impulse

So your contention is that Dem voters aren't very smart? And can't plan even one move ahead?

NH voted in February, last year to hold the first-in-the-nation primary, as they have since 1920. The DNC rules from 2022 said that any state holding a rogue primary wouldn't only get half the delegates, and any candidate that visits the state will get none from that primary. Meaning that the Dem primary didn't count for nuthin. (DNC thumbing their nose at the voters, yet again) So that was plenty of time for Dems to change their registration to "undeclared" by Oct 6 so they could vote in either the Dem or the Repub primary. Since a vote in the Dem primary would simply be wasted, I'm surprised that any of them even cast a vote in the Dem primary. In fact, why do you figure that, in a Blue state, over 310,000 voted in the Red primary and only about 120,000 voted in the Blue primary? (I'm basing that on about 95+% of the votes counted by AP) Exit polls showed that 70% of Trump voters were registered Repubs and 70% of Haley voters were registered undeclared. The question is whether that was a grassroots effort of individual voters or yet another DNC dirty trick to hurt Trump and the Repubs. https://newhampshirebulletin.com/2023/02/09/defying-dnc-state-senate-passes-unanimous-resolution-supporting-first-in-the-nation-primary/

My absolute worst experience in dozens of arrivals in BKK was still better than my best experience in about a dozen arrivals at LAX. It has always been horrid. There's always a huge queue either at the IO passport check or the baggage customs inspection. Sometimes, on both. The only up side is that there's no immigration queue upon leaving the US.

No, but voters could register as "undeclared" and vote in either primary. They just had to choose between a Dem or a Repub ballot.

It'll be interesting to see if it was a Repub caller, or a Dem caller trying to get more people to vote for Haley. We'll know, if they catch them. If they do, it'll be a Repub. If they never catch them, it was a Dem.

The right people aren't making the money. My forecast: They'll make it illegal, get their cartel ducks in a row (just like beer, 7/11, etc) then re-legalize it, but only the right people will make the money. Everyone else involved will make a pittance. BTW, on last week's visit to Bangkok, I didn't see a single weed store open. They were all closed. I was only in town 3 days, so I may have missed some. Are they closed because of legality, or because there's one every 200 meters and they can't make money?

He has access to a lot more information than I do. I'm not claiming "no fraud". I'm claiming I don't have enough information to know for sure whether the illegal election irregularities were deliberate. In which case, it would be election fraud. Personally, I believe there was fraud. But all I know is that there were illegal irregularities. Whether by fraud or by poor judgement, the fact is there were illegal irregularities that may have affected the outcome. And there's cases still winding through the system over 3 years later.

That's been the gist of many of the election irregularities. That the decisions to change balloting rules were made without the required approval of the legislatures, mostly by Dem election officials. And strangely, mostly in favor of the way more Dems vote than Repubs. It's almost as if there was a plan...

You're right. It's full of questions. But I read in the last paragraph.. ...investigators questioned six witnesses and scrutinised the individual purporting to be Ann’s father. However, no connection between Ann and the man was established. So no telling what really happened.

Having been a republic before it entered into the USA, Texas reserved a lot of rights for itself that very few (if any) other states have. And every kid that goes to Texas schools has to take classes in Texas history, in addition to US history. Obviously, I don't advocate a civil war or secession, but the fact that it's happening in Texas could make it real complicated. And if it's a race between fence builders and fence cutters, I have an entire neighborhood of retirees that would gladly head on down to build fence for no pay. And there's probably millions just like them.

So two guys show up demanding to take his girlfriend away, and his G/F is there with him. Apparently, neither of them is her father. Which, of course, she would know. That would elicit quite the reaction from me, as well. It also seems that the cop stayed in the car (perhaps not even seen by the guy) until he got out and pulled the gun. Other than the guy's grieving parents, it's hard to figure out who to feel sorry for. I do wish the reporting were better. And the translation, I suspect.

And if you dig a little, I don't think he's defying the Supreme Court. Their order allows the Feds to cut the razor wire. I don't think there's anything in it to prevent Texas from installing it faster than they can cut it. Of course, just before the next Gubernatorial election, some Dem AG or DA will file 91 charges against Abbott to keep him off the ballot... (Yes, there are Dem strongholds in Texas) It's gonna get interesting. I'm prouder than ever to be from Texas. Though the natives won't let me claim to be a Texan because I wasn't born there. I just got there as soon as I was allowed to make my own decisions.

+1 Most of those court cases said "no standing" and didn't rule on the the facts of the case. Best example of that was the Supreme Court decision regarding the Texas complaint. https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/texas-v-pennsylvania/ And I did not use the word "fraud". I claimed "election irregularities". Like Zuck's mobile voting van: Wisconsin judge rules that absentee voting van used in 2022 was illegal https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-racine-absentee-voting-van-16e07f54c595013ffeeb190c706ba4d8 And there are half a dozen other cases in swing states (and others) where the methods implemented in 2020 and 2022 were later found illegal. But way too late to overturn the elections. Not to mention the case currently going on in Georgia regarding machine tampering. But you have to stoop to reading the right wing sources to know about most of it.

I despised TV Trump. Didn't care much for him up until I saw what he did as President. And what has been done to him... I'm talking about the Trump who had zero Russian/Ukraine wars and zero Palestinian/Israeli wars on his watch, along with net negative illegal immigration during his last year, and lost zero US soldiers leaving Afghanistan. OTOH, I did not care for the way he handled Covid. At all.

With his schedule and pressures fighting off 4 or 5 partisan indictments while actively campaigning all over the country, I'd grant him a few gaffes. I'm surprised the guy hasn't vapor locked under that load. Just proves how strong he is, whether you agree with him or not. Biden, OTOH, who seems to take 3-1/2 weeks off each month and gets led off the podium for a nap after each speech... His only excuse is cognitive decline. Between the two, I know who I'd want sitting on my side of the negotiating table.

I think you're right there. The premise of the OP's query is that there is some protection against getting terminated after decent performance appraisals. I don't think that's protected in Thailand. It could as easily have been he/she? got terminated because a new boss didn't like him. Or because the company decided to hire someone more qualified to work on Y technology. Even back in the nanny states, job performance and unfair termination claims generally only hold if there's a union, or if the employee can prove some kind of discrimination based on race, gender, etc. We white guys almost never win those... My advice would be to take the severance and leave on good terms. Never know when you may need a letter of reference from a previous employer.

Biden's most formidable opponents are stairs and teleprompters.

Quite a few Haley voters in NH were Dems who didn't want to waste a perfectly good vote, because the DNC isn't counting primary votes from NH. That's why 70% of Haley voters were registered as "undeclared", while 70% of Trump voters were registered as Repubs.

My question, (and the answer will probably be coming out over the next few weeks) is whether the votes for Haley were a grassroots effort by individual voters, or if they were the DNC's objective the whole time. The reason they got into the snit with NH over primary dates... If they were grassroots, I salute the voters for their initiative and creativity. Even if I disagree with them. That's democracy. If it was DNC trickery, it's just another data point that Trump isn't the real threat to democracy.

I suspect it has more to do with the DNC's decision to give NH voters the middle finger and not accept any dedicated delegates from the NH primary. So any vote as a Dem was wasted. That allowed a lot of them to cast their vote against Trump instead of wasting it. They could vote in the Repub primary if they were registered as Republican or as undeclared. (And apparently, if they didn't register at all.) I can't wrap my little mind around the rules, (someone please correct me if this is wrong...) but apparently NH state law says they will be the earliest primary. DNC this year decided that S. Carolina will be their first primary. NH disagreed. Lots of wrangling. The final result was that the NH primary went on (as it always has) but the DNC won't accept those results and consequently they won't accept any dedicated delegates based on those results. The way I understand it is that NH will still have delegates, but they won't be dedicated to any candidate based on the primary results. In any case there have been several interviews of Biden voters leaving the primary after voting for Haley. But they're on "unapproved" sources so you'll have to look for those.

As I stated, they only ruled on academia. Because that's the case that was in front of them. But companies all over the country are scrapping their DEI programs, partly because they have been a disaster for the bottom line, and partly because it's only a matter of time before one of those cases goes to the Supreme Court and racial discrimination in business is ruled as illegal as racial discrimination in academia. On a personal level, I want the most qualified person doing my surgery and tightening the bolts on my aircraft. Not the one that ticks the right boxes.

If that's the case, why did the Supreme Court declare it illegal? Only in academia for now, but that's because they only rule on the cases before them.

The Supreme Court seems to disagree.

DEI Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. Isn't that the new racism? Because preferential treatment based on skin color is racism. Even when it goes in the other direction.

It's getting worse for her. She was actually pulled off of one case because the judge questioned her ability to be unbiased in a case against the political opponent of the candidate she had thrown a fundraiser for. https://dailycaller.com/2024/01/23/fani-willis-removed-fake-electors-case-georgia/ And she's using public money to pay an internet consultant to measure her internet karma (for lack of a shorter description). https://dailycaller.com/2024/01/23/fani-willis-media-coverage-contract-trump-probe/ That latter one may be okay, but it seems she's not interested in her office's stats. Just hers. And she had a hard time getting the county to foot the bill for a renewal. So it may not be according to Hoyle. I'm sure more will be revealed, because... The deeper they dig, the more dirt they find...