I think the assignation with Stormy Daniels was more than an attempt.

Never send to know for whom the bell tolls...

never send to know for whom the bell tolls...

les états-unis ne sont plus sécuritaire comme destination de voyages. Tous les partis devraient êtres déplacés ailleurs.

fair enough, just a normal mortal here asking q's. asking from a point of view of complete ignorance.

Cheapest car Dodge sells in Canada, the Hornet, starts at 44 KC$, which is about the same as the price for that peugeot in Oz... actually more (I think Oz prices include VAT, Canadian ones don't.) so for the same money, I'd rather have an EV that is far cheaper to run.

no stellantis EV's available in North America (except fiat 500e) such a shame.

Assuming the presumably high profile/prestigious attorney "too dumb or too stubborn to reframe" ... feels unlikely. I'm guessing there is also a good reason for the lawyer not to do that... but I have no clue what it is.

What would lawyers have advised him to do in this case? I don't understand enough of what's going on to get what he is trying to defend. This performance just discredits himself, which I can't see as helpful to him. He comes off as stubborn an inauthentic, for no conceivable gain. Why be this way?

Why didn't he just say "no" ? Why is he avoiding saying outright what is the clear implication of his "we didn't need to" answers?

Being bombed by an administration of post-truth political entrepreneurs does not tend to produce constructive change on the ground

dude, the line was "Being bombarded by an administration of Fox TV hosts, podcasters, political entrepreneurs, Mar-a-Lago courtiers, led by a president with a personality disorder and no plan", hits so hard... your phrasing was masterful.

You believe that if you jump out of this 5th story window, you will fly around the city like Superman: Saying I *believe* you will fall down several stories and hurt yourself, feels like a ridiculous amount of hedging. I'm not trying to badger you, I will stop now... still have no better idea.

I hear saying "I believe" as a conversation ender... in that generally, folks live and let live, agree to disagree, and punishment is left to the ever after. I don't get how turning this into proselytization helps. It could easily make it worse. But again, I don't have a better idea.

Totally agree, I just don't like using the word *believer*. It drags the discussion to a place where disagreement is protected speech. I don't "believe" in gravity, inertia, or kinetic energy. To make incorrect claims about how they behave is just to be wrong. I don't have a suggestion though.

cake deficit is commemoration-worthy!

to me a white bike by the side of the road means somebody died there. a half-white bike means... wha... grievous injury?

clue stick: it's named after a girl named Amber, story ended badly.

Honestly, I did well with the stock (all sold off a year ago), and drive the car, which I still love. But he lost his mind about two or three years ago, and there has been no rational case for the stock since then. I want Tesla to do well, but with him, it won´t.

Go into gmail settings... the main tab... it has off buttons for spelling, style hints, etc... Not defending, just trying to help.

50-64 showing up twice, with different numbers... hmm...

Canada goose fights off bald eagle in rare, symbolism-laden battle on ice Photographer captures 20-minute clash between birds emblematic of Canada and US amid high trade tensions

uh... I think it's a snapshot from the video this report is based on:
www.theguardian.com/environment/...

fwiw... The goose won.

They need to change the CEO, so it can be a "normal" car company. The current strat is killing the brand, and automtotive oriented staff have been fleeing because of focus on robots and AI. He is stripping Tesla for parts, transferring them to other holdings. Board should be sued (again.)

It seems POTUS's strategy is to do things, and then it takes a year for SCOTUS to maybe tell him no... but he gets a year... Surely in the face of a consistent pattern, it is in the Justicial branch's interest to adjust/accellerate in the face of a deliberate strategy to just outrun it.

been through this in Qc... Alberta's looks worse. It's still going to be a painful kabuki theatre. Families will be broken apart, friends alienated... for nothing.

turning it into water and ground pollution, which should drain mostly into rivers and turn into sludge at the bottom... I don't know, I have the feeling it's less bad... but it's just feels... maybe long term ground contamination is worse. Somebody would need to study it.

If the snow gets dirty, that is, given the alternative, a good thing. The snow is taking pollutants out of the air and putting it in visible sludge. Folks are not breathing it in, and it's likely causing less global warming than it would in the upper atmosphere.

le *a* dans *apolitique* fait beaucoup de travail... je ne l'avais pas vu, mois non-plus... oui... c'est bizarre comment c'est phrasé.

Quite the catch-22. need 2/3 majority to impeach the president, but some senators won't go along, and you also need 2/3 majority to impeach any one of them. So if you have enough votes to impeach a senator, you might as well just impeach the president directly, which is what we can't do.

sigh... so... can Senators be recalled or impeached or something?