Pokebball

Yep. Consumers reacted and in cost InBev. I don't recall anyone saying they were going to go out of business.

Who said they were going out of business?

You think Zelensky's a great guy?

Your response to this take wasn't clear to me. I needed to hear it again!

Violent?

Youngkin would probably bring Virginia which is a virtual tie at this point. Those you mentioned would not bring with them a state

It did say those that normally get tipped

Do lawyers normally get tipped? I seriously doubt they'd be included.

Spending is what made it surge

What I find both funny and disturbing is neither candidate, neither party and not one poster in this thread (including me) own the high ground from a Jesus perspective. And yet we are all posting from a position of judgement, one way or the other. A friend shared this article with me, just this morning. I think it's a good read. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2024/05/31/how-might-voters-react-to-a-trump-conviction-n2639727

you mean Biden?

The lack of transparency was criminal. That's the biggest take I got out of the COVID years.

The educational loss in our kids will take decades to reverse, or get caught back up. Seeing that this information was known as early as it was and was purposefully hidden from the public, is what is so bad it's almost criminal.

their hypocrisy is deafening

I think Kinzinger's and Cheney's hatred of Trump clouds their judgement. I didn't vote for Trump in either 2016 or 2020, largely due to his character flaws. I didn't necessarily think he did anything illegal. He was just an arrogant SOB with little to no civility. For full disclosure, I didn't vote for Clinton or Biden. I liked and respected both Kinzinger and Cheney for calling Trump's character out. I voted for Cheney in 2020. Now, however, I believe both Kinzinger and Cheney purposefully withheld information and testimony from the public relating to the Jan 6 investigation. Kinzinger's comment today is in this same vein. The means doesn't matter to him, as long as it's harmful to Trump. This NYC trial was 100% political and the result severely hurt many Americans trust and faith in the judiciary, all "to get Trump" A few years ago, I held Gabbard, Cheney and Kinzinger in the same category. I thought all three were brave, willing to put country over party. Cheney and particularly Kinzinger seem to me, to be willing to push truth aside over their hatred of Trump. That's not America.

Huh? That's what legal scholars do. They live in courtrooms. And she wasn't on the NYC jury, I agree

There are a lot of people on this board that have higher opinions of their opinions than other's have of their opinions. Don't ever forget that and you'll be just fine

absolutely. many a legal scholar are critical of this NYC case. and all she did was ask the question

That's all you got? That's a pretty low bar. Now do NYC

Everyone holds biases to some extent. Bragg pursued Trump hard and he made that a part of his campaign for DA. I think it's pretty clear he had significant bias against trump, and clearly campaigned on it. What's your case against Cannon?

Here's what Bragg said, interpret that as you may... While campaigning, Bragg said: "I have investigated Trump and his children and held them accountable for their misconduct with the Trump Foundation. I also sued the Trump administration more than 100 times for the travel ban, the separation of children from their families at the border. So I know that work. I know how to follow the facts and hold people in power accountable." He also said that he would continue with Vance's investigation and hold Trump "accountable by following the facts where they go."

the jury in the DAs district would have. It's a moot point now, except for the appeals process

did anyone incolved in this case campaign on getting trump?

Venue changes, particularly, are done to obtain fairness. Given the DAs campaigning on getting Trump and the recent civil case, I don't think it would have been odd at all.