-erd

Sensible eloquence.

You have the right to not like it at all, in fact Justice Alito would likely wholeheartedly defend your right in that regard--the question centers around some people who would prefer a different decision that he might make in cases that he might participate in.

The appropriate response. We need to respect the counsel and wisdom of all the SC justices to see this through. We'll be better for it.

Oh, I know what you meant, MupalupTownGirl, and I stand by what I said. Big picture--there are crazies for sure. That's not unique to MAGA, Liberals or Independents. The vast majority of people who support DJT aren't zealots, worshippers, cultists, nazis, deplorable, irredeemable or whatever the latest Hochul buzzword is. I'm not here to debate that, it's waste of time. Somewhere out in America a Muppy twin--oh, let's go with Mupplegänger!--is queasy about your candidate, China Joe, Joe the Fib, Joey Doublespeak, Joey the Groper, Joey Burisma or whatever else he rightly is criticized for. I can tell you this--I can, and will, discuss these and other topics with you respectfully and expect the same in return. If I deviate, call me out and I'll consider your feelings and adjust accordingly. If you deviate, I'll let you know, or depending on the totality of your posts, simply move on. Even if that happened, Mup, if I saw your car broken down along the road, or you needed assistance I could provide, I'd extend my hand to help you out. That's about the best I can offer. As for holding your hair, I'd have to acknowledge I'd probably dunk ya a couple times as that would be epic!

Maybe, though I wonder when the lib criminal justice reformers abandoned their principles and became proponents of the DOJ, AG etc. As for implications of bias, that’s fairly standard fare in high profile cases. We just have to work through it.

I think the math probably suggests that’s the case, though there are moving parts that may or may not change the trajectory of the plan.

That’s not pipsqueaking into the convo, Mup, that’s some pure straight razor to the face of your old pal Leo. I’m torn between concern over my boyish good looks and the recognition that a well placed scar on my mug might actually improve upon the blessings my God has bestowed upon me. Now, to your hurtful commentary. I don’t view DJT as a victim, I see him as a target. There is a difference. The jury may or may not reflect a jury of his peers. The jury may or may not be impartial, it may or may not be pro-Trump or anti-Trump. It may be the beneficiary or a skilled and neutral judge or the victim of a political creature with nefarious intent. I have no idea one way or the other, but I’m long past the point of trusting everyone involved has justice at the forefront of their mind here. That’s the system and it’s used as such. Some will win in it, others will lose. Here’s a pro tip—change the scenario, change the players and people clamoring for Trumps head feel the same way I do here. Respectfully, on gag orders and such—the govt can make declarations all day long, leak details to willing reporters and not a tear is shed. Trump is fighting for his life and the notion he should meekly acquiesce is silly. That’s not to say most don’t, because after all the other side has bottomless pockets and endless resources. If the process is broken by a defendant being mean to the process, the system is broken. Besides, if he judges the relative value of fine v self-censoring as justified, he’s using the system to his benefit. Your characterization of DJT “preaching” reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the multitude of reasons people may support him, and honestly I’m a bit surprised you as a woman of faith would choose that particular term. You don’t trust him. I can respect that, but I’m not sure what you expect me to do with that information. You have options regardless of who I support. Vote for Joe Biden. Vote for RFK jr. Write in for me. I support your right to do so. They all lie. This is true. I tend to disregard the notion of moral high ground just because someone likes their liar more than they like my liar. When you get done chuckin up lunch, come on back! Always a pleasure but your new nickname is Mup the Knife!

I'd think because in retrospect, why plan with your money when there's another option to handle the debt?

If the concerns are legitimate, why would it matter? The law(s) certainly could have been changed, struck down etc. If a law is unfair or unreasonable, need it be pursued?

https://www.ec3pa.org/tuition-and-fees/ https://www.hesc.ny.gov/find-aid/nys-grants-scholarships/excelsior-scholarship-program/ https://studentaid.gov/understand-aid/types/grants/pell https://www.savingforcollege.com/intro-to-529s/what-is-a-529-plan https://www.savingforcollege.com/intro-to-529s/what-is-a-529-plan What, if any, obligation would fall on the shoulders of the student and/or family?

Critical thinking requires one to consider all appropriate information—venue, prosecution, jury tendencies, news reporting on a high profile case, celebrity status of lack thereof, likability of the defendant/prosecution, professionalism of the presiding judge, credibility of all parties and the impact of politics in a case like this one. I’m several steps removed from any real ability to decipher the relative fairness of this whole affair, but certainly feel comfortable believing that Micheal Cohen would lie, distort and manufacture information to bring down DJT. I am also comfortable factoring politics of Bragg et al into the mix. If you look at some of the cases not pursued against NY politicians, it’s hard not to assume some people are protected and others targeted. Whatever happens, happens. Either way it’s going to be interesting.

Well, assuming the Biden-Harris admin had their hand in all of this, it's to manipulate public opinion, add some stale star power to the circus, influence and/or intimidate the jurors? What it clearly is not about is respecting the process.

I understand the federal government is only one part of the process, but the abject failure in running a boondoggle of this magnitude without ensuring the appropriate outcome seem indisputable. As a city planner--would that pass muster with your team--planning for a massive investment with zero chance of success because of variables open and obvious to anyone with a pulse? I can see the allure of the city life for some younger folks, but don't we already have that option? NYC offers that option, and while a cool place for certain things, ecologically-speaking I would think it's a disaster. Financially, sure, you save some dollars without the vehicle/insurance/upkeep/storage--but is NYC affordable? Boston? Tokyo? It seems urban flight is at least as big an issue as urban embrace. As for tax base, from my perspective, respectfully I think you have it backwards. I'm not pulling my tax dollars from the city. I'm investing in quality of life important to me just as those young city people are investing in theirs. I also see--using a science term here-- a sh*t ton of young people who choose NOT to embrace the big city life and all it has to offer. Thanks for the feedback--I'm genuinely interested in what you have to say here. If there is a model utopian city that has it all (or approximates it in substantial ways) from your perspective, please let me know what it is.

Hmm, good question. I think that would fall under standard operating procedure for government entities regardless of political affiliation more than corruption....though money steered to political allies and cronies with the knowledge that infrastructure is non-existent certainly falls into that category.

Well look at this. @Doc out there saving the planet in his Tesla, 4th polluting at a rapid rate in his carbon dragon F150. Oh, the places you go and things you’ll see on PPP!

I was thinking of the movie National Lampoon’s Vacation, when the Griswold family sets off on an epic journey to visit an amusement park on the other side of the country. Of course, hilarity ensues when poor decisions are made or plans go awry en route, and when they arrive it turns out the park is closed. The only question I can see that needs to be answered is whether or not the end result was due to incompetence or corruption. As is well documented, there is an awful lot of money and power in anything that involves stopping the end of the world.

It sounds precisely as if it’s Biden’s (or more accurately, the Biden Administration) fault. It’s also a prime example as to why reasonable people who don’t want to see their children/grandchildren/great grandchildren to live in a barren, post-apocalyptic world might think “Gee, that’s strange. $7.5 billion of taxpayer money went somewhere, paid for something, and they had no idea the infrastructure was non-existent? Interesting—what’s the standard? We seem to have a multitude of options for vibrant/walkable cities with public transport that seem incapable of maintaining infrastructure despite enormous resources devoted to the problem. Then, too, there is this trend: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/05/22/demographic-and-economic-trends-in-urban-suburban-and-rural-communities/ When you speak about removing car dependency, how do you foresee motivating suburban/rural citizens to abandon their vehicle(s) and move to the city?

On the bright side, I think WaPo is on the trusted reading list now. They were on it, of course, but retrospectively would be removed for not reporting originally, then proactively re-placed for having the courage to remember why they didn’t run it when they were. What a ride!

Leaks, staged photos, misstatements to the court, a senator/vp/president stashing classified documents pilfered documents over decades wherever the box falls….fine. Complaining about the process involving deadly force…a threat to national security and all that is good and holy.

I’d be willing to bet your mother would reject the notion she was a victim in any way shape form. I also recognize how fortunate we were. I never made the point with @daz28, but were my father here today, he would tell you my homemaker mother was the backbone of our family, and that had little to do with what her occupation. Great to hear on you and your wife—also likely a very strong person to chart that path.

There was a time these words were interchangeable with liberal policies. Now…not so much.

It’s interesting, I was at a bank drive through listening to him and eviscerate is a good word to use. I thought “Holy ****” they’re going to charge her!”. For what it’s worth, I believe certain people are above the law, and nothing was going to come from it. After the fact, the point DB makes about Comey’s unilateral decision and statement was brought up, and made sense. Still, people above the law etc etc. This just reinforces the notion of a two tiered system, with people placing their thumb on the scale, and why questions persist about the raid at Trump’s residence.

The fight for equality and happiness in a traditional marriage were not mutually exclusive. Too, let’s not forget that there were other battles for equality ongoing as women struggled for their rights. Wage, working conditions, poverty etc. I didn’t watch “Alice”, never really cared for “All in the Family”. I did watch “Welcome Back Kotter” but tried to remember the Sweathogs weren’t actually sweathogs. It sounds like your experience was different than mine. My mother is college educated, stay at home but worked part time as her family grew. My Dad was a WW2 vet at 17, came home and went to work. Money was not abundant, love was. We were not alone in that regard, my eyes were open the whole time, though through experience I realized that was not the way fir everyone. I understand that every scenario must be judged by the experiences of the family. Yes, many women were stuck in very difficult, untenable and tragic situations. We agree on that. I have never considered abuse/subjugation a traditional value, but let’s not pretend that sort of thing does not occur in whatever version of family we look at today. Likewise, there are stories of love, happiness and success in whatever version of family we see today that do follow traditional values. We’ve made great progress, there’s so much more to do, but there is a place in it for people who desire a traditional relationship.

Biden makes things up more than he lies, I’m told.

No, they’ll continue to attack the basis for the armed raid, problems with the investigation, leaks/staged photo shoots, the SC’s untruthful testimony before the court, the egregious mishandling of classified documents in their possession, the new question of documents apparently sent to Trump, and the relative hypocrisy on the handling of classified documents by all other players. As additional documents are unsealed, more will come to light that can be attacked procedurally or in the court of public opinion. I understand hatred of Trump. I never understand people like you running around screaming someone else is in a cult while you dismiss issues with the SC. The SC office controlled everything. There are no fears of running out of money, no limitations on experts, personnel to process data, the ability to manage leaks, photo shoots etc…yet here we are. The best outcome would be to end this debacle, acknowledge the government has played extremely fast and loose with classified documents in control of powerful people, and that for too long they all were above the law. That predated Dopey Joe, Crooked Hillary, Evangelical Mike and Cheeto Dust Don.