mspart

It would be nice if that were possible. Maybe in 2028. Doesn't look possible for 2024. mspart

Ha ha. I loved reading Hagar the Horrible. I think I'll keep my avatar, as it was given to me by the rulers of another chat board. I was never that "bad" but I like to think I was. Plus in that pic, he looks like me a bit. Sort of. Faint resemblance maybe. More so than Hagar in any event!! This was a good one ionel!! mspart

Trump has lied plenty of times. It's what politicians do. But to so blatantly lie when there is ample evidence of the lie is stupid beyond belief. mspart

https://factcheck.afp.com/trumps-insulin-order-frozen-not-scrapped-biden https://www.policymed.com/2021/10/biden-administration-rescinds-trump-administration-insulin-pricing-rule.html https://www.npr.org/2020/05/26/862736719/trump-unveils-plan-to-cap-insulin-costs-for-seniors-takes-jabs-at-biden https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/01/politics/biden-trump-drug-prices/index.html mspart

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/06/04/a-blatant-lie-the-biden-campaign-falsely-accuses-foxs-john-roberts-of-lying-about-the-insulin-caps/#more-219675 Yesterday, the Biden campaign launched the attack on Roberts for his questioning of the claim of President Joe Biden that he solely secured the insulin cap. Roberts remarked that he had a recollection that it was former President Donald Trump who pushed the cap. “I seem to remember that back in May of 2020, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid said that President Trump had signed an executive order to cap the price of insulin for Medicare recipients at 35 bucks. Now, maybe I’m misremembering that, but I think it kind of already happened.” The Biden campaign then called it “a blatant lie” in a posting on X that has reached over a million people. Contrary to the Biden campaign’s claims, Roberts’s recollection was entirely correct. Under the Trump Administration, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced in May 2020 that the Part D Senior Savings Model participating plans would cap insulin copays to $35 per month’s supply, and over 1,750 Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D plans applied to offer lower insulin costs. Trump praised the new policy, which was widely covered by the press. There was a Rose Garden event where Trump was praised for his actions: Trump later, in July 2020, signed four executive orders aimed at lowering the cost of insulin. That included Executive Order 13937, which required Federally Qualified Health Centers to pass 340B discounts on to patients. Notably, Biden later reversed Executive Order 13937 before those cost-saving measures could take effect. This is obviously not the first false statement from the President. However, it is notable that his campaign spread obvious disinformation that was picked up by over a million people but then declined to take down the false claim. The campaign is now in a worse position. To take down the posting is to acknowledge not just that it has lied about Roberts, but that the President lied in taking sole credit for this cap. This is the same administration supporting the banning, blacklisting, and throttling of those responsible for disinformation. I would not support such censorship of the campaign. This and other columns refuting the false account is sufficient to combat a “blatant lie” by the Biden campaign. Whether it is his uncle being eaten by cannibals or insulin caps, free speech can correct false claims without government regulation. However, President Biden and his administration continue to push for censorship of others accused for false or misleading statements. The fact that John Roberts was right is hardly surprising. However, there remains a “blatant lie” on the Biden campaign’s social media that must still be corrected. Even Snopes says this is true. Biden stopped Trump's EO lowering insulin and epipen costs. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-insulin-epipen/ Search on "trump the first to cap insulin costs" and a range of articles come up that show this is true. Blatant lies from Biden and/or his team. mspart

You can't read can you. I gave you an answer and that's not good enough for you or you just can't read past the first few words. mspart

I'm not saying Trump did or didn't do something here. I'm saying the trial was a farce and with those charges never should have been accepted into trial except they shopped for the right judge that would do the DA's bidding. And he did. You can't even answer the specifics here. You only state generalities which is all this trial was about. I have never heard of an indictment or charges that were not specific. But that was the case here. Here's another specific for you. Why did the DOJ and FEC not prosecute if Trump did something wrong? They didn't. Why didn't the judge allow the ex head of FEC to be a witness. Because he would have said Trump did nothing financially wrong. Judge couldn't allow such testimony. https://jonathanturley.org/2024/06/03/buzz-kill-the-trump-conviction-presents-a-target-rich-environment-for-appeal/ Merchan also barred the use of a legal expert, former FEC Chair Brad Smith, who was prepared to testify that such payments cannot be viewed as federal election violations and would not affect the election even if they were considered contributions, since they would not even have had to be reported until after the election. These things and others make this case rife with irregularities that the result will be overturned on appeal. But the DA and judge have won the battle but I think in due time, will lose the war. And if all is done properly, judge Merchan will be roasted for the incompetently run pre-trial and trial. mspart

Willfully ignorant. Civilians are killed in every war and UB. Quit pretending they are not. You make it sound like the IDF is targeting civilians. They are not. That is verified. I gave you a list of numbers of civilians killed in war and you disregarded it. That's on you. It happens, it is war. Lots of people die both soldier and civilian. Its what happens. They shouldn't be targeted but to win a war, people have to die. That is the definition of war. It ain't pretty. mspart

Viking. With a bit of Scottish, British, Irish, and German thrown in there to boot. A mutt in other words. mspart

Braves, they didn't need to. By signing they signed their own death warrant. In a time of war, there weren't jury trials. If you are that guy, and you signed that paper, you are a traitor. Death is the end of your story if we catch you. There was no trial needed in wartime. If you want to call what happened to Trump a trial, then you are welcome to it. It was a farce pure and simple. mspart

Also, I think those calling Trump a convicted felon are premature. There are ample law experts that think the whole thing was illegitimate from the indictment, to the witnesses that were allowed, to the amount of objections from defense overruled and amount of prosecution not overruled, to the judge saying what could be said during closing arguments and the prosecution disregarding and the judge allowing it, to the final jury instructions. If his conviction is overturned by appeal, he was not properly convicted. What will those calling him a convicted felon then say? mspart

You might do a little light reading. https://michaelwsmith.com/the-sacrifices-made-by-the-declaration-signers/ Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died. I'd say the British thought of them all as felons. mspart

Welcome back RV. mspart

There is a very large Somali and Hmong group there in the Minneapolis/St Paul area. I think the largest concentration in the nation. We lived there from 1994-2001 and that was the case then. mspart

Correctomundo!! mspart

What does this mean? Is there a translator in the house? mspart

He is realizing that it was not the political haymaker he thought it was. And with the very short attn span of the US electorate, they will probably buy the snake oil that Biden has always been concerned with holding down illegal immigration, and that it was Congress' fault for not doing anything. Hopefully people are smarter and have longer memories than that. We can only hope. mspart

The detail to be looked at are the few swing states. https://www.270towin.com/2024-presidential-election-polls/ Michigan is 3.2% for Trump. AZ is 2.7% for Trump. NV is 6% for Trump. GA 5.3% for Trump. PA is 2.7% for Trump. WI is 1% for Biden. NC is 5.6% for Trump. This bodes well for Trump in the electoral college. This represents 176 electoral votes, if we eliminate WI because it is currently for Biden, that is 166 electoral votes for Trump in the swing states. He needs 104 from other states to secure the win. https://www.cnn.com/election/2024/electoral-college-map?game-id=2024-PG-CNN-ratings&game-view=map I can't get a picture but they have a map of the US and probable outcomes. Trump has 272 probable electoral votes and Biden has 225 probable electoral votes. Yep, if I was Biden I'd take NM1965's advice and just be overconfident. mspart

There is always give and take for anything. Lack of commute is a definite plus. Save a lot of money. On the other hand, the socialization aspect should not be ignored. It just isn't the same with IM, or email, or text, or zoom.

Yeah, we worked from home and then were told to work in office 4 days a week. We get to work from home 1 day a week. I resisted at first with the same comments braves is making. I have been out for 2 months working from home for the last 3 weeks. I can't go into the office so it is good to have this opportunity. But I am ready to go back in, I just need someone to take me as I can't drive anymore for awhile. I like working in the office. More and better connections with coworkers. But being at home once a week is nice too. mspart

yep, I see your point. mspart

It's almost like you haven't studied history. Lots of regimes have been overthrown when the peasants have had enough. France, South America, most of Africa, most of the communist world. And that is just recent history. It not like it has never happened, but it is impossible for this group to do so. Yeah right. mspart

That won them 74 out of 132 seats. So they figured out how to get enough people to vote for them, or it is dumb luck that they won a majority of seats with a 44.45% (you got it wrong) of the vote. That's 56.1% of the seats (a majority) with 44.45% of the vote. You should go there and tell them they are illegitimate since you are so against Hamas. See how that goes for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_election mspart

Boy that was a quick and concise description. mspart

See there you go again. Supporting Hamas. mspart