thaicurious

Some of them are cult Some of them are excusing their own bad behaviors Some of them don't know any better Some of them seek acceptance at any cost Some of them are just plain old fashion stupid Some of them seek simple reasons even if wrong Some of them are stuck in emotional cost sunk fallacy Some of them want to be abused

The foundation of life and evolution, huh? Fix your skirt dear, your dirty ignorance is showing. https://pressbooks-dev.oer.hawaii.edu/biology/chapter/cell-division/#:~:text=The continuity of life from,of two new daughter cells. "BIOLOGY Cell Reproduction Cell Division Learning Objectives By the end of this section, you will be able to: Describe the structure of prokaryotic and eukaryotic genomes Distinguish between chromosomes, genes, and traits Describe the mechanisms of chromosome compaction The continuity of life from one cell to another has its foundation in the reproduction of cells by way of the cell cycle. The cell cycle is an orderly sequence of events that describes the stages of a cell’s life from the division of a single parent cell to the production of two new daughter cells." (bolding mine) So you can take the heterosexuality you think superior and shove where the sun don't shine because "THE FOUNDATION OF LIFE and evolution" (your words) IS ASEXUAL Single Cell Division, NOT HETEROsexuality

Normally & historically & likely in large part moving forward, correct. Orangely? Maybe not so much. Rather combine the sale I mentioned with the trust of your post per this 2016 study* (moderators pardon if the excerpt seems lengthy but the issue is complex and I've taken just a small part from a 20plus page report to clarify an issue raised here) https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gs_121616_emoluments-clause1.pdf "...as the New York Times reported on the basis of careful study, “Every president in the past four decades has taken personal holdings he had before being elected and put them in a blind trust in which the assets were controlled by an independent party” or the equivalent ... ...Nor could a supposedly “blind trust” involving control of Mr. Trump’s assets by his children (who would run the Trump Organization) suffice. As Senator Cardin has explained: A true blind trust, including ones established by past Presidents, is an arrangement where the official has no control over, will receive no communications about, and will have no knowledge of the identity of the specific assets held in the trust, and the trust’s manager operates independently of the owner. The arrangement described by Mr. Trump and his lawyers is not independent: Mr. Trump is well aware of the specific assets held and he can receive communications about and take actions to affect the value of such assets. And the idea that President-elect Trump’s children are or will be truly “independent managers” is not credible. The ultimate difficulty is that a “blind trust” of this sort does not address the fundamental reasons why the Emoluments Clause was written into the Constitution. Mr. Trump would still know that his interests and those of the Trump Organization are closely intertwined; he would still know what the Trump Organization is doing and how conduct by foreign states and their agents is affecting it (and him); he would still have continuing incentive and opportunity to use the power of the Presidency to influence the Trump Organization and, potentially, the conduct of its officers, directors, regulators, and competitors; and both the American public and international community would know all these facts. the only true solution is for Mr. Trump and his children to divest themselves of all ownership interests in the Trump business empire. That divestment process must be run by an independent third party, who can then turn the resulting assets over to a true blind trust. Even if, as some experts believe, there is nothing that Mr. Trump could do to avoid the significant tax consequences of divesting, fidelity to the Constitution, and to American foreign policy and national security interests, manifestly overcomes all such loss to Mr. Trump or his immediate family (who will remain extremely wealthy, in all events). Ultimately, having run for President and prevailed in Electoral College votes, Mr. Trump must make sacrifices in exchange for the awesome powers and responsibilities he will now inherit. That is the design of the Constitution, to which Mr. Trump is always subject. Remedies for Emolument Clause Violations In the event that Mr. Trump chooses a course of action that places him in continued violation of the Emoluments Clause, there are several possible remedies. First, given that Mr. Trump would arrive in office as a walking, talking violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, the Electoral College would be justified in concluding that he is unqualified for the Office of the Presidency. For that reason, among others, individual electors must be considered free to decline to cast votes for Mr. Trump" (bolding & underlining mine) *the authors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_Eisen American attorney, author, and former diplomat. He is a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Painter American lawyer, professor ... chief White House ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Tribe American legal scholar who is a University Professor Emeritus at Harvard University. He previously served as the Carl M. Loeb University Professor at Harvard Law School... A constitutional law scholar

It is as much a distorting perversion of thought to on the one hand claim you don't care what gay people think is cool while simultaneously complaining that gays portrayed as cool are so important to you as to make you paranoid that being thought cool has the power to change a heterosexual's sexual orientation as it is a perversion of thought for you to try to convince others that fostering an atmosphere of honesty & acceptance of human nature causes humans to lie to themselves and others about their own sexual nature. Perhaps you are afraid that your hate is all that keeps you from turning into a fag?

Yup, way incomplete. I'm surprised this much is seeing the light of day. Just wait until the rest comes out about the billions made by Trump's son in law who actually DID work in the White House. That should be fun.

So your argument is that it was okay for him break the law because he had the infrastructure to act illegally? Perhaps he was simply supposed to sell his own businesses (& not America's nuclear secrets, haha). Thus the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution of the United States of America. If you have a problem with that, you need to take it up with our Founding Fathers who wrote... https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i/clauses/759 Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 [N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them [i.e., the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

The logic is their cheering his thumbing his nose at law, the founding basis of America, "a government of laws not of men" (founding father John Adams, 5 Adams Diary, Volume I, January 1759, page 73) PS apologies to moderators if thread is mislocated. Was thinking it a story of law but I suppose the politics of it are unavoidable)

Trump Raked in Millions From China, Other Governments While President (rollingstone.com) "Trump Raked in Millions From China During Presidency: Report House Oversight Democrats revealed that the former president collected $7.8 million from foreign governments while in office... ...Under the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, elected office-holders — including presidents — are barred from accepting gifts, payments, and other emoluments from foreign governments and dignitaries without the consent of Congress, as they could be used to influence policy and governance. As president, Trump refused to divest from his business empire, instead handing control of the conglomerate to his sons Eric and Donald Jr. The report released Thursday alleges that Trump violated the prohibitions against receiving emoluments when his businesses accepted payments from foreign governments..." Trump business got at least $7.8 million in foreign payments during presidency -report | Reuters "the payments detailed in the 156-page report are likely a fraction of the foreign payments made to Trump and his family during his 2017-2021 administration." Trump Businesses Received $7.8 Million From Foreign Countries During Presidency, House Reports (forbes.com) "Trump chose not to impose sanctions on ICBC, a Chinese bank that the Justice Department alleged was helping North Korea avoid sanctions (ICBC’s U.S. headquarters is located at Trump Tower, and paid Trump approximately $7 million in rent at Trump Tower, according to Forbes reporting)."

Tell us again how it is that you perversely want people to think that an atmosphere of acceptance of human nature causes people to lie about their sexuality when their sexuality causes them pleasure while causing no harm to others. Jealous? Unable to enjoy your own sexual self similarly in your own fashion without harming others? I ask because something must be driving your wrong thinking. So tell us from where does your twisted logic arise? Paint us a portrait of yourself and I assure you that gay community will gladly let you know if we think that's not cool.

Besides that LGBT on TV is portrayed, not "promoted", just like how showing hetero relationships or whatnut are simply portrayals, not promotions of the hetero hegemony, to say "kids want to be gay or trans" because it has become "cool" is as moronic a statement as saying: Now that it is more acceptable to be more open and honest about your own sexuality, what a perfect time to closet your real heterosexuality and fake being gay. Your totally twisted in a knot premise is that more people are lying about themselves because there is more opportunity to be honest about themselves. Good luck with that.

Boohoo this. As of this writing, the Orange-a-Peel had nothing to do with affecting his still remaining on the ballot because Maine's Secretary of State had already stayed her own decision way back in 2023 pending court review.

Haven't seen Tijuana but I've heard of the crime there and was using only as a geographic example with an easy drive. But also, a more touristy place like Cancun where I have been and like is about a 500 mile flight from Miami. But for all that, another option might be simply a low cost area of the states. So my example was just maintaining the expat factor. My personal solution after too many changes of plans since early retirement, much not by my doing but by "things happen" wound up with me staying put since covid in the US but with future funds for 5 or 6 months overseas in lower cost expat areas (my preference) or maybe two or three in a more expensive western spot each year (after vaccines improve, of course, as I'm not risking viral brain fog--aging sucks enough all on its own). I haven't priced such a hybrid plan but I'd think given Medicare access for comprehensive, then getting emergency care for serious conditions would be less overall than no medicare but only a comprehensive international plan, especially heading into the 70s or 80s & beyond. I remember pricing out overseas ins back in my 50s and it seemed very doable but when I price it now given inflation it looks to me way more expensive than my earlier projections.

I'm reposting the following citation from Federalist Society law professors who have examined this case because it speaks to a number of your issues. To the notion of "penalty without conviction", besides that a district court has already found that Trump incited an insurrection by his role in the Jan 6 attack upon our Capitol, here attorneys, who are scholars at that, and from the very organization of law from which Trump packed, um, I mean nominated SCOTUS justices are telling you that it is "quite clear that the specific series of events leading up to and culminating in the January 6, 2021 attack qualifies as an insurrection within the meaning of Section Three: “concerted, forcible resistance to the authority of government to execute the laws in at least some significant respect.”" Again, a district court AND law professors from the Federalist Society where from come his SCOTUS picks, are telling you this was insurrection incited by Trump. Further, to your notion of "requires a sedition conviction", note again that a district court has indeed already found sedition, but even more importantly and as noted by the MAGA law professors Section 3 is "a self-executing provision (that) doesn’t require any action by Congress—and it doesn’t require a criminal conviction. (bolding mine) No action is necessary to “activate” Section Three as a prerequisite to its application as law by bodies or persons whose responsibilities call for its application. The Constitution’s qualification and disqualification rules exist and possess legal force in their own right..." (bolding, underlining mine) To your point on what would make a mess, as politically messy as is now unavoidable, here's what would make the lesser mess: Trump's SCOTUS following the originalist's reading--an interpretation about which they are so quick to brag in other circumstances--of the actual words of the US Constitution and thereby find, as did their maga Federalist Society colleagues that "former President Donald J. Trump is constitutionally disqualified from again being President (or holding any other covered office) because of his role in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 election and the events leading to the January 6 attack". That would not be the Democrats stopping Trump from running. That would be Trump stopping Trump from running. Here is the full prior post for further context https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/legal-experts-across-the-ideological-spectrum-agree-the-14th-amendment-disqualifies-trump-from-holding-office/ "...prominent conservative law professors and Federalist Society members William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen authored a 126-page paper exploring the enforceability of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in the case of January 6th. Overall, it seems to us to be quite clear that the specific series of events leading up to and culminating in the January 6, 2021 attack qualifies as an insurrection within the meaning of Section Three: “concerted, forcible resistance to the authority of government to execute the laws in at least some significant respect.” They explained that as a self-executing provision, Section 3 doesn’t require any action by Congress—and it doesn’t require a criminal conviction. No action is necessary to “activate” Section Three as a prerequisite to its application as law by bodies or persons whose responsibilities call for its application. The Constitution’s qualification and disqualification rules exist and possess legal force in their own right, which is what makes them applicable and enforceable by a variety of officials in a variety of contexts."

Won't survive an appellate court huh? Well, joke's on you because besides that the Supreme Court of the United States aka SCOTUS is also an appellate court, Colorado's case has already been heard and decided against the orange insurrectionist by its highest appellate court, The Supreme Court of Colorado. https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2 "“A majority of the court holds that Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment,” the court wrote in its 4-3 decision." (Note also that) "a district court judge ... found that Trump incited an insurrection for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol"

Yes, exactly, sorry if I was not clear. Was thinking something like Tijuana for lower cost of living paired with easy driving distanced San Diego for accessing Medicare payable medical facilities especially for the more major items. Then just carry minimal insurance instead of an expensive comprehensive plan for when not in the US.

Immigration is not sedition. Nice try tho.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/legal-experts-across-the-ideological-spectrum-agree-the-14th-amendment-disqualifies-trump-from-holding-office/ "...prominent conservative law professors and Federalist Society members William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen authored a 126-page paper exploring the enforceability of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in the case of January 6th. Overall, it seems to us to be quite clear that the specific series of events leading up to and culminating in the January 6, 2021 attack qualifies as an insurrection within the meaning of Section Three: “concerted, forcible resistance to the authority of government to execute the laws in at least some significant respect.” They explained that as a self-executing provision, Section 3 doesn’t require any action by Congress—and it doesn’t require a criminal conviction. No action is necessary to “activate” Section Three as a prerequisite to its application as law by bodies or persons whose responsibilities call for its application. The Constitution’s qualification and disqualification rules exist and possess legal force in their own right, which is what makes them applicable and enforceable by a variety of officials in a variety of contexts."

Democrats don't decide eligibility; the US Constitution does.

Hurricanes and earthquakes and fires and tsunamis and ocean rise and burglaries and civil war and maga rallies and speeding through school zones, and domestic violence and racial injustice oh nooos.

I waited for full-age but do have other incomes such that I could suspend Social Security (which I was not aware of, so thanx on that) and I just read on https://www.aarp.org/ that "During a suspension, you earn delayed retirement credits, which boost your eventual benefit by two-thirds of 1 percent for each suspended month (or 8 percent for each suspended year). When you resume collecting Social Security, you’ll have locked in a higher monthly payment for life" So then you'd have to factor in that 8% (which is a good certain return) against what you might get on your existing investments and factor in what taxes you'd pay on continuing Soc Sec (vs taxation on increased later payments) as opposed to on additional current withdrawals from investments plus of course having decreased investments going forward, plus as well the health risks which increase as we age. This might make more sense if you began with reduced payments as opposed to having begun at full which I did. Either way I'd have to see studies both hypothetical (https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/personal-finance/retirement/readjust-your-claiming-strategy) and actual (looking for these now) on break even points and which averages out to the better depending on expected longevity. To a place like Mexico for an American, I'd add that might also provide benefit of being able to access Medicare which you've paid into all your working years thus possibly reducing cost of international med insurance which looks to me can get quite expensive in later years for comprehensive coverage.

There is no requirement of the 14th Amendment (as a so-called originalist maga appointed supreme court jurist with any integrity must agree as the Constitution is indeed so written) that he be convicted of insurrection for ... "We hold these truths to be self-evident" (phrase familiar?) July 4, 1776 https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/ Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office No person shall ... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States ... who, having previously taken an oath ... as an officer of the United States ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof ... " (bolding & three dotting mine) + that he called for pardoning convicted seditionists (which by definition of pardoning IS giving aid or comfort) AND called for "overturning" (his word) a duly done election proven legit in courts whereby he contested but lost 62 lawsuits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_U.S._presidential_election) throughout the country including in conservative & in his own maga appointed courts (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/13/trump-appointed-judges-keep-ruling-against-trump-co-jan-6/) + (https://www.sun-sentinel.com/2023/07/31/who-is-the-trump-appointed-judge-who-threw-out-trumps-big-lie-lawsuit-against-cnn/) (etc etc) = you can stop waiting now.

adding: Rating the States – Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (ibhs.org) "Now in its fourth edition, IBHS’s Rating the States report evaluates the 18 states along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, all vulnerable to catastrophic hurricanes, based on building code adoption, enforcement, and contractor licensing. In the report, published every three years, each state is rated on a 0–100 scale ... 2021 RANKINGS #1Florida #2Virginia #3South Carolina #4New Jersey #5Connecticut #6Rhode Island #7North Carolina #8Louisiana #9Massachusetts #10Maryland #11Georgia #12New York #13Maine #14New Hampshire #15Texas #16Alabama #17Mississippi #18Delaware" (bolding mine)

Your thoughts on construction in Florida are, um, fascinating. OP, don't bank money in a low lying beachside mobile home on a rented lot. Remember that sand bags rarely ever stop a tsunami. Keep in mind that even lesser hurricanes can produce tornados. And always ask your prospective condo association if there's any unresolved cracks they think you might wanna know about.

You're welcome. To yours and other comments: Live where you most want to be of course but just to note that the dollar and distance difference flying to E or W Caribbean & points south from south or central Florida is fairly negligible; I'm guessing $50 & 20 minutes, non-stop flights. As to reverse mortgaging if you don't absolutely need the cash, besides safely banking money in property as noted, if you don't have dependents (and pardon me for presuming but it doesn't sound like the OP is marriage minded) then it's a great way to not leave so much on the table, especially with population continuing to expand in Florida, thus property values likely will continue to gain such that if you don't spend some down now, you could wind up leaving a ridiculous sum on the table at death. If that's you last planned home, it could be worth the excessive costs of getting one to access those funds while also providing a home base. To scamming property, correct that a mtg prob makes that less likely, but also its probably rare in Florida. Also some (if not all, not sure) appraisers offices have owner alerts To the comment on empty home tax in states struggling with affordable housing, um, apparently you haven't met Florida yet. Besides that the Republican government is not quite known for its compassion, numerous 2nd homes in many parts of the sunshine state, are empty but for vacation use https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/miami-has-one-of-the-highest-home-vacancy-rates-in-us-study-shows/ "Despite the housing crisis facing South Floridians, Miami still has one of the highest vacancy rates in the U.S., according to a new study. According to the online lending marketplace LendingTree, the Miami metro area has the second-highest vacancy rate in the country at 12.65%, with 339,451 homes vacant out of the 2,683,497 total units. Miami's vacancy rate is over 5 percentage points the average across 50 of the largest metro areas at 7.22%. Meanwhile, New Orleans is in first-overall with rate of 13.88% and Tampa is just behind Miami at 12.15%." I've not had insurance issues with an empty house. But also a housemate (with the owner being the absentee roommate 6 months at a time) would solve that if were a problem plus would provide additional income more than offsetting the cost of the mortgage.