Taro T

Would prefer the monies raised from the tariffs go towards deficit reduction and if they were to ever get to a point where the budget is balanced (which we'll never get to and never actually did, not even when 42 had a "surplus" (that was due to SS receipts exceeding expenses, but those were already supposed to be allocated to be used exclusively for future SS expenses)) then reduce / eliminate personal income taxes. Realistically, they'll be used to primarily increase spending and modestly reduce the deficit.

If the kid has a horrible credit rating, could see them offering him a ridiculously high interest rate. And he'd be very wise to stick to his guns and pay cash or walk out to another dealer. (As you suggest at the end.) Cousin had a friend that had a couple of bankruptcies in his past; he ended up having payments on a 5 year old car that were more than those for much nicer new cars. But the real money for dealerships is in selling the extras: warranties, undercoating, paint sealants, etc. And their service department makes way more money than the car sales department does.

Two additional points, though much of Russia is in Asia, the portion where most of the population lives is in Europe and, are we really going to judge how good a deal actually is by what the chattering class thinks of it at the time? Seward paid less than half of what Jefferson paid 64 years earlier and got about 60% of the land mass and an incredible trove of resources. There also were those that weren't happy with Jefferson's deal either as the nation still had debt from the Revolutionary War and they didn't fully know what he'd bought; thus the Lewis and Clark expedition.

Umm, Seward's folly was a pretty big deal too. And came 64 years later.

You're point being ...

Apparently it isn't yours either if you believe carbon is a gas at temperatures & pressures approaching/approximating room temperature and atmospheric pressure. 😉

We know one it WON'T be. 😉

4 things. 1. If a country decides not to abide by a ruling of the ICJ, the matter for how to resolve the issue goes before the Security Council. The US has a veto on the Security Council. So, for all effective purpose, the US only has to abide by rulings of the ICJ when it sees fit. 2. If the US withdraws from the UN, it loses its permanent seat on the SC and also its veto power on the SC. 3. The SC can not only force a member country to accept the ICJ's rulings, it can also enforce police actions against countries. 4. The US should NEVER withdraw from the UN nor miss a session of the SC. (The Soviets learned the hard way why you don't want to miss a SC vote back when North Korea invaded South Korea.)

The good thing about the new name is in the diminutive form, it becomes the Washington Commies. Works on several levels.

Got one for wifey a year or so ago and she loves it. Makes a lot of sorbets and stuff like that. IMHO the only real downside to it is it is LOUD. The dog hates it.

During his 1st term, 45 renegotiated the NAFTA and the replacement trade agreement is known as the USMCA. (It's essentially NAFTA 1.1) And it seems that 47 would like to get modifications to that as well which if those happen will make the new agreement essentially NAFTA 1.2.

Wait a second. Are you SERIOUS that you can't begin DEMOLITION of a failed structure before you have "everything lined up?" Wtf would you need to know exactly how the bridge will be rebuilt to begin the demolition? Are you seriously planning on reusing the parts of the bridge that collapsed into the water? That's gold, Jerry. GOLD!!!!

Not a lawyer, so am asking. Have heard it speculated that the real fear CBS had was their employees biases being exposed via the discovery process should this case have moved forward as internal e-mails and the like would have to have been turned over to 47's legal team. Do you, as a lawyer, completely discount that take or is it a credible reason for CBS (and the others such as ABC that have settled) to do so?

Well, either Bondi is as dumb as her detractors claim she is, she horribly misspoke months ago and never walked it back, or the administratin still has the "Epstein client list" but isn't releasing it for "reasons." We are almost certain that the list was real; you don't get a John Doe filing an emergency motion which ends up getting upheld by a judge to keep the list under wraps if it doesn't exist. It would make a lot of sense for the list to have disappeared sometime around December; but if it did, Bondi shouldn't have been claiming it was on her desk back in February and Patel and Bongnino shouldn't have been implying the FBI still has the list. And all 3 were doing so. Still believe that several good things have been accomplished in 47's term and none of them would've happened had 46 or his VP won in November. Closing the border, getting several countries interested in signing onto the Abraham Accords, peace in the Congo-Rwanda war, peace (for now) in the India-Pakistan perpetual skirmish, etc. But this is an unforced error and should not be happening. Don't say for months that you have the list and will release it and then flat out say you don't have it without explaining the earlier statements. Is it gone? Was it used to "herd the cats" and get the BBB over the finish line? Will it be used for future indictments if it does still exist? Right now this looks like a W for the "deep state" and it didn't need to be so.

And they're ignoring the gorilla in the room; even with lying on his application and with his dad apparently a prof at Columbia, he still got rejected. Just how dumb is he, anyway?