ggBarabajagal

The grocery store I shop at has handheld scanner guns for customer use. I check out a gun by scanning my loyalty card, then make my way around the store, scanning each item as I put it in my cart. When I'm done, the handheld scanner displays a barcode that I scan at the self-checkout scanner. My entire order shows up on the screen there, along with the total cost. I pay, take my receipt, and head out to the parking lot.

I like scanner-gun shopping a lot. I like it because it's efficient, but also because it puts me in control. I can see the real price of everything I take off the shelf, in real-time. If something doesn't ring up at the price it's marked, I know instantly. The device keeps a running total as I shop.

Most days, my entire grocery experience involves no direct interaction with any store employee whatsoever, except maybe to exchange pleasantries with a stockperson. I do 100% of the work of checking myself out. I imagine the money the store saves on me in labor might make up for a lot of the money it loses in shrink.

But the store gets something else from my use of its scan-as-you-shop service. It gets to collect a huge amount of data on the way I shop. Not only does it record everything I buy, but it knows when and where I buy it. It knows the patterns of how I move through the store. It can compare my patterns to the patterns of all the other shoppers who use store scanner guns. It can analyze these patterns for useful information about everything from store layout to shoplifting mitigation.

One of the ways the store mitigates shrink from scanner gun shoppers who might accidentally "forget" to scan an item they put in their cart is point-of-sale audits. Not usually, but every so often and on a regular basis, my order will be flagged for an audit when I go to check out. When this happens, the cashier running the self-checkout area has to come over and scan a certain number of items in my cart, to make sure they were all included in my bill.

My main point in all of this was to offer a narrative that runs counter to the narrative I picked up from the article. I prefer to have more control over my checkout experience, and I will willingly choose to surrender personal information about my shopping habits and check-out procedures in order to gain that control, every chance I get.

I agree with others here who point out that merely having a PoA in place is not a reason that Feinstein should resign. As to whether she should resign for other reasons, I tend think she probably should. But then I think about all the reasons that she shouldn't.

Feinstein is a high-ranking member of the senatorial judiciary committee. Back in April, she asked to be temporarily replaced in that position, but the Republicans blocked that from happening.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/republicans-block-temporary-replacement-for-sen-feinstein-on-judiciary-committee

The judiciary committee slot is important, because those are the guys who confirm all the federal judges. After sandbagging Obama's appointees for ~eight~ six years, the Republican-controlled Senate confirmed a flurry of judges under Trump.

To try to catch up now, the currently Democrat-controlled (by the thinnest possible margin) Senate Judiciary Committee wants to confirm as many Biden-appointed judges as it can while it still can. A year-and-a-half from now, who knows who will control what?

Sure, Feinstein should step down, and I think even she probably knows that, but she also knows that when she does so, the Democrats lose their razor-thin Senate majority, at least until Newsom can appoint a replacement.

No matter how quickly Feinstein could be replaced, the transition would offer Republicans easy opportunities to further delay nominations and block legislation of the very sort that Feinstein was elected by the people of California to pass. Nominations and legislation we have every reason to believe that she fully comprehends, regardless of any PoAs in place, and even despite her recent display of other age-related lapses in focus.

Anyway though, maybe her tragic act of hubris in all this was running for another term way back in 2018. If she had resigned back then, instead of next year, we wouldn't be here now. But now that we're here, I don't blame her for recognizing the no-win nature of the situation.

We have plenty of monuments and remembrances for military personnel who have given their lives for their country. We celebrate our veterans, at least as well as we take care of them.

We don't have the same opportunities to celebrate, or monumentalize, or even just remember the people in the intelligence community who given their lives for their country. One of the few places we do have for that sort of thing is the CIA’s Memorial Wall. Like all monuments to fallen patriots, it is intended to be a place of quiet reverence and reflection.

On the night of his 2017 inauguration, Trump and his wife stopped by to do a little dance and give a little speech, in which he bragged about himself and insulted the media and his political rivals. It doesn't sound like much now, after all we've been through, but back then it was still shocking.

It was shocking that anyone would act with such disrespect in that place. Moreover, it was profoundly disheartening that the person who was acting with such disrespect would be the same person who was now in charge of all the precious national intelligence that those fallen heroes had given their lives to obtain. Those fallen heroes with their stars hanging on the walls behind Trump, as blathered to the cameras on with one of his rehashed schticks about how smart he is.

--

Ex-CIA Boss Brennan, Others Rip Trump Speech in Front of Memorial [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex-cia-boss-brennan-others-rip-trump-speech-front-memorial-n710366]

--

At CIA headquarters, Trump boasts about himself, denies feud [https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-cia-langley-233971]

--

I remember this speech now, reading this article about Steele, because it sounds like Trump got at least two more people killed for the sake of his pathetic narcissism.

By declassifying the Steele report, for no reason except spite, Trump endangered the lives of every agent and every source even tangentially involved with its creation, across the globe. Two more sources in Russia suddenly disappear thanks to Trump, no suprise. And what else disappears? All of those networks of information, which cost thousands of hours of expert work and millions of dollars of taxpayer money to develop.

When we invest in an intelligence project, the information networks we develop are where we put all our money and resources. Those networks are the "principal." The intelligence we gain from the networks is just the "dividend."

Yet Trump is anxious to spend the principle, even if only as a gift to a foreign leader he's trying to impress. As if any of it -- principle or dividend -- was ever his to spend. (Or to store in an extra bathroom at his house in Florida.)

There have been rumors about this for months now. We already know Meadows has met with Jack Smith, and that Meadows' testimony about his book was used in making the DoJ's federal cases against Trump.

So why is this story breaking now? Why are the rumors about Meadows' immunity suddenly newsworthy?

I think it's because Meadows is getting ready to flip in the Georgia case, too. His immunity deal with the DoJ doesn't help him at all if he gets convicted in Georgia.

Meadows was unable to move the RICO case to a federal court. Now Hall, Powell, Chesebro, and Ellis have all taken deals in Georgia. Those who flip first get the best deals, and I bet Meadows is looking to be looking to be number 5 out of 19.

There will be no going back from this for him, though. The next flip in the Georgia case will be just as public as the last four have been. It will be Meadows' Michael Cohen moment. The point of no return.

This case involved charges of fraud made against Trump's company by the State of New York. This was a civil case, not a criminal case. The consequences were not supposed to be criminal.

The defamation lawsuits brought by E. Jean Carroll were also civil cases. She was not charging Trump with the crime of raping her many years ago; She was suing him (twice) for lying about whether he raped her many years ago. (She won both times.)

I think I get where you are coming from, though. When a person is rich enough to pay the fine, and also shameless enough to revel in the infamy of being found liable in a civil dispute, it can seem like that person doesn't end up suffering any significant consequence for their actions at all.

$355M is a lot of money. Add in the $83M owed to Carroll and these recent fines top $400M, which is an estimated amount of Trump's liquid assets. Trump is now likely running out of cash-on-hand, which could explain his recent takeover of the Republican National Committee -- the GOP's fundraising (and fund-spending) organization.

Criminal consequences come from criminal cases. Trump has invested most of his legal defense against the criminal cases he is facing. Pending criminal cases involving Trump include:

1.) A RICO ("Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations") case charged by the State of Georgia, against Trump and several others who allegedly conspired to steal the state's 16 electoral votes, including by having the President call (Republican) Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and ask him to "find 11,780 votes" for him. Four people in that case have already accepted a plea deal. This case is currently delayed by a motion to disqualify the DA because she had a romantic relationship with a lawyer her office hired to help prosecute the case.

2.) A federal case against Trump for retaining classified documents. A year or so ago, it was found that former President Trump and former VP Mike Pence had kept classified documents after they left office, and that when Joe Biden left the office of VP in 2017, he also kept some classified documents. Both Pence and Biden complied with federal investigation and surrendered the documents immediately when asked. Unlike Pence and Biden, Trump did not comply with federal investigation, and instead took action to conceal the classified documents in his possession. This case is being heard in a Florida courtroom, because Trump was storing these stolen national secrets in a spare bathroom at Mar-A-Lago. The judge is a Trump appointee, and has demonstrated a tendency to rule in Trumps favor whenever she can, but if she shows too much bias she may get taken off the case.

3.) A federal case against Trump for his involvement in the insurrectionist attempt to disrupt the electoral vote count in congress on January 6, 2021. Trump has been indicted on four charges in this case: "conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights." Trump's defense has been that he has "absolute immunity" for any actions he took while serving as President. This claim of immunity has been denied and appealed multiple times. Trump has now asked the SCOTUS to hear his appeal, but they haven't said if they will yet. Until they do, that case is on hold, but there's no one else to appeal to higher than them. If SCOTUS chooses not to hear Trump's immunity appeal, the lower court's denial of it will stand and the case will go forward.

We have a "voluntary" tax system in the U.S. -- that's always been the situation. "Voluntary" doesn't mean that that you can choose to not volunteer to pay your taxes. It mostly just means that the way we run things, by default, it is each citizen's responsibility to calculate and pay their taxes each April.

American taxpayers filled out 1040 forms in the days before computers, a lot like they do now. The IRS selected certain fillings for audits, just like they do now -- sometimes because of an apparent discrepancy, and sometimes just at random.

It would be a lot more work, take a lot more resources, and be prone to a lot more error and lawsuits, if the IRS tried to calculate everyone's taxes for them. Even now that we are in the days of computers, it is much more efficient for the IRS to only audit a fraction of the filings submitted each year.

I'm also pretty sure our "voluntary" tax filling system has something to do with the Fourth Amendment and other privacy concerns. A lot of Americans very strongly believe that it is not the government's place to be all up in their private business.

-- EDIT to add:

There is a difference between whether it would be possible for the IRS to calculate individual citizens' taxes and whether we should abandon our voluntary tax system for one in which the IRS simply calculates the taxes owed by every citizen and send us each a bill. My original response was intended to address the latter, but now I'll say something about the former:

For someone whose single source of income is a job working for someone else, of course it is possible for the IRS to calculate your taxes. You've already volunteered all the information the IRS needs to do so. Your employer has already told the IRS exactly how much income you've earned and exactly how much of it you've had withheld for taxes. Remember when you signed that withholding paperwork with the HR department on your first day? That was the moment when you personally volunteered your income information and payments to the IRS. You've literally already been reporting your income and paying taxes on it ever since.

The way taxes work in practice for a single-income employee does not reveal the potential complexity of tax accounting for individuals who are self-employed, who have multiple sources of income, and anyone who doesn't want to make regular fillings and withholding payments throughout the year. The tax situation for single-income American employees is not the situation for all Americans. Not everyone has an employer who calculates their taxes and pays installments for them throughout the year.

It is common for Americans to have a single job with an employer who calculates and pays their taxes for them. This makes it very easy for the IRS to know exactly how much the taxpayer owes (or is owed) at the end of the year. If it ends up feeling to like this is the same thing as the IRS calculating your taxes for you, however, I'm guessing it's because you forgot that it's actually your employer who's been doing that accounting job for you all along, with each paycheck.

Hall --> Powell --> Cheesebro --> Ellis --> (?)

Flippity floppity. Who will be next?

It sounds like this Scott Graham Hall guy flipped on Sidney. So now who's Sidney going to flip on?

She was in a lot of meetings with a lot of people, including Trump and Giuliani. I bet she has a lot to say about that.

How can Tuberville hold up all these nominations, all by himself? I had to look it up. The way Senate rules work, they figure out nomination approvals in committee and then pass them on the floor with votes of "unanimous consent." By withholding his consent, Tuberville forces all the committee work to be done on the floor of the Senate.

That is to say, he is hijacking the nomination approval process. This process has developed and become institutionalized in the Senate over many decades. Tuberville is hijacking this process for a largely unpopular, far-right political purpose that is, at best, only tangentially related to the services with vacant leadership positions, and that is in no way related to the actual nominations in question.

Ironically, perhaps, the reason this glitch in the Senate rules allows one person to hold up all the nominations for everyone is itself just another institution. Senate "holds" have been around for decades as well. It wasn't until 2011 the that a bi-partisan group of Senators voted to change the rules to disallow "secret holds."

So Tuberville is exploiting one Senate institution in order to shut down another Senate institution, just to generate propaganda for his federally mandated forced-birth agenda.

It's like an echo of Gingrich in the '90s: It's like he's saying, "The interests of the people who elected me are more righteous than the interests of the people who elected all the rest of you all, so there will be no compromise from me on anything. We will run things my way or I'll use my position to shut it all down."

The only difference is that Gingrich shut down all the post offices for a few weeks. This asshole Tuberville is trying to shut down our military.

EDIT:

Maybe this could be McConnell's saving-grace swan song, before he gives up his GOP leadership position in the Senate. As the leader of Tuberville's party, I'm pretty sure rules allow him to end the hold that Tuberville requested.

Doing so would go against precedent and it would go against the spirit of the institution. But Mitch McConnell is no stranger to going against precedent and disregarding institutions when he thinks it serves his purpose.

It wouldn't earn him much forgiveness from people like me, but it would make him look a little better on his way out.

In the produce section, they have scales that print out barcoded price stickers. I look up the item I'm weighing (or enter the PLU) and it gives me a sticker I can scan.

In the bakery section, where you can pick out individual muffins or donuts, they have barcodes printed on the self-service case above each item. I can just scan the barcode for whatever I take.

(I do also have the option of checking things out at the end, if I didn't scan them with the gun.)

==

EDIT to Add:

Ironically, the only time I remember taking something from that store without paying for it was a time that my self-scanned order had been flagged for an audit. I was trying to buy a watermelon on sale, but the sale price didn't come up when I scanned it, so I set it aside to figure out at checkout.

When I got to checkout, my order was flagged for an audit. (Maybe even precisely because I had scanned the watermelon but then removed it from my cart when it came up at the wrong price.)

The guy running the self-checkout saw the flashing light at my register. Without comment, he came over to perform the ritual of scanning the certain number of items in my cart to reset the transaction and allow me to pay and be on my way. He and I had both been through this procedure many times. He probably performed it several times each shift he worked there.

I was distracted by the audit, however, and I forgot about the watermelon. When he scanned enough items and punched in his code, the register came up with my total and asked me how I was going to pay. I stuck in my credit card, clicked "yes" to the transaction amount, and made my way out of the store with a pilfered watermelon.

I think what they want is as many big-money donors as they can get, for which they require as many reliable Republican votes as they can get, for which they require Trump, for which they are required to give prima facia credence to whatever misinformation Trump is pushing on any given day.

It didn't always used to be like this, but that was a long time ago.

Trump didn't create his voter base -- he stole it, from Rush Limbaugh, Bill Reilly, Glen Beck, Alex Jones, and all those other millionaires who spent decades feeding working-class conservatives daily servings hate for huge profit.

And in all of history, who has been the conservative pundits' all-time number-one biggest and best favorite target for this hate? It has to be Barack Obama. (Our first Black president. Coincidence?)

Trump didn't create his voter base, but he has owned it outright for going on a decade now, starting way back with his entirely bogus claims against President Obama's citizenship. It didn't matter that the claims were bogus -- all that mattered is that they were against Obama, in an outright demeaning (and overtly racist) way. Dittoheads and O'Reilly fans ate that shit up.

Now here we are, eight or nine years later, and Trump still owns it. Only now, instead of feeding that voter base, and growing it with strongman posturing and punitive policy, he's using it exclusively to try to save his own skin. And at this point, the only way Trump saves himself is in an alternate reality, with alternate facts.

Now Trump lies to save himself, and half of congress has to play along or risk losing their own reelections. Thanks Obama.

So like, "Biden should seize the powers of the presidency to take a more authoritarian stance against authoritarianism." Is this really what you mean?

finger wagging is for the powerless citizenry not the president

Contrary to your premise, Biden has consistently promoted an anti-authoritarian view of how our representative democracy should work. He thinks people should vote against authoritarianism, instead of them calling on a POTUS who was elected to office because of his anti-authoritarian views to start taking authoritarian action against his authoritarian opponents.

The citizenry is not powerless. The citizenry has the most fundamental power of all: power over who is elected to office.

Just because that power can be corrupted and diminished through gerrymandering, electoral college imbalances, and two-party FPTP distortions (and a million other for-better-or-worse Constitutional safeguards against mob-rule) does not change the fact the citizenry still holds the most basic and fundamental power of all.

Tweets and finger-wagging are fine too, if you like, but if you are against fascism, I'm glad too. I hope you vote, and I hope you vote strategically instead of out of anger.

"Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."

As a fellow fan of syndicated daytime television, I'm sure that Mr. Trump is as familiar as I am with this above quote by Detective Lenny Briscoe, N.Y.P.D. So a re-post from him like this is puzzling to me….

Trump will testify under oath or take the Fifth -- he'll be forced to do one or the other. My guess is that he will "exercise his right against self-incrimination" in all pending and yet-to-be-announced cases against him.

Without any live testimony given by the defendant, prosecutors will be free to present any part of any of Trump's public statements and social media posts as testimony.

Prosecutors will be free to pick-and-choose whatever public comments they want, to show Trump in whatever light they want to show him in. Trump won't be able say anything back about it, because he'll've already invoked his constitutional right to not say anything at all.

Public comments (including endorsement by "re-truth"ing like this) are not made under oath, so they're not legally binding, but they are still things that Trump said out loud and on purpose.

However much they gin up support from his base of voters, they also add to the threat of Trump's own words being used against him later in a court of law. Used against him in the general election, too, if he somehow manages to make it that far.

Trump is all too familiar with the millions of Americans who love him for what he says, but I don't think he has any true notion about the millions more American voters who have come to despise him for what he has done. I'm not sure he ever will.

Ingesting lead can and will kill you, and it will impair your cognitive functioning in the meantime. Lead was banned from automobile gasoline in 1975, but it was too late. There are small amounts of lead in the air and water, almost everywhere, that will remain for centuries and that were not there before cars,

Jack Smith does not want to remove Cannon. Or he shouldn't at least. Not at this point, anyway.

By far, the best possible outcome is still for Jack Smith to convict Donald Trump in Aileen Cannon's Florida courtroom. As long as Cannon doesn't start conducting the trial in a way that actually prevents Smith from winning that conviction, keeping her in place is in everybody's best interest.

This morning's (11/07/'23) headlines are all about how Trump verbally attacked the judge in his fraud trial in New York yesterday. Trump has repeatedly accused Judge Engoron of being partisan and biased, to the press and now in his sworn testimony. MAGA eats that shit up. The more Trump looks like a victim to them, the more riled up they get in his defense.

It seems to me that "The Case of the Stolen Nuclear Secrets" is going to be much simpler and easier for people to understand than "The Case of Strategically Shifting the Valuation of Heavily Leveraged Real Estate Properties for Various Tax and Loan Purposes." Considering even just the evidence that has already been made public in this case (photos of boxes of classified documents haphazardly stacked in a spare bathroom; audio recordings of Trump bragging that he shouldn't be sharing a classified brief he'd illegally kept) the chances of a conviction are strong.

If Trump gets convicted by a jury in a Florida courtroom run by so seemingly biased a judge as Cannon, it's going to be a lot harder for him to claim it's all rigged against him by the Democrats. It's going to be a whole lot harder to work that conviction into the whole victimhood narrative that Trump is currently thriving on.

This strikes me as a particularly ahistoric take. I'd like to make two points in that regard.

News Radio was the biggest gig yet for both Joe Rogan and Andy Dick, who played main characters on the show from the start. Jon Lovitz was already well known from his time on Saturday Night Live -- arguably a higher-profile position than the one he took on News Radio.

Jon Lovitz wasn't spawned by News Radio, is my first point. To the contrary: Lovitz was brought onto the show as an established big-name talent after (his friend and fellow SNL alum) Phil Hartman died.

And how did Phil Hartman die? Phil Hartman was shot and killed by his wife, Brynn Omdahl, who struggled with substance abuse. According to Lovitz, Andy Dick was said to have shared cocaine with her at a Christmas party at Hartman's house.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lovitz-speaks-out-on-dustup-with-andy-dick/

"[Andy] was just complaining and really giving me a hard time for no reason. Phil told me that they had a Christmas party and Andy was doing cocaine and he gave it to Phil's wife Brynn, who had been sober for 10 years. So Andy said to me, 'Well, you shouldn't be here,' and I said, 'Well, I wouldn't be here if you hadn't given Brynn coke in the first place.'"

After this on-set exchange, Lovitz and Dick were said to have made up and were able to work professionally together on News Radio. Later, however, when Lovitz was out at a restaurant, Dick came over to his table and invoked his ostensible involvement with Hartman's murder:

"He's standing there with liqueur dripping down his chin and he says, 'I put the Phil Hartman hex on you, you're the next one to die,'" said Lovitz. "And he's smiling, and my blood just went to my head. I wanted to smash him, but if I hit him he would have gone flying into the table behind him. He was really drunk."

My second point is that, while Jon Lovitz maybe be a "character," he's an entirely different class of character than Andy Dick. (Or Joe Rogan, for that matter, just to pretend this whole long reply still has something to do with the actual OP topic.)

Trump did not win all 50 states in the GOP primaries. In 2016. Cruz won Texas and a handful of other Midwestern and non-coastal western states; Kasich won his home state of Ohio, and Marco Rubio won in Minnesota.

In 2020, in some states, the GOP didn't even bother holding primaries or caucuses. States like Kansas, Nevada, SC, cancelled public voting in primaries and caucuses after the RNC pledged its undivided support to Trump in back February of that year. So Trump didn't really "win" primaries in "all 50 states" in 2020 either, because primaries were not held in all 50 states.

Tipping is more than just a custom; there really is a culture to it. If you're tipping only because you know the server makes less than minimum wage from the restaurant (or that greedy restaurant owners are completely to blame for this injustice), I think you may be misunderstanding an aspect of this culture.

Working in a restaurant is as hard a retail job as there is, and working as a server is often the hardest job in the restaurant. Being a truly good server requires a rare mix of people skills, math skills, memory, and a thick skin. So why do people choose to take the hardest job there is in the whole restaurant, when it pays less than all the other jobs?

Most servers end up getting paid better than the people doing other jobs in the restaurant. In most restaurants, servers make more than minimum wage. At the end of their shifts, most servers in turn tip-out the front-of-the-house employees, such as hosts and bussers, who often do only make minimum wage.

A truly excellent server may be the highest-paid employee for an entire shift -- that certainly includes the manager and anyone else on salary, and it may even include the owner, when you add in labor and upkeep costs.

In order to make all that money, however, this server has to work at all the times that everyone else is out having fun -- Friday night, Saturday night, Sunday morning. This server must put up with drunks, picky eaters and other narcissists, as well as seating errors and kitchen mistakes, all with a smile, for six or eight or ten hours straight. This server, who earns more than anyone else on the shift, is working harder than anyone else on the shift.

This is the other aspect that I wanted to address. Tipping culture is what gives that excellent server the opportunity to earn a better wage, more appropriate to the effort and expertise they devote to the job.

I'm sure this all sounds very capitalist, because it is. This may not be the most capitalism-friendly forum, I know, but I'm not trying to make any larger argument here.

I'm just saying that to me, it seems like this should be a "don't hate the players" (owners, managers, servers, rich/drunk people who like to leave big tips) "hate the game" (tipping culture). And even if you do hate tipping culture, it couldn't hurt to consider how it works for the people who don't hate it.

There is a phone app, that pretty much allows you phone to work like the scanner gun. I've used it before and it works fine, but my phone's camera is not as good as the guns at scanning barcodes.

Also, as much as I realize I am trading privacy for control, I figure there's no need to have the grocery store's app living on my phone, when it is just as easy for me to use the dedicated device they provide in-store.

Michael Steele used to be Republican Lt. Gov in Maryland, then was the chair of the GOP campaign in 2008 when John McCain and Sarah Palin were on the ticket.

After he lost his reelection bid for party chair, he went to work for MSNBC as a commentator, and he's been on there all the time ever since.

EDIT to clarify: Steele was not a fan of the proto-MAGA movement represented by Palin on the 2008 ticket and he has been a never-Trumper Republican from the start

Since the rise of Trump in the party, not sure if Steele still a registered Republican.

Russian emails? Are you thinking of the Wikileaks stuff, with the hacked data from Clinton's campaign staffers? I am pretty sure those are different and separate from the emails that Comey was investigating for the FBI.

There are two "Hilary's emails" stories. It is easy to confuse the two -- Republicans worked very hard throughout 2016 to make it easy to confuse the two -- yet they are two different series of events and almost totally unrelated to one another.

The original "Buttery Males" story: Comey and the FBI investigated emails that were stored on a private server owned by the Clinton Foundation, a server that Hilary had used for official business while serving as Secretary of State. In July of 2016, Comey announced that while they did find a small number of documents marked "classified" stored on the server, this violation was obviously inadvertent and should not be prosecuted. "Sloppy but not criminal," or something like that. Then later in October (after taking a few months of heat from his fellow Republicans for not going after Clinton harder) Comey announced that there may be files on a laptop owned by Hilary's assistant, Huma Abedin, that the FBI had not yet had a chance to review. Comey announced this privately to a congressional committee and it was leaked almost instantly, about a week before election day.

The "From Russia with Love" email story: Meanwhile, Russian hackers infiltrated Hilary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and stole thousands of personal emails and other data from her staffers and people they'd communicated with. None of these emails were classified and the FBI never investigated the Clinton campaign in this case (except as the victims of a crime). Wikileaks and Julian Assange got in on the action and built up lots of hype. That's when, in the middle of a campaign speech, Trump made his famous on-stage plea: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."

Trump was clever, mendaciously associating the original "classified documents on your private server" controversy with the "Russia stole your data and is about to release it on Wikileaks" controversy, but the two stories don't really have anything to do with one another, at all, and they never really did.

It may even be to their advantage, as the new candidate receives Trumps blessing and gives Trump clemency.

I also have been wondering what the race will look like in six months, when all this speculation about Trump's trials (and potential prison time?) will be upon us for real.

Legally (so far at least) they say Trump can run from prison. If he were to win, as POTUS he'd have many options available to clear his name, dismiss his accusers, and attack his opponents.

I don't think Trump will give another candidate his endorsement, even from prison. If he does, it won't be without that other candidate publicly swearing fealty and promising to grant clemency, as you say. The way I see it, any candidate who'd be willing to do that will look weak and subservient, and probably look worse than Trump's going to look, even from prison, by the time they get to the general election.

I think the only way another candidate wins the GOP nomination is by taking it from Trump -- not by Trump lending it out to them.

I'm pretty sure he tried, but institutions held and the military didn't let him get away with it.

I think Gen. Mark Milley was on-guard against Trump's antics (especially after he got tricked into appearing in uniform with Trump for that upside-down Bible photo-op) and that through the end of Trump's term, Milley stood firmly against use of the military against civilians or for political purposes.

But if Trump really were to be elected again, who will be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under his new administration?

FISA stands for "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act." By definition, it's only supposed to be used in the surveillance of people foreign to the U.S.A. The FBI's job is domestic law enforcement. It's the FBI's job to investigate crime involving U.S. citizens.

Officially, the NSA does not spy on U.S. citizens. You can believe whatever you want about whether it actually "unofficially" does, but unless you do a lot of business overseas, chances are high that Google and Amazon and Facebook all have collected way more personal information about you than the NSA has.

Even if the NSA does surveil U.S. citizens, it can't use any information it obtains in any legal or political way, or in any otherwise public manner.

If a U.S. citizen has communications with a foreigner, however, it is possible that those communications will be surveilled. The NSA does spy on foreign citizens, just like foreign intelligence agencies spy on U.S. citizens. If you're a U.S. citizen communicating with a foreigner who's being surveilled, then your communications with that person are going to be surveilled as well.

But again, it's not the FBI's job to police international crime -- that's the job of the CIA. As the article describes, this is why it is a bad idea for the FBI to be using FISA intelligence. This is why "it's a problem when they do it to Americans."

Yes, yes, and yes. Seeing a movie in a theater offers a distinct experience in two main ways:

The first concerns the experience of losing some self-awareness as you "get into" a movie and devote your focus to what's happening on the screen. This experience different when it happens in unfamiliar surroundings than when it happens on your living room couch. Losing yourself to a film's narrative in a public place feels different than doing so at home.

Second, the experience of watching a movie together with strangers is different from watching it alone. You'll hear people who you don't know laugh when you laugh, and sometimes when you don't. You'll also hear people who you don't know cough, slurp sodas and crunch popcorn, and sometimes even comment or heckle. A full theater adds a communal aspect, as the mood of the audience as-a-whole affects the experience for each individual audience member.

I'm so old I remember when going to the movie theater was literally the only way to see the movie. I've been in all circumstances: alone, on a date, with a group; in empty theaters and in packed ones. Going to see a movie by yourself and ending up the only person in the theater can also be a good experience, and is still very different from watching alone at home.

After you've tried going to the cinema a few times, you might look for a (now rare) opportunity to see a movie at a drive-in. It's a weird juxtaposition of the theater experience with the private home experience that also becomes something more all its own.

A pastor usually leads a Protestant church. Catholic churches are led by priests.

Confession of sins to (God though) a priest is a rite in the Catholic church, but not in Protestant churches. Protestant churches often encourage members to ask forgiveness for their sins directly to God through prayer.

There are more Catholics than protestants in the world, but there are more protestants than Catholics in the U.S. The type of Christianity most often associated with socially conservative Republican/MAGA primary voters is Protestant "evangelical" Christianity.

Evangelicals are a hardcore subset of Protestants who take the Bible literally. They're sometimes called "Born-again Christians" because of their belief in the importance of personal conversion. That is, you're not really a real Christian until, as an autonomous adult, you willingly choose to surrender yourself, mind body and soul, and devote your life to (your pastor's teachings about) the teachings of Jesus.

Anyway, now I've done an eight-hours-later four-paragraph TED-talk riff on what is otherwise quite a fine and clever comment. I mean no offense and hope none is taken. I mostly just wanted to note that when Nikki Haley talks about "pastors," she isn't talking to Catholics; she's talking directly to the GOP evangelical voter base.

Good point!

For the sake of accuracy, Hulu is owned by Disney which also owns ABC, as well as ESPN, Marvel, and Fox Entertainment (but not Fox "News").

Meanwhile, a couple years ago, CBS and Viacom merged to become "Paramount Global" which owns both CBS and the Paramount (streaming) Network (obviously) as well as a slew of cable channels including Showtime, MTV, Nickelodeon, BET, Comedy Central….

And as noted, Comcast owns Universal which owns NBC. Their streaming service is "Peacock," which has yet to demonstrate that it can compete against Disney's Hulu (or CBS's Paramount).

This may soon change, however, as licensing agreements expire and corporations begin to run their own content exclusively on their own networks. Disney-owned content will stream on Hulu, Universal-owned content will stream on Peacock, and Paramount-owned content will stream on Paramount. Same goes for all their respective cable TV channel subsidiaries.

This consolidation in media ownership gives more power to the corporations to compete against one another in the emerging streaming-service market, but it also takes power away from the people who create the content. This is a big reason why the screenwriters and SAG are on strike.

I've been trying to do my part by watching reruns of The Nanny in demonstration of my support.

Detroit is laid out differently from NYC, more like the spokes of a wheel or a spiderweb, instead of a grid like Manhattan. Downtown Detroit (the most "urban" area of the city) and Belle Isle are both at the center of the wheel.

Not sure you'd get a sense of that by "looking at it" on a map, but Belle Isle at least as close to downtown Detroit as Central park is to lower Manhattan.

You do have to take a bridge to get there though, since it's an island, so you may have a point about accessibility in that regard.

Nevertheless, Belle Isle is a large park in the middle of an urban area. Especially if you bring Windsor into the mix.

The insurrection took place on January 6, 2021, which was three years ago.

Over 700 people have plead guilty or been convicted for crimes they committed at the capitol that day. Others have not yet been apprehended or gone to trial, and some others have not been identified. https://apnews.com/article/capitol-riot-jan-6-criminal-cases-anniversary-bf436efe760751b1356f937e55bedaa5

Trump has also been charged for his actions three years ago, but has delayed the trial with repeated appeals all the way up to SCOTUS. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4468789-trump-special-counsel-jack-smith-supreme-court-jan-6-trial/

I don't know what Brazil has to do with January 6. In the United States -- as in many countries with "decent legal system" -- a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Anything less than proving Trump guilty beyond a reasonable doubt will be taken as a complete victory for him, and very possibly catapult him to re-election in November.

If you need to check it, then maybe they are not calculating your taxes for you, so much they are taking their best guess and asking you to sign off on it. If their best guess is as good (or better) than yours, there is no difference in practice. But there is still a difference in principle: whether a citizen is permitted to declare their own income or whether the government is obliged to determine it for them.

I know that the "United States of America" is the only country with the word "America" in its name. I know that the "United Mexican States" also has the words "united" and states" in its name -- are Mexicans "USians" too?

I know that most Mexicans, by default, refer to people from the United States as "Americanos." I know that most Canadians are quite happy not to be confused with the "Americans" from south of their border.

I know that people from the United States of America have been referred to as "Americans" for over 200 years. I know that when someone makes it a point to start calling someone else by a different name than the one that's preferred, that person is usually pushing some outside agenda and should not be taken seriously in the conversation at-hand.

TL;DR: What does any of this have to do with your point about Israel and Gaza?

USians

Just as I was starting to take you seriously,,,,

Yet you still don't seem to understand why a serious person might hesitate to take you seriously?

I agree they'll do their best, but how? With what? Are they going to try to refute Trump's crazy tweets with other crazy Trump tweets?

Among the most damning aspects of Trump's public statements is their lack of consistency -- the OP meme we're discussing is an example. I don't think this aspect will be refuted by his lawyer demonstrating even more inconsistency.

The only thing Trump has been consistent about on social media is lying about the 2020 election and personally attacking anyone who says anything against him. I don't see how either of those behaviors are going to help his lawyers refute anything either.

The IRS calculates an employee's taxes based on the income and withholding information provided to the IRS by the employer. The employee "volunteers" his tax information (and IRS witholding payment, if any) with each paycheck. The accounting for all this is listed right there on the paystub.

Yes, that sounds right, except that I think it really is relevant that one party was a U.S. citizen.

There are strict laws against the U.S. government surveilling U.S. citizens without a warrant. By using FISA information gathered through warrantless foreign surveillance, the FBI appeared to be taking a backdoor around those laws.

Again, I acknowledge your point about accessibility.

When you say something like "I wouldn't count Windsor," however, it suggests to me that you've never been to Detroit and that you still don't understand what I'm talking about.

--

EDIT to add:

I don't think you've been to Detroit, but I'm not sure that you've been to New York City, either?

It seems as if you are thinking of Manhattan as all of NYC, or at least as the center of NYC. Geographically, it is not.

I'd agree Manhattan is "central" to NYC, in terms of culture and politics and money. But it could not be -- it would not even exist as it does today -- were it not for the other four boroughs. It takes all five boroughs to make New York City. The shape of the whole city is as irregular as any other city built on the water, and the center of it is nowhere near Central Park or Manhattan.

In fact, the only way that Central Park is close to being geographically "central" to the whole city is if you include Newark NJ as part of the city. But New Jersey is a totally different state from the State of New York. (I mean sure, you don't need a passport to go across bridges or through tunnels, but still: You see where I'm going with this, don't you?)

But how do they know what they know about your income? Didn't you (or your employer on your behalf) already volunteer this information to the government in the first place? Or is your government monitoring your private financial transactions without your express consent?

As long as Cannon doesn’t start conducting the trial in a way that actually prevents Smith from winning that conviction, keeping her in place is in everybody’s best interest.

It's not just for quality, but for authenticity too, I think.

Foods that are fermented or aged can take on a unique flavor profile, based on the unique blend of bacteria and mold and yeast in the area. Even using the same milk from the same cows and processing it the same way, cheese that is naturally aged in a cave in France might taste different from cheese that's aged in a cave in West Virginia. Not necessarily better or worse, quality-wise, but different. Not authentic.

Weather patterns, seasonal changes, and soil conditions are also distinct and varied in different places. The same grapes grow differently in German soil than they do in Kansas. The grass that the cows eat grows differently in different places, and this can have a significant impact on the flavors of the milk and cheese.

I'm American, but I used to work in a fancy wine store that sold a lot of imported cheese and groceries. I imagine that in practice, PDO must seem like an annoying mix of over-regulation and jingoistic propaganda -- especially to someone in Europe. But it does seem to serve a purpose, even if in an overbearing way.

I think being proud of local food culture is more like community spirit or neighborhood pride. It's like saying, "here's something ingeniously delicious we created using only our limited local resources." I don't think of that quite the same way as "pride" about race, gender, sexuality.

I remember Gilbert Gottfried at a Friar's Club roast. Can't remember what the actual joke was, but I remember he lost the whole audience, and then won them back with a spontaneous telling of "The Aristocrats"

Kudos for Carlin, who made fun of government propaganda. Maybe not so much for Joan Rivers for making fun of FDNY widows.

(I'm not a boomer, though. Or a millennial. Or really that edgy anymore, if I ever was....)