Trump has strengthened Iran, confirmed the US as a weak ally, and lost a war he started by attacking the nation with which the US was at the time conducting negotiations.

May I offer a correction?

"US has strengthened Iran, confirm[ing] the "the Buffoon" as a weak[, narcissistic and incompetent] ally ..."

Finite resource. Managed?

Not a fan of holding third parties' responsible for the acts of another.

Gifting a gun without more is a stretch.

What's the catch?

That kid deserves every accolade possible. No hype. Admiration.

So, what bothers you now?

#13 Posted by lfthndthrds

Nothing more nor less than originally expressed, how did that person react? Hide it or own it?

What bothers you about each persons' reaction?

The Buffoon on display.

That a president may have classified documents among the stuff he collects and removes after his tenure doesn't bother me. What bothers me is how that president reacts when it's found out.

One tried to hide it. One has been criminally charged.

Take that for what it's worth.

That would be 0.16% of the popular vote differential in 2024.

#28 | POSTED BY REDIAL AT 2026-07-28 12:06 AM | REPLY | FLAG

We're talking about one state here. New Jersey

#29 | Posted by lfthndthrds

So, if we're rounding that's 2/10's of a percent. What is the affect on the New Jersey electoral vote count? More granular, what is the affect spread across the state (2 senate votes) and each of it's congressional districts (12)? If we go further down this fantasy rabbit hole, "one state," what is the affect across the 538 electoral votes nation wide? The questions are central to the legal, "affects the outcome," standard.

Get to work. Report back.

Or STFU because the non-citizen vote BS is meaningless except as a talking point to stir up idiots.

No need to raise your hand.

#13

Self aggrandizement is not decor.

Calm down. It is going to try to play with the election. This really isn't a big deal. Voter roll maintenance requires states to give notice to contested voters with an opportunity to cure. That system is shut down 90 days before an election. Granted it's a pain in the butt but it ain't fatal.

For those that want to denigrate private security screening should show up any morning at a Harris County court's building. We're talking close to a 100 courts each setting dozens or more hearings at 8 and 9 a.m. It's a s**t ton of people at the same time every day. The screenings back people out the doors of the huge lobbies. The screeners perform professionally and efficiently. You usually don't spend more than about 15 20 minutes in line. It's all supervised by LE.

Privatization can work, the question is whether it's done rationally and locally or by a buffoons somewhere else.

A government employee union publication complains about "privatization" i.e. a dues payor may loose a job. Color me surprised. Here's the article's description of what's up:

It's also not the only attempt by TSA to expand the privatization of airport security. The administration's fiscal 2027 budget proposes to eliminate 8,400 TSO positions " roughly 14% of TSA's screening workforce. About 4,500 of those positions would be replaced by private contractors through a proposed mandatory expansion of the Screening Partnership Program to include all small and non-hub airports, known as Categories III and IV, respectively. Currently about 20 of the nation's 440 commercial airports have opted to use private screening, but the administration's proposal would expand that number more than tenfold to about 220 airports. (emphasis added)

#8

I haven't had to change hand usage because of RTSA but I have pretty much lost all fine motor skills. My handwriting went from decent to horrible.

I write right, bat right, shoot right, throw left, tennis left, eat left, saw left, screwdriver and wrench mostly right. It really helps when painting in wall corners, I can use either hand.

Only my Dad gave a crap about being right handed. Nobody else in my life gave a s**t. So I just did and still do whatever feels comfortable.

Fortunately, in this case, the judge was ready for him.

It wasn't the judge but the law. In every jurisdiction I'm aware of, to appeal a final judgment one must either secure payment to the judgment creditor in case you lose or suffer the tools available to the judgment creditor to collect the judgment during the appeal.

In Texas a supersedeas bond suspends the judgement pending appeal. Here the Buffoon deposited cash with the court rather than incur a bond fee, typically about 10-15 percent of the principal per year.

The judge only adjudicated the parties agreement regarding distribution of the deposit. Just another agreement the Buffoon attempted to renege and, again, lost.

Ever seen someone in an iron lung? I have. A county fair exhibition in the 60's. How macarbe yet facinating.

So, do we still need to pack the court?

Yes, but not for reasons you're probably thinking. The Court should be increased to 15 Justices. The Court should initially here cases in three Justice panels like Circuit Courts. Then parties either accept the panel decision or seek further review with the full court. The reason is because the Supreme Court receives tens of thousands of requests for help a year. It only grants less than a hundred a year. The Court needs to expand its docket. Congress can help with that.

The recent SCOTUS decision has apparently turned our elections over to moneyed interests.

This one?

Issacharoff: "A Welcome Correction: NRSC v. FEC and the Need to Empower Parties"

The Supreme Court's decision in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC, striking down FECA's limits on political-party coordinated expenditures and overruling Colorado II, is a welcome and overdue correction. For a quarter century, campaign finance doctrine maintained an artificial constitutional distinction between parties and the candidates they exist to elect"treating a party's spending in cooperation with its own nominees as a species of suspect, regulable activity, even while the party's independent spending on the very same candidates went unregulated. Justice Kavanaugh's opinion is right to recognize that this line never made much sense. Parties and candidates are not adversaries who happen to share an interest; they are, as Justice Thomas put it in his Colorado II dissent, engaged in the ordinary, expected work of a party system"choosing standard-bearers, building platforms, and pooling resources to get them elected.