Lectryk

In N Out isn't publically traded, so they don't have the 'can't let the shareholders value drop' driver (also a reason why the quality of product is better).  I don't think they franchise either (for the same reason - quality).

In N Out isn't publically traded, so they don't have the 'can't let the shareholders value drop' driver (also a reason why the quality of product is better).  I don't think they franchise either (for the same reason - quality).

In N Out isn't publically traded, so they don't have the 'can't let the shareholders value drop' driver (also a reason why the quality of product is better).  I don't think they franchise either (for the same reason - quality).

Thank you for the article.   It lays out the issues surrounding limitations on the pardon power, the scopes of what can be pardoned, etc.  I didn't see it saying that the president was immunized from bribery to gain a pardon, though (https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2041-bribery-public-officials and https://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/sites/ca3/files/Chap 6 Bribery.pdf seem to cover what Weinstein may be able to offer evidence of).
 
I think from your reply we're talking past each other.  I am not saying anything about the pardon power of the presidency (which seems to me to be the point of your posts), but the potential activity around this particular pardon, and if Weinstein obtained it through offering some consideration.  If I misunderstand your postes/intents, I apologize.

The polls don't reflect that helping him.  He's lagging behind Trump in the doubles, last I bothered to look.  He's being doing the whiney 'The press is against my campaign!' for a bit.  That hasn't been helping, either.

How the dog got the pistol aside, if it lives in an appropriate county and the sheriff issued a permit open carry like that would be fine, wouldn't it?   

What I find interesting (a corollary to OM's comment about the race of the officers) is that there are no command officers/staff being penalized (at least yet).  Training, sop's, p&p's, etc exist for a reason.  This corpus is written by the command staff, presented in the form of training (either in-house or contracted in some way), and is part (should be, at least) of the road staff evaluations....  Who had the brainstorm to launch the Scorpion program, with so little oversight that behaviors like this could grow (in my experience, this would not have been the first time these guys threw on somebody - but it takes a very lax/unobservant  hand from command for it get like this).  Some command staff weren't doing their jobs of training/modeling/monitoring appropriately, for quite a bit.  Will rank protect them, or will higher heads roll sooner or later?   

Statistics are useless without peer/like groupings controlled by rigorous protocols.
 
There are legal, and medical definitions here.  18 years of age is the legal age of majority, they are adults.  The American Association of Pediatrics sets it at 21 (https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/140/3/e20172151/38333/Age-Limit-of-Pediatrics?autologincheck=redirected?nfToken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000).  Which value should we use?  Should we disenfrancise anyone under the age of 21 based on that?    Are military deaths/injuries to 18 years by guns included in that study?  If not, why not?  That's violence.  What is the definition of violent crime, even?  There have been several situations with various police agencies under reporting certain crimes, by classification (even the FBI).
 
 

Statistics are useless without peer/like groupings controlled by rigorous protocols.
 
There are legal, and medical definitions here.  18 years of age is the legal age of majority, they are adults.  The American Association of Pediatrics sets it at 21 (https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/140/3/e20172151/38333/Age-Limit-of-Pediatrics?autologincheck=redirected?nfToken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000).  Which value should we use?  Should we disenfrancise anyone under the age of 21 based on that?    Are military deaths/injuries to 18 years by guns included in that study?  If not, why not?  That's violence.  What is the definition of violent crime, even?  There have been several situations with various police agencies under reporting certain crimes, by classification (even the FBI).
 
 

Because politics is a popularity contest, not a rational choice contest.  Because most of your post posistion appeals to a large segment of a certain class of voter, and the guy is first a foremost a showman - give the people what they want.  And the parts of the post that are definitions... well.. again, that fits the mood that his crowd want.
 
I completely get the disbelief and disconnect that prompts your statement.  But.  He's giving his people what they want, the party structure is punishing those who dissent (cf Cheney), certain actors are using the chaos he is creating for their own ends (at least until he turns on some of them, as well - cf his tirades about disloyal people that were bosom buddies up until the tirade)...
 
Everything you are seeing as a bug of his presence, is a feature to others.
 
 
Style over substance, thy name is Trump.  The guy is a living exemplar of the '..fool some people all of the time...' saying.
 
 

Because politics is a popularity contest, not a rational choice contest.  Because most of your post posistion appeals to a large segment of a certain class of voter, and the guy is first a foremost a showman - give the people what they want.  And the parts of the post that are definitions... well.. again, that fits the mood that his crowd want.
 
I completely get the disbelief and disconnect that prompts your statement.  But.  He's giving his people what they want, the party structure is punishing those who dissent (cf Cheney), certain actors are using the chaos he is creating for their own ends (at least until he turns on some of them, as well - cf his tirades about disloyal people that were bosom buddies up until the tirade)...
 
Everything you are seeing as a bug of his presence, is a feature to others.
 
 
Style over substance, thy name is Trump.  The guy is a living exemplar of the '..fool some people all of the time...' saying.
 
 

Oh, the original form of the quote, and when it took place, are better than this truncated form.
 
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sanders-abortion-womb-classroom/
 
"
Context It’s true that Sanders said this. A video of the remark went viral after Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that effectively legalized abortion in the U.S., was overturned on June 24, 2022. The clip was recorded a month prior on May 24, however, the same day as the deadly school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. More of Sanders’ speech is featured in the story below.
    Fact Check
On May 24, 2022, Arkansas Republican gubernatorial candidate Sarah Huckabee Sanders made a campaign promise that touched on the subject of abortion, saying, “We will make sure that when a kid is in the womb, they’re as safe as they are in a classroom, the workplace, a nursing home. Because every stage of life has value. No one greater than the other.” This was a genuine quote.
"
 
And, since she made this *after* the news would have broken ... doubleplusungood the doublethink the modern gop has going on.
 

Alito isn't wrong in his assessment, Ginsburg also said similar things.  But, what are principled people to do, when the State governments are full of jack asses?
 
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/02/politics/roe-v-wade-supreme-court/index.html
 
This might be the final spur needed to get liberals motivated to support candidates for Congress, who will take steps to protect rights.  For example, to enact supreme court reforms (impose an age limit, length of service, whatever is best; not pack the court but raise the number to the existing number of circuits rationalizing the system, same for ethics rules, etc).  This new congress could also act to roll back the Federal retrenchment that Republicans are/have been spearheading.
 
I doubt that will happen.  There's nobody in the Democratic Party, who the Party supports, who will come out as the standard bearer for the change that is needed.  It's such a shame - this and the voter rights restrictions are such core values the Democrats ran on in the 50's, 60's, 70's...  rights and freedoms to the people.
 

No.  Unless you spent all of your time with them (work, private, etc) and never left them alone.  You don't know where those influences that affected this person came from, you don't know what they might have believed to begin with that might make them susceptiable, and you may only know about some of the life changes they've faced that led to this change.  You aren't responsible for their changes, and don't take the responsibility on for 'not being there when...'.  You've seen the stuff about spouses being surprised about their partner's turn?  Yeah, don't hold yourself to a higher standard than one involving a person you are joined with.
 
People in this space (libertarian, Oath Keepers, Q Anons, crazy believers in...) don't suscribe to the consensus reality, but to the little slice their in-group has created.  All you can do, as multiple articles/essays/thought pieces posted here have said, is to let them reach their own realization that they are incorrect in their belief set.  And so much of that belief set is about actualizaton, ego fulfillment and so on, that returning from that space is hard. 
 
Offer/don't offer friendship while avoiding polarizing topics?  That's up to you.  But don't take blame/responsibility for them not avoiding their change.
 

No.  Unless you spent all of your time with them (work, private, etc) and never left them alone.  You don't know where those influences that affected this person came from, you don't know what they might have believed to begin with that might make them susceptiable, and you may only know about some of the life changes they've faced that led to this change.  You aren't responsible for their changes, and don't take the responsibility on for 'not being there when...'.  You've seen the stuff about spouses being surprised about their partner's turn?  Yeah, don't hold yourself to a higher standard than one involving a person you are joined with.
 
People in this space (libertarian, Oath Keepers, Q Anons, crazy believers in...) don't suscribe to the consensus reality, but to the little slice their in-group has created.  All you can do, as multiple articles/essays/thought pieces posted here have said, is to let them reach their own realization that they are incorrect in their belief set.  And so much of that belief set is about actualizaton, ego fulfillment and so on, that returning from that space is hard. 
 
Offer/don't offer friendship while avoiding polarizing topics?  That's up to you.  But don't take blame/responsibility for them not avoiding their change.
 

No.  Unless you spent all of your time with them (work, private, etc) and never left them alone.  You don't know where those influences that affected this person came from, you don't know what they might have believed to begin with that might make them susceptiable, and you may only know about some of the life changes they've faced that led to this change.  You aren't responsible for their changes, and don't take the responsibility on for 'not being there when...'.  You've seen the stuff about spouses being surprised about their partner's turn?  Yeah, don't hold yourself to a higher standard than one involving a person you are joined with.
 
People in this space (libertarian, Oath Keepers, Q Anons, crazy believers in...) don't suscribe to the consensus reality, but to the little slice their in-group has created.  All you can do, as multiple articles/essays/thought pieces posted here have said, is to let them reach their own realization that they are incorrect in their belief set.  And so much of that belief set is about actualizaton, ego fulfillment and so on, that returning from that space is hard. 
 
Offer/don't offer friendship while avoiding polarizing topics?  That's up to you.  But don't take blame/responsibility for them not avoiding their change.
 

No.  Unless you spent all of your time with them (work, private, etc) and never left them alone.  You don't know where those influences that affected this person came from, you don't know what they might have believed to begin with that might make them susceptiable, and you may only know about some of the life changes they've faced that led to this change.  You aren't responsible for their changes, and don't take the responsibility on for 'not being there when...'.  You've seen the stuff about spouses being surprised about their partner's turn?  Yeah, don't hold yourself to a higher standard than one involving a person you are joined with.
 
People in this space (libertarian, Oath Keepers, Q Anons, crazy believers in...) don't suscribe to the consensus reality, but to the little slice their in-group has created.  All you can do, as multiple articles/essays/thought pieces posted here have said, is to let them reach their own realization that they are incorrect in their belief set.  And so much of that belief set is about actualizaton, ego fulfillment and so on, that returning from that space is hard. 
 
Offer/don't offer friendship while avoiding polarizing topics?  That's up to you.  But don't take blame/responsibility for them not avoiding their change.
 

The article cites language in several places that shows the court and plantiff's counsel certainly thought it was contemptous.   I'm surprised the judge let this drag on as long as it did (5 different orders were disregarded), Jones should have been jugged earlier in the process, but the judge has ultimate discretion over declaring someone in contempt
 
(https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/GV/htm/GV.21.htm Sec. 21.002. CONTEMPT OF COURT. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (g), a court may punish for contempt.)  
 
Maybe each change of representation caused the presiding judge to change, because of the schedule change?
 
The ruling judge made clear the way Jones' actions hurt him, with a directed judgement, and direct move to the penalty phase.  This is more punishment than a simple contempt charge could level at this point - Jones, InfoWars and the parent Free Speech something lost, and will face the penalties assessed by the jury.  His actions (refusal to mount a defense is not solid grounds for an appeal) will be weighed in any appeals process he/they try to start.

The article cites language in several places that shows the court and plantiff's counsel certainly thought it was contemptous.   I'm surprised the judge let this drag on as long as it did (5 different orders were disregarded), Jones should have been jugged earlier in the process, but the judge has ultimate discretion over declaring someone in contempt
 
(https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/GV/htm/GV.21.htm Sec. 21.002. CONTEMPT OF COURT. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (g), a court may punish for contempt.)  
 
Maybe each change of representation caused the presiding judge to change, because of the schedule change?
 
The ruling judge made clear the way Jones' actions hurt him, with a directed judgement, and direct move to the penalty phase.  This is more punishment than a simple contempt charge could level at this point - Jones, InfoWars and the parent Free Speech something lost, and will face the penalties assessed by the jury.  His actions (refusal to mount a defense is not solid grounds for an appeal) will be weighed in any appeals process he/they try to start.

It says "during the Afghan war," on the site. Doesn't say that the chart shows only expenses tied directly to Afghanistan.
 
Still, I wonder what else that money could buy. One estimate of the cost of total student loan forgiveness is 1.6 trillion dollars, so you'd still have some pocket change left over for other stuff too, like infrastructure.

Um, you mean they won't carry stories like this one?  https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/25/us/politics/sidney-powell-election-sanctions.html?searchResultPosition=1
 
I'm with grailknight; what are you reading?  I can't look at a regular media site without seeing stories critical of Trump or his policies or his business dealings...
 
I mean, One America News (or whatever it is) fellates him at every opportunity, but any credible and wothwhile site tears into him (Fox is neither, and the many net based sites are at best questionable if not out right shills also).

You've got two seperate things here - the factual based points you raised (non-funtional, etc), and the feeling/opinion based 'this is what the government should be doing, but isn't' and you use the latter as evidence for the former, which it just isn't.  If you want to say the people are basically awful, self centered, churlish, hateful scum that you wouldn't have over to your house for dinner - I'll whole heartedly agree.  Is it any surprise that the system of governance that those horrid things have devised is bad for us, and might be killing us slowly?  Not at all.  But it works the way they want it to, the way they devised it to work, and unfortunately it's the best system (supposedly) they've devised yet.
 
As I said above, I probably agree with the majority of your thoughts about what in general is wrong with the state and shape of the world, and I may agree with several of the causes, so there's probably no reason to continue this particular discussion - we're talking past each other on this point.
 
As to demise, you can put your mind at ease.  Humans are the intelligent cockroaches of this world.  The species has survived worse environmental conditions than the worst the specialists are predicting for the forseeable future.  Fine, we'll lose all coastal habition that currently exists, a band around the equator will become only semi-habitable, the ideal growth band is going to shift north and south from it's current position (our Canadian friends will have a choice to make about the unruly idiots to their south), and the globe will only support 2-3 billion at most (if current technology survives).  Our currently existing society and governmental system won't survive the changes that the nation/hemisphere/world is going to face (hell, they've both changed in my lifetime - and my grandparents were born in the 1890's - how much has changed since then?), but unless something stupid happens involving a world wide nuclear exchange, this planet isn't tough enough to wipe us out, only people can do that.  It won't be a happy or easy life to survive, but life is evolved to survive.
 
 
I never saw any loss of temper - if this is you losing your temper, you are a very polite and low key angry person .  My tone got out of hand a few times, and I should have stopped sooner, most likely.  You have my apologies - no direct insult was intended.

Nothing you sent in your two replies supports your thesis (listed above, again).  How is the government not incentivized to responsiveness to the citizens, and how is the government not functional.  In answer to the points you raised, my answer would be - things you don't like will change when enough other people who don't like those things act in concert to effect a governmental change in line with their desires.  Again, I cite the last election as a prime example of the government being incentived by the people - "don't do what we like, we kick you out and try someone else."
 
There are several names for governmental systems and nations that are not responsive to citizen demands, that don't work on the model of representative incentivation from their citizenry.  What are their track records on issues you think important?  How is China's record on contribution/mitigation of global warming?  Or maintaining civil rights for the population?  Our wealth inequality inside their borders?  Racial equality/treatment of ethnic minorites?
 
Yes, we face challenges on several points.  I think the battle on climate is lost, and mitigation looks iffy; huge chunks of the oceans have already surpassed the 2 Centigrade mark, and oceans are a main driver of climate.  We've been seeing more forceful storms, stronger/longer fire seasons, droughts, the heat dome going on right now, etc.  These are only the precursors of what we'll see in our lifetimes, ratchets on the roller coaster ride at the start up the hill - each click should be telling us what we're going to face soon.  Even if the people of the world committed to a world wide effort tomorrow to not only decrease new inputs of carbon into our closed system but also to scrub out what is in the system currently, we're committed to the upswing of effect - again for our lifetimes.  And if the efforts to scrub go too far, our grandchildren will be facing a different cycle (not that it shouldn't be tried, but that is an agrument for not trying that I've already seen in literature).    
 
Yes, there is income inequality and it is grossly accelerating in this country and around the world.  And, yes, efforts to change this are being blocked by people who are incentivized by their constituents to not change (even Manchin - his state is not exactly blue).  But, again, incentivized to take a position.
 
You can even say that certain groups have disproportionate weight in the incentivation process - but that isn't the same as saying incentivation doesn't work.  How it works is just engineering and tweaking of the balances (n.b. Citizens United).
 
I will probably agree to some extent with any negative example you want to provide, but the reality is there is no national will to address these issues and there won't be change until there is will to act.  Protests, demonstrations, riots, sit-ins, whatever you example you want to cite are not will.  Voting and involvement in supporting change is.  And we don't see a lot of involvement, really.  The Democrats anemic performance this last cycle shows that.
 
But the system as a system (incentivation to provide certain outcomes/functions from a government or else) is working just fine.  And saying that it doesn't work is just isn't a supportable or defensible position.  

How is it not incentivized by the people?  We just had an election, and changed government.  I'd say the former administration didn't do a proper job, and the people made their choice and lack of happiness clear - they fired the group they weren't happy with.  If Trump wasn't incentivized by the upcoming election, why did he do everything he did to curry favor with his voters?  If our system doesn't incentivize politicans in general, why do they work so hard and boast so much about everything they do for their constituency?  Why do they do so many non-explicitly job related activities to get re-elected?  Why do administrations try for big wins on initiatives/laws/whatever?   Why is there so much pork doled out to states and districts if there's no incentive?  The reward (incentive, if you will) for politicans here would be re-election and being able to continue running/leading the government. 
 
What do you see as our Federal Government not functioning "properly"?  What is your definition of "properly", I guess that's where we should start, because the government I see (at all levels) provide a hell of a lot of regulatory, safety, and legal potections; at the State and Federal level military protections are afforded as well.  I have been involved in a few of those things.  For not working properly, they certainly seemed to be effective at meeting the goals (and paying my salary) that were set for them by the government in response to citizens demands for service.