KanchanaburiGuy

Which, of course, they're entitled to do. The parking is just as much theirs as yours! If they're putting their own vehicle in that space, there's really nothing for us to complain about, is there? A parking space is being used for parking! (And how could we possibly know whose car or motorcycle it is, anyway? ---------------- In my experience, the people who do this aren't trying to preserve a space on front of their business for their own customers! Why? Because the space blocked-off with chairs and bins! It is no more available for their own customers to use.......... than it is for you and me! It's BLOCKED! ???? No, generally, what their goal is is to have the space available for when their own car or truck returns............ or......... it's to leave a space blocked out for when an expected delivery truck arrives. --------------- I guess I'm guilty of being a little annoyed by it, too, just like everyone else seems to be. "Hey, I coulda parked THERE!" But then I bring myself back down to earth by reminding myself........... Had there been a car or motorcycle in that space instead of chairs and bins........... I wouldn't have given it a second thought! It's really no different than any other OCCUPIED space! I'd've just moved on to the next one! "Hmmph! But it's against the law!" Yeah, okay. So what? Maybe I can be generous enough to believe they may have a good reason for it........... rather than being so impatient that I insist on having "This space, right here, right now!" Maybe? ------------ (Then again......... Half of a potential 10,000 baht fine as a bounty? As someone said upthread, this could be quite the money-maker.......... er.......... as long as you make a point of doing it a town or two away! [Hmmm. Bo Phloi is about 30km away and has at least 3 "market days" each week! Hmmm?] ???? )

Yes, looking at the blue bar graph that shows U.S. employment numbers for 1990 to 2021............... (I found this by clicking on the graphic and arrowing back two screens).......... we learn this.......... From 2008 to 2019, it appears there was an increase in jobs held by roughly 8 million------ from about 155 million to 163 million (with that "155 million" having stayed at that level for 5 or 6 years, I guess. "Baby Boomer Retirements" began in earnest in 2009.) That seems good until you realize......... The population of the United States grew in that same timeframe from 304 million to 328 million------ an increase of 24 million. (Our population typically grows by about 3 million per year, at current levels. [Less when it was smaller, of course.])

Before the pandemic, Baby Boomers were retiring at an average rate of ~10,000 per day. This began roughly in 2009, and explains a lot of why Mr Obama had such a winning streak of positive employment numbers.......... and why that trend continued under Mr Trump. It was not policy.......... not for either one of them! It was demographics! People had already put their time in........... Now it was time to clock-out! ------------------------ When people retire, that creates job openings. Their bosses weren't keeping them on the payroll out of generosity. They were still on the payroll because there was a job to do! When people retire........... those jobs still need doing! Now, jobs don't get replaced on a one-for-one basis. When a more senior worker retires, people move up. More often than not, existing employees will fill those vacancies. So the job OPENINGS that wind up occuring as a result of retirement......... tend to be at the lower, less expensive end of the scale, not at the higher end. (This also partly explains why average hourly wages remain stagnant. The expensive guy retires and is replaced [ultimately] by an entry-level worker, at a much lower wage. When roughly 10,000 presumably higher paid workers retire daily and are replaced by lower wage, entry-level workers.......... well, that's going to put downward pressure on the average! lol) So I wonder............ What impact did the pandemic have on this? I know not as many Baby Boomers were retiring in 2020/2021. They couldn't. The circumstances weren't right for it. Have Baby Boomers Retirements returned to the levels they were before Covid........ Approx. 10,000 per day? Here's why I ask this........ From 2009 until the pandemic.......... dropping unemployment claims and so-called "new job creation"........ really WEREN'T indicators of positive economic performance! All that was happening was a reshuffling! For example, in his tenure, Trump "created" roughly 8 million jobs. But at the same time, something like 11-12 million Baby Boomers retired! Far fewer jobs were "created" during the Trump Administration....... than were "created" by Baby Boomer Retirements! Therefore........ "jobs created" during this time SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN considered a "positive economic indicator"........ but they were! And they still are! You can see that they still are.......... because when they're hesitant to call the first six months of negative GDP growth in 2022 "a recession".......... "strong employment numbers" are almost always the first reason they give for NOT doing so! But!.......... Before we can know how valid that claim is............ we have to know if "Baby Boomer Retirements" have returned to the level they were in 2019, or close to it! Because for roughly 10 years, "Baby Boomer Retirements" were the reason we had strong employment/ unemployment numbers............ NOT because of anyone's policy decisions.......... and NOT because of "strong economic performance!" ------------------- Sorry, but we were in a recession for the first six months of 2022......... with two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. And we may still be in one! I'm saying this because I believe that one of the major reasons the NBER isn't saying it............ simply isn't valid! Our employment/jobs situation ISN'T because our economy is stronger than our negative GDP growth indicates! It's because job openings are artificially being created on the back end............ by simple "Baby Boomer" demographics......... and it being time for literally millions of them to retire! Cheers!

Perhaps her labor-asset controller discovered the janitorial department had developed a greater need, so she was reallocated to floor mopping, toilet cleaning, and window washing. Communism, y'know? K. Marx -- "From each according to his [her] ability; to each according to his [her] need." Of course, being Communist, they might not have weighted her contribution as a writer as being any greater than her ability to clean toilets. So it wouldn't matter which one she does, right? Because labor is labor, and we shouldn't make value judgments about one kind of labor over another! *wink*

Allsides.com's media bias chart shows TheGuardian as mildly left (or what might be called leaning left), not hard left. https://www.allsides.com/media-bias

I grew up in a house where we did "Spring Cleaning." Every year, all the plates, picture frames, and nick-knacks were taken off the shelves and dusted or cleaned, along with the shelves they sat on. The silver was polished. The drawers were all relined. Every wood surface was dusted and polished, from tabletops and arms to legs and spindles. "Spring Cleaning!" YES! Not just cleaning, but DEEP cleaning, to make sure every surface sparkled! Except......... If someone had walked into the house shortly after we started? Oh my god........ it would have looked like a bomb went off! All the drawer and shelf items plopped down on stretches of floor or the dining room table, the coffee table. Everywhere you looked, there was a HUGE MESS! It would have looked like we were the the world's biggest slobs! But here's the thing.......... We had to make this huge mess. It was the only way to get the cleaning done as quickly as possible! --------------- So one of the things I learned as a kid from our annual "Spring Cleaning" project was this.......... Sometimes you have to make a BIG MESS, before you can CLEAN THINGS UP! But along with that, I also learned........... If you look too soon, all you may see is the BIG MESS............ and you'll never see the positive results that come from it! --------------- As an adult, I've tried to explain to people my "Spring Cleaning" theory of politics, many times: Sometimes you have no choice but to make a big mess.......... before you can fix things! And if you look too soon........ judge too soon....... you simply won't understand what's going on! (Mostly, people dont get it. They just roll their eyes. ???? But mostly, these are people who never did actual "Spring Cleaning" growing up!) --------------- I think........... Impatience may be the worst part of our politics today. Too few people are willing to wait to see what happens. They want to pass instant judgment; throw out instant condemnations. They act like the immediate response to an action......... is the ONLY response to an action! They act like there is no such thing as a long-term results......... that come AFTER the short-term reactions! But I learned important lessons from growing up in a house that did "Spring Cleaning." I learned that sometimes it's best to withhold judgment until after you see what actually happens. Because if you look too soon........ all you may see is the big mess......... and never see all the good that can come from it! ---------------- Liz Truss has been Prime Minister for HOW LONG? Jeez! She ain't Ramen Noodles or an SMS! This ain't "Instagram" or Snapchat! Jeez! Give her a chance, will ya? You know, at least as long as you'd, say, let a teabag steep or the marinara simmer! It's like digital cameras and camera telephones have warped people's perceptions so much......... that polaroids and one-hour processing have become INTOLERABLE! Now! Now! Gotta have it NOW! But somehow, in our warped political world, we've overlayed these expectations on the brand new Prime Minister of a large and complex industrial power, Liz Truss! Now! Now! Make it all perfect NOW! Jeez, take a breath, will ya? ????

Economic crash International war Civil war Famine Hurricane Massive earthquakes Ebola outbreak Energy grid collapse Petrol supply dries up Water supply contaminated Severe drought Nuclear attack Asteroid hits London Massive flooding WW III Communication grid collapse Coup Lol I think anyone who'd say "Liz Truss's Premiership Has Got Off to the Worst Possible Start"............. has a serious, SERIOUS lack of imagination! Lol In fact, her premiership could have started off much, MUCH worse! Imagine............. The foundation of money is the acceptance by the person receiving it that it has value......... and confidence that the next person in line will, too. But what would happen if the World suddenly said, "We don't accept that Pound Sterling has value. All exchanges of value henceforth must be by barter........ goods for goods; goods for services; services for goods." Now honestly, wouldn't THAT have been a "Worse Possible Start" for Liz Truss??? C'mon! ???? "Sorry, mate, what I need is disposable nappies. If you haven't got disposable nappies, you're not getting my Brie! Don't have any? Well, if you want my Brie, you'd better go find out what the disposable nappies guy needs, then, eh?"

I find these conversations much less confusing and contentious when everyone remembers that "murder" is a legal description, not a moral one. If there is no law saying that a particular form of killing is illegal, then it's not illegal----if it's not illegal, then it's not "murder." Because of this, there's no such thing as "legalized murder." That phrase, while catchy, is ultimately an oxymoron. Simply put: If it is "legalized"......... it can't be "murder." * Where abortion is legal, abortion isn't "murder." * Where abortion is not legal......... it may be. (It depends on how the law was written....... as well as how the individual prosecutor and presiding judge interpret the law.) Is it killing? Yes, in one form or another, it is "killing." Is it "moral?" Some people say absolutely yes. Some people say absolutely no. As I said at the conclusion of my post above............ there are times and circumstances during a pregnancy when, yes, I believe it remains a moral choice......... But there's also a point at which it ceases to be. But that doesn't make it "murder." "Murder" is not a moral description, it's a legal description. Now, I understand why people want to use the word "murder," even though they almost always use it incorrectly. It is emotive. It is a strong word. It conjures up strong feelings and passions. And it's a way of metaphorically putting down one's foot and saying, "This is where I'm making a stand!" ---------- A typical screed............ "If you're in favor if abortion, you're in favor of murder! (There, take THAT!)" --------------- But when the word is used incorrectly........... (and it almost always is!)........... then anyone you hope to persuade?.......... Well, they'll simply brush your views aside as being ill-considered and poorly informed! The word "murder" has a meaning. If you're using that in a conversation about abortion.......... but there is no law that defines it as such.......... then you're not ultimately taking the principled stand you'd like others to think you are. You're just showing-off to everyone that you don't actually know what you're talking about! Sorry. --------------- I suggest.......... stick to moral arguments and logic you feel passionate about, and only bring out legal terminology......... when there are actual laws on the books that support them! Cheers! .

I think.......... * There is a point where the child inside the womb can rightly be called "alive." At 7-8-9 months, the question is really one of where the child is living, not of whether it is "alive." So, for me, at 7-8-9 months, the child must be delivered, not aborted (unless there is a clear, compelling, medical, survival-level reason.) * Based on current technology, a fetus is not capable of surviving outside the womb any sooner than 19 or 20 weeks----not under any circumstances! This child is not one I would call "alive." Not yet. (Yes, it is "living tissue"...... but it is not yet "alive.") (Although the measures are extreme and extremely expensive, we have already proven we can deliver a baby at 20 weeks.......... and have it survive.) ------------------ ------------------ There is definitely a point during a baby's gestation where not being "alive" stops.......... and being "alive" starts. At 7-8-9 months, that's an easy one. At 4-5-6 months, it's not nearly so easy. In America, we call those who believe abortion should be legal, "Pro-choice." Those who think it shouldn't be are usually called "Pro-life." I am "Pro-choice." But! I think there should be LIMITS on those choices! For example........... I am AGAINST the new law here in Thailand. I think "Choice" should end at the end of the first trimester, which means 13 weeks. I think........... If you have not had an abortion by the end of the first trimester.......... then you HAVE chosen! By not having an abortion during the timeframe when we could honestly say "that child is not yet alive"........... (because it could not survive outside the womb under any circumstances!).......... you HAVE chosen! You've chosen to continue carrying the child----and to let the fates decide! I believe................. After the first trimester, abortion should only be legal if there is a compelling medical reason! ----------------- ----------------- (The Thai law says "consult with a doctor" and a "doctor's approval." But it doesn't say there actually has to be a medical reason! "Consult with" and "approve" could mean nothing more than........... "yes, we've talked. She understands the consequences.") . That's my take, anyway. I'm morally okay with abortion in certain circumstances and timeframes............ and object to abortion on moral grounds, in others.

Bam, just like that! Seven puns leapt into my head about this woman being "railroaded.".............

One of my favorite movie quotes comes from the movie "The Devil's Own," from 1997. Brad Pitt plays an IRA terrorist staying in the home of Harrison Ford, a New York cop. When Ford asks Pitt if he can offer some insight into understanding the difficulties in Northern Ireland, Brad Pitt's character responds.......... "Northern Ireland: The more you know about it, the less you understand." [paraphrased] I was in Ireland for the Cat Laughs Comedy Festival in Kilkenny, when the Good Friday Agreement was made. I was in Galway when both sides of the border overwhelmingly voted YES! for the historic Cross-border Referendum. It was an emotional time. It was a very hopeful time! And for the most part........ with only a few tragic, noteworthy exceptions....... the Good Friday Agreement has held. I got deep enough into it to fall victim to the "The more you know, the less you understand" part of it. But I understand this............. The Good Friday Agreement didn't give anyone everything they wanted. But it acknowledged the opposing points of view sufficiently ............to allow almost everyone to accept what it was trying to accomplish; to be willing to accept the bad with the good, and see how the good outweighs the bad! The Good Friday Agreement and the Cross-border Referendum were landmark moments in the tumultuous history of that amazing island. It makes me happy to see today's leaders speaking up in favor of preserving it!

This is a conversation, not a technical journal. Believe me or don't, as you choose.

I think the question you've asked is too black-and-white, and that makes a simple, honest yes-or-no answer nearly impossible. -------------- There is, in fact, a tiny, tiny, TINY percentage of people on "The Left" who think there should be no such thing as "private property" or "private business ownership." I've talked with some myself, so I know they exist.. The majority of this tiny group would probably call themselves "Progressives." On the other hand, there is a much, MUCH larger group.......... also on "The Left"........ who would never, ever, speak openly about such draconian changes............ but who would nonetheless love to see those kinds of changes occurring in effect.......... even if it's not done in fact! What they say instead.......... either openly or through their actions........ is.......... "We're okay with 'private ownership' of both properties and businesses.......... as long as WE get the final say over what you can and cannot do with them!" Generally, there is very little talk about actual government or communal OWNERSHIP of property and business......... ...........But there's a great deal of insisting that there should be top-to-bottom CONTROL over both businesses and properties........... by the government, (or by some other "community-focused" entity!) Ultimately it's about EFFECT. If THE EFFECT is the same............ it really doesn't matter whether it was achieved by falling squarely into neatly pre-defined boxes......... or whether it was achieved in an entirely different way! If the end result is the government.......... or some government-sanctioned agency........... deciding what you can and cannot do with your property.......... and what you can and cannot do in your business....... (regardless of who officially owns it!)......... then THE EFFECT is that of Socialism or Communism............ even while it's not technically Socialist or Communist! Thus, I think very, very few people would describe themselves as either "Socialists" or "Communists"........... even while a much, MUCH larger group on "The Left" advocates for things that suggest that is EXACTLY the level of CONTROL they hope to achieve! --------------- A person's words are easily edited, their intentions masked........... right up until their actions reveal what they really have in mind! Cheers!

Using crime rates as a point of comparison is deceptive. If you add, say, 5,000 new people to a community, the crimes committed by those 5,000 will be......... in addition to.......... the crimes committed the existing population, not instead of! So the fact that the RATE of violent crimes committed by Illegal Aliens is lower, is moot........... because the NUMBER of violent crimes will still go up............. by whatever number of violent crimes the Illegal Aliens commit. ---------------- In addition to......... NOT........ instead of! ------------------ Now, if we were comparing the potential impact of 5,000 NEW Illegal Alien Residents to a town........... to that of, say, 5,000 NEW Native-born Texan Residents to a town.......... THAT might be a time when comparing RATES would be useful! But if we're JUST adding 5,000 unplanned-for new Illegal Aliens to a community, their "violent crime" contribution to the community is CUMULATIVE, not COMPARATIVE. Yes, statistics suggest the results stand to be better than if a different 5,000 new people joined the community unexpectedly............ but the town will STILL be facing a worse violent crime situation, overall!

Interestingly, if you asked Donald Trump "What does having a high I.Q. mean?" he almost certainly couldn't tell you. Oh, he might be able to mumble the words the initials stand for.......... (I.Q. = "Intelligence Quotient")........... or he might say something incorrect like "It means you're smart!" But in all fairness to Donald Trump, it's been my experience that fewer than 5% of the people I've come across talking about "I.Q.s"............. or "High I.Q.s"...............has the first clue what I.Q. actually describes-------what it actually MEANS! Lol (HINT: It doesn't mean a person is "smart" or "intelligent!") ----------------- (I must confess, because of my overall disgust of Donald Trump as both a Leader and a Human Being, I'm tempted to suggest redefining "I.Q." as "Ineptitude Quotient." In that case, of course, I'd be more than happy to score him in the topmost tier! *wink* Ah, but that's just me being catty!....... )

I conclude the same thing I hinted at in my first post on this particular tangent........... That all these many, many claims that "Trump's attorneys lied"............ "Lied! Lied! Lied!"............ is not actually supported by the documents themselves. The documents themselves suggest the attorneys did the same thing attorneys always tell their clients to do................ "Only answer the question asked; don't elaborate. Giving more information than you've been asked for is not you being helpful. It's you being foolish." Saying "I've been advised" is an admission of two things: First, it's an admission that what is being conveyed is not first-hand knowledge. Second, it's an admission that the knowledge may not be complete or all-encompassing. That it includes only those things about which a person "has been advised".......... but not necessarily everything there is to know about it. Thus far, I've see no evidence that the attorneys lied. I merely see them answering the questions they've been asked, and no more.

Careful with your reading there!.......... "Not advised there were any records"......... ..........says something very different from................. "Advised there were not any records." (You said........."The lawyer [Individual Two] was advised [by Individual One who is not named] there were no documents in office, but there were.") Your misreading has converted "No one told me there were".......... into......... "Someone told me there weren't." [paraphrased] And that's exactly how these things wind up getting miscontrued and/or misrepresented, intentionally or otherwise! (And shows exactly why it's so important to be able to see what was actually said, rather than just someone's interpretation of what was said!)

First, thank you. Now........ Quoting from the link, page 20........... "Any and all documents that are responsive to the subpoena...." Which could very easily mean the same thing that I have suggested............ "that were asked for." So the attorneys could have very truthfully said they returned all the things they were asked for........... (that were "responsive to the subpoena").............. while NOT returning classified documents that were outside the parameters defined by the subpoena. (Subpoenas, as I understand it, have to be fairly specific. They can't just say, "Give us what you've got!" Lol)

This has been a qiestion that has intrigued me for a while now. I've seen this same claim in a variety of forms at least a couple of dozen times, now, across multiple threads: "The lawyers lied".......... or "The lawyers were instructed to lie"........... or "The lawyers were told a lie that they blindly passed on." I've seen the multidude of claims/accusations.......... but I've never seen a copy of the document............ the affidavit, apparently.......... that actually shows the attorneys saying this! (Now, I'm guilty of never having looked myself.......... not THAT interested! lol........... but, to date, I've never seen anyone else providing it, despite having seen literally dozens of assertions about it!) So, my first question is......... When you say, "falsely asserted to the Justice Dept that all documents marked classified had been returned," [placeholder] have you actually SEEN the document where Trump's attorneys said this? See, my concern is this........... Without seeing what was actually said and in what context it was said, it could be very, VERY easy to misconstue what was said......... or to intentionally misrepresent it. Imagine, for example, the two following scenarios............. The attorneys get asked, "Have you returned all the classified documents?" The attorneys respond "All classified documents that were asked for have been returned." * Now, one person reporting on this might INCLUDE the clause "that were asked for," and may accept that not ALL classified documents were returned, but everything THAT WAS ASKED FOR was! (Thus, what the attorneys said was true........... even though............ some classified documents still remained at Mar-A-Lago!) * Another person reporting on it might LEAVE OUT the "that were asked for" part of the affidavit, then report that the attorneys LIED! They would say the attorneys said "All classified documents were returned" [no "that were asked for"]........... and the fact that classified document still remained at Mar-A-Lago PROVES the attorneys had lied! You see the problem here? How the Justice Department asked the question............ matters. How the attorneys answered the questions asked.......... matters. Whether the question asked was general and all-encompassing........... or specific to a single, individual circimstance............ matters. And then, of course, how interested the person doing the reporting is in conveying accurately the questions, the answers, AND THE CONTEXT............. matters greatly! If we haven't seen the actual claim made by Trump's attorneys............ how can we possibly know what's correct or not correct??? Because as I've shown, without the supporting documentation............ it would be INCREDIBLY EASY to misconstrue or misrepresent what the attorneys actually said or did! Drop a word here; add a word there.......... and suddenly, something said truthfully one way............ becomes something that appears entirely false! So............. Have you seen the offending affidavit and what it actually says? I haven't ........ even after seeing the accusation made literally dozens of times! Hmmm?

I admit to bias.......... Going all the way back to the "Russia Investigation" started by the Obama Administration during the campaign, I thought about the Role of the President. The President is at the top of the Executive Branch of Government----the Branch with responsibility for Law Enforcement. As the head of the Executive Branch........... and as a supposed Leader............ I think a President should be a big enough person to put his personal feelings aside.......... and do whatever is ultimately best for the good of the country. And that means that when an investigation is begun............ even if it involves the President himself!............ he must do everything he can to help and encourage that investigation............ so the facts can be revealed and decisions made............ NOT to constantly criticize, ridicule, obfuscate, delay, and complain about the investigation! ---------- To help, not to hinder! The President should have said, "I hate what they're doing, but what they are doing is important. So I'm going to help them in any way I can. Because that's what a LEADER does: He puts his personal feelings aside and encourages his people to do their best work, efficiently and effectively." But Trump didn't do that. Not even a little bit! Instead, Trump whined and complained and criticized and obstructed. Here you had people........... supposedly HIS people!.......... trying to do an important job for their country........... and THEIR BOSS is ridiculing and insulting them, every step along the way! The very person who should be inspiring and encouraging them to do their best work.......... even at his own expense!........... was talking trash about them, at every opportunity! That's the Donald Trump I saw in 2016/2017........... That's the Donald Trump we've seen throughout this whole "Documents" fiasco. Personally, had I been President in 2017/18/19, I would have said "I hate this; it's a distraction. But they've got a job to do, and I'm going to do everything I can to help them do it. That's their job, and, as head of the Executive Branch, this is mine!" ---------------- Meanwhile, putting all the NOISE aside........ When he left the White House, Trump took documents he should not have. Whether that was done innocently, negligently, or with some kind of sinister purpose........ is beside the point. The point is........ * Trump took dociments he should not have. * When asked to return them, he didn't. * When asked to return them again, he didnt. * When asked to return them a third time, he didn't. This is NOT how the head of the Law Enforcement Branch of the Government should behave! Not as the President, and not as a former President! Despite all the NOISE.........all the GARBAGE surrounding this story, the facts themselves are fairly simple........... Whether accidentally or intentionally, when leaving the White House, Trump took documents he should not have. When he was asked to return them, that's what he should have done. He didn't. Whether or not taking the documents in the first place was accidental or intentional is now beside the point. It's beside the point because........... refusing to return them WAS intentional! To all appearances, it appears the man who sat at the very top of the Law Enforcement Branch of the United States Government ........... believes he is well and securely ABOVE the law! And he's been showing us that he's held that belief......... that attitude.......... in full-force............ since at least 2016! Rather than HELPING Law Enforcement do their jobs........... supposedly "HIS" PEOPLE........... he instead throws up roadblock after roadblock, insulting, criticising, and ridiculing along the way! THAT'S the guy tens of millions of people apparently want back as President? *sigh*

The DOJ isn't paid to be "impartial." Judges and juries are expected to be; prosecutors are not. Having the right to mount a defense is how we balance out the inherent partiality of the prosecutor's role, going so far as to provide and pay for a defense attorney, should a person not be able to, on their own.

Remember, it is not the Special Master's job to assess the merits of what the DOJ is doing. His only job is to make sure the things the DOJ is NOT entitled to see and use.......... (privileged communications, private and personal things)............ get separated out from the many things they ARE entitled to see and use. This process could be fairly quick, since the DOJ claims they've been doing these things themselves, already. The Special Master should accept at face-value anything the DOJ has already done, rather than wasting time combing through it again. If the DOJ is already saying they have no interest in those things they've already separated out........... there's no reason for the Special Master not to accept that! After all, why comb through a bunch of things you know the DOJ isn't going to contest, anyway, since they separated it out, themselves? If the DOJ has been as thorough about this as they would like us to believe............ (Remember, their argument before the judge was that a Special Master wasn't needed......... because they were already doing it themselves, anyway!).......... then there really shouldn't be all that much left for the Special Master to do, anyway! lol

Parents commit crimes and get arrested and jailed thousands of times each day, all across America. Their children are not rounded up and put in jail with them. They are separated. Parent goes to jail; children maybe go to other family members, maybe get collected and processed by Child Protective Services. [CPS] The one thing that doesn't happen virtually ever is............... the children stay with their jailed parents! The kind of separation of children and parents that was being done at the border is THE NORM for what happens with law-breaking parents and their children, not an exception! It's what happens each and every day in America (and pretty much everywhere else in the world!) What happened at the border was the story got HIGHLIGHTED with dramatic pictures and sad stories............. while completely ignoring the fact that virtually the same story happens daily, in cities all across the country! Parents get caught committing crimes............. then are forcibly separated from their children! -------------- The drama wasn't in the incident. There is literally nothing unusual about it! The drama came from how it was EMPAHSISlZED. It was EMPHASIZED knowing full well that people would react emotionally and irrationally.......... completely overlooking how NORMAL those events are, probably occurring regularly right there in their own home town! Yes, there are better ways to do it, and poorer ways. And the border stories showed us that bigger, difficult-to-manage numbers may inevitably lead in doing things in poorer, less appealing ways. But that's what happens when you get inundated, isn't it? You scrabble to do what you can.......... because there simply is not enough time and resource......... in that moment......... to do all the things you want to do? (And, of course, when you're struggling to manage............ THAT'S when some yahoo comes along and snaps his photos! Murphy's Law!) From what I saw, there was some fair criticism of what was being done. But mostly what I saw was UNFAIR criticism by people who seemed to have great passion........ (some real, but much feigned!).......... but who ultimately had no effin clue what they were talking about! --------------- Simply put............. If you're not kicking and screaming about how jailed criminals get separated from their children each and every day in America, right there in your own home town............. then whatever gnashing and crying you're doing about how people have been treated at the border.......... rings terribly, terribly false! ---------------- Law-breakers get separated from their children when they get caught. That's just how it is! ............That's how it has always been. That's how it should continue to be! And if you're a parent who doesn't want that to happen?............ simple.......... don't commit the crimes that lead to it!

Might want to double check that word "forcing." No one is being "forced" to go. They are being offered the opportunity, which many are glad to accept. (Turns out, the buses are getting them much closer to where they wanted to be, anyway. Except this way, they're getting there for free!) Voluntary, and, for the most part, appreciated. Not, as you claim, "forced."

Nope, sorry, Cause and Effect. The Cause was not the "unprecedented search," That was The Effect. Trump taking records he should not have was The Cause. * If he hadn't taken the records, there would have been no search. * If Trump had negotiated in good faith, there would have been no search. * If Trump had turned over the records he had been ordered to, there would have been no search. -------------- Trump had plenty of opportunity to eliminate the need for a warrant and search. He chose otherwise. ------------------ As for his request for a Special Master.......... That was a reasonable request and I'm glad the judge granted it. But the burden for paying for it falls on the person who requested it, Trump. Not the government. The DOJ has been very clear: since the request was made: They neither wanted nor needed a Special Master. --------------- Since Trump made such a big show of not needing his paycheck when he was President........... perhaps now he can make a show of not needing his pension............ by using it to pay for the Special Master! Lol