VakAttack

Where does he say "some"? Because then you're just adding your own context. Unless the "some" you're referring to is where he said "Western Jews" and I guess there we're saying he didn't mean all the Jews in the world, just all the Jews the westernized world, which....cool? And that's if we (generously) completely divorce it from the context of replying to a post about Hitler.

Surely the crusaders for Israel from the Republican party will be along shortly to chastise their highest profile "convert."

That's not a complete enough resume to take over a #1 spot when a guy like Vito is at the top. Vito has wins over Fix, RBY, and multiple other AAs.

Crookham doesn't have the resume to be #1.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/james-comer-like-joe-biden-also-paid-his-brother-dollar200k Hilarious as always.

Again, denial of reality. In the past two months alone he's gone on and on about how he is leading Obama in the polls, Biden was going to plunge us into World War 2, didn't know what city he was in, and confused Jeb Bush with George W. Bush. This just from a 3 minute Google search. Neither of these guys is dementia ridden, they're just old. Too old to be in charge of the country, but here we are.

Just complete denial of reality with posts like this. Or a refusal to listen to anything Trump is saying these days.

Despite being the esteemed journalist responsible for founding "Loomered", nah, probably not. They probably won't even consider it unless Trump's attorneys file something preserving the issue for an appeal. Then they would have to establish if this is actually his wife (a Google search is inconclusive on this). Even then, you then have to tie her political opinions on a criminal issue to somehow causing her husband to be biased in a civil trial, and show evidence of where that bias occurred. Coming from the party of Clarence and Ginny Thomas, though, this is rich.

The bit lives!

It's not even that they don't like him, but it's clear that (fairly) the age is a huge problem. For whatever reason, the Rs don't feel the same way about similarly aged Trump, but c'est la vie.

That is just incorrect. Again, appellate courts are typically reviewing the judge's legal rulings anyway, not the factual findings of a judge/jury, so they're already reviewing the decision of one person. It makes it no more likely for a successful appeal.

There is no particular reason that a bench trial would make it more likely to be overturned on an appeal. There are two different roles in trial, there's the finder of of law/referee (which the judge typically occupies) and the finder of fact (most commonly the jury). People have a right to waive a jury and instead as the judge to be both the finder of law and fact. In Florida, at least, both parties have to agree to that. I don't know for certain that this is required in NY, but it's incontrovertible that Trump's legal team asked for the bench trial and that AG James et al. had no problem with that. Appellate courts typically defer to the lower level courts on findings of fact, since the appellate courts aren't "in the room" so to speak, they typically will focus their rulings on legal rulings by the lower court. They CAN go into the findings of fact, but it takes something like "no reasonable jury/finder of fact could have found this to be true" type stuff.

Retained the Kentucky governorship, retained the Virginia state house, and also got abortion rights into the Ohio Constitution despite sneaky politicking there. Not necessarily indicative of anything for 2024 with the federal elections, tough Senate slate and obviously we can see what a mess the presidential race is shaping up to be. Good day for the blues, though.

Yes, in a trial, you don't get to give speeches, you respond to questions. Trump tried to do his Trump shtick and that's not going to fly in a court room. As to "the judge passing judgment before the trial" that's now what happened. The trial is essentially in two parts, guilt phase and penalty phase. Trump and his attorneys elected to do a bench trial (that is, no jury), so the judge ruled after the guilt phase was over. Now we're in the penalty portion.

So this got in front of a judge, evidence was presented, and rulings were made in favor of the challenging party. Why oh why wasn't Trump and his attorneys allowed to go in front of judgesohwait they went in front of many of them and got laughed out of court because they had no evidence, and the lawyers themselves mainly refused to make the argument because of said lack of evidence and, you know, not wanting to get disbarred.

Correctamundo. Previous generations opened a bunch of doors...and then closed them behind themselves, put a padlock on them, and are charging exorbitant fees to get thru.

Oh, people have lots of "appreciation" for how the big company got there. Typically, by stepping on the head of regular people and exploiting workers (and/or child labor laws) while minimizing costs to increase profits. All these huge companies and CEOs with their huge salaries, those supercharged profits are only going to the plutocrat class; not the regular workers without whom the company could not function. So all they had to do to improve their lot in their lives was risk their life. And what if they had come back from service maimed and/or with severe PTSD? No, EVERYTHING isn't determined by luck or background, but there is a HUGE correlation. People will often throw around phrases like "the world needs ditch diggers, too" (or some corollary) but then doesn't want to pay said ditch diggers a living wage...well, do we need them or not? Not everybody has the skillset to "raise up." Take @Husker_Du for example. Is he handsome? No. Is he smart? Also no. Is he well endowed? Rumor around the craps table is again, no. Is he....what was I doing again?

Truly unbelievable that we have people in here advocating that you should only be able to leave an unhappy relationship if some third party finds you have met some arbitrary standard for leaving.

You just cited the same person twice, who is apparently complaining that her husband divorced her against her will which started her whole crusade. The idea that people should be forced to stay in unhappy marriages is dumb, treats the person who wants out as property, and is ripe for abuse of the party seeking to end the marriage. We live in an allegedly free society. People should not be forced to stay in relationships they do not want to be in.

Well if the Federalist says it...

Hmmmm..... dangerously close to contradictory ideas here. Also, the idea that the scientific community profit motive in any way compares with fossil fuel industry's profit motive is laughable.

Yes, because of the way they restrict access to guns. There are licensing requirements https://impakter.com/why-gun-ownership-switzerland-not-same-us/

So now you're agreeing that we can restrict access to some inanimate objects, but just not these particular ones. Ok, we're getting somewhere. You pushed back on nuclear weapons and tanks, but didn't mention regular cars. Why should we restrict access to cars but not guns? As to your last question, because we literally have evidence (see: EVERY OTHER "DEVELOPED NATION") to show us that, if the access to these particular inanimate objects was restricted, the numbers of people killed would be dramatically reduced.

This logic of course falls apart with even the slightest scrutiny. Nuclear weapons and tanks are inanimate objects to. Should people just be allowed to possess those, also? We restrict access to inanimate objects ALL THE TIME, mostly to make society safer. Drugs are inanimate objects. So are cars. On and on.

We should do away with fossil fuels...eventually. The EV and other technologies are unfortunately nowhere near ready to handle all of the transportations/travel needs of modern human society. Largely this is due to the fossil fuel lobbies efforts to hinder advancement in that area, but it is what it is.