Rivalarrival

That violates the very first Rule of Acquisition. You clearly don't have the lobes for business.

So, imagine you live at home in a completely dysfunctional family. You are responsible for grocery shopping. Your mother gives you $600 a month, and a weekly grocery list for $200 a week. You have to buy everything on the list. You can't take more than $600 a month.

When you run out of money, your mom berates you for overspending. When you don't buy everything on the list, she berates you for not doing your job.

That's our federal government under normal conditions.

Now imagine that you're a total piece of shit, but your abusive father won't let your mother strangle you and bury you in the back yard.

That's our federal government since January.

I would prioritize a VPN ahead of an ISP. Free Open/Public APs are not uncommon in my area.

No, I understand the rationale. It's just shit, infantile logic.

That comment clearly demonstrates the problem. That is the attitude of the DNC and the Democratic leadership. Dismiss the electorate as too stupid to live, then wonder why we don't support your terrible candidates.

I would love to see statistics on the moral non voters and how involved they were

The way you phrased that, the answer is tautologic: statistically, 100% of them were "involved".

Their involvement may not have extended much beyond a blanket rejection of everyone the DNC tried to shove down our throats, but they were certainly "involved".

I would go just a little bit further and say that they were involved in the only way that actually matters.

We'll have matrix-style human farms producing people for the tracks.

She was the objectively better candidate in 2024, but she was also objectively a trash candidate. Electing her would have meant continued acceptance of a political mindset and process that has reliably and consistently given us trash candidates for decades.

2024 was as good a time as any to give up on the DNC.

SCOTUS told Trump he needs an actual war in central or south America to invoke the Alien Enemies act. He needs that to justify internment camps and to allow the military to support ICE.

Venezuela is as good a target as any.

Judges are bound by the Separation of Powers. A judge who refuses to apply a legislated law against a particular defendant would (effectively) be exercising powers of the legislature. The judge cannot do this, nor can they advise a jury that this can be done, or otherwise enable the jury to do this.

However, a juror is not bound by the separation of powers. They are not an agent of the government. They are laypersons. Members of "We The People", who are the same authority that gives us the Constitution.

It is not illegal for a juror to determine that the legislature failed to consider a particular defendant's specific circumstances when they established a law, and exercise their constitutional authority in finding that defendant not guilty of having violated that law.

One of the first deals I did in real estate (~2006) was a sale at 115% loan-to-value, no money down, seller-paid closing costs. The buyers received $2500 at closing. Nobody batted an eye.

I want to retire at some point in my life.

If you will be above a reasonable retirement age before you enter office, you clearly do not share my values, you goddamn workaholic bastard.

My Canadian girlfriend.