Larry

CNBC: DJT stock plunges 8% as Trump qualifies for 36 million bonus shares

Admiring the combination of Mike Johnson stating that you cannot silence viewpoints you disagree with. And also asking for an executive order, followed by the use of troops, to silence protests. Yeah. Going out of your way to poke a group that is notorious for being Dem, but not voting.

"Dear Lord, could you please end the Universe, so we can end the thing I voted for, which I've participated in for years, and which I and a few others could have ended at any time simply by voting to do so?"

Disney. And after summers in DMV, it's not that hot or humid.

He's probably a former FBI agent, and a Navy SEAL, too.

Really? Because all I've really seen Pecker testify to, is that he intentionally placed his newspapers completely in the tank for the Trump campaign. And newspapers are allowed to do that. We have a long history of it. A great many people believe (incorrectly) that "The Liberal Media" does exactly the same thing.

Where do I order one of those?

Was anything the insurrectionists did, functional?

Hey, c'mon. Without Trump not only doing nothing about Russia's first invasion. And his subsequent official US approval of it. The second invasion probably doesn't happen.

Remember when Candidate Trump's "National Security Expert" was shocked to discover that when somebody phones the Russian Ambassador to the US, the NSA records the phone call?

Yeah, I'm under the impression that, in order to get a stay on a court's ruling (that he owes this money), the person appealing has to show 1) That irreparable harm will occur if the ruling is enforced, while being appealed. 2) And that the appellant has a reasonable chance of winning the appeal. Now, I can kind of see how the first might be true. That, if the AG begins attempting to place tax liens on Trump properties, this could cause foreclosures and other sudden forced sales. It could trigger Trump being forced to sell properties, at well below market value. (Or at least, people will CLAIM it's well below market value.) I have no clue how a judge can rule that the second part is true.

I'm OK testing this theory.

I care a lot more about how he votes than about how he parties. Now, having said that? In the remote chance that news like this would cause the "family values voters" to abandon him? (I'm not holding my breath.) I'll take that as good fortune.

I agree.

Just pointing out there's another possible explanation for the smell.

So, the punishment for domestic terrorism is "plead guilty, and probation"?

Have to say, I'm rather shocked that anybody in the House is doing anything to him. Granted, I have no doubt he's loathed. But still, I would have expected The Rule to be that Republicans are immune from consequences. Or even questions.

Actually, I'm all right with raising the SS age. Although I'll point out, the words "Raising SS age" can have multiple meanings. To illustrate, I'm going to create an imaginary person who's "full SS" is 1,000/mo. And I'm going to pretend that "retirement age" is 67, and raise it to 70. What I'm in favor of is: Age (Current plan) 65 66 67 68 69 70 Age (My proposal) 68 69 70 71 72 73 Income 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 In my proposal, the "payouts" don't change. it's just 3 years later when you get them. The system becomes more solvent, due to people paying into the system for 3 more years, and collecting (the same) benefits for 3 years less. And yes, people can make decisions based on their own circumstances. They can still retire early (although the definition of "early" has moved), and collect less. And people have the option of working till 73, and collecting more. But from what I've seen, when Republicans talk about "raising the retirement age", what they're talking about is: Age 65 66 67 68 69 70 Income (Current plan) 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 Income (GOP plan) 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Yes, under the GOP plan, the guy who retires at 70 gets the same amount as the guy who retired at 67 used to get. But they haven't "raised the ages". They've "cut the payouts, but you can compensate for the cut by working till 70". What used to be "full income, but you can get more by working later" has become "that's the most you can get". They're not proposing "raising the retirement age by 3 years". They're proposing "cutting benefits by 30%".

One thought: "Your Honor. Punishing me as the law states, for my attempt to overthrow this country while on active duty in it's military would hurt my ability to remain in it's military." A second thought. Does the 14th apply to him?

Because no, you're not allowed to eat them here.

"Please, sir. May I have some more?"

Oh, I don't think it's because Trump told them so. It's because FrankThePug on X told them so. Him, and a dozen other people. And probably none of them are Russian agents. They're just "people who did their own research", reposting memes.

I'm pretty sure that a lot of people are buying the notion(s) that The economy sucks. (And specifically, because of Biden). People should vote against Biden because he's anti-Muslim. People should vote against Biden because he's antisemitic. People should vote against Biden because he's mentally incompetent. ----- Among other things, people in here should not underestimate the power that a group of anonymous Internet posters can have, to influence people.

. . . why do I bet that he wants to protect "planning government decisions with lobbyists"? Also thinking of a famous quote from Otto von Bismark: Any man who respects the law and loves sausage should never watch either of them being made.