Isn’t that the guy that played Unicron?

Might have been. But there are dozens of us.

In this case, the enemy of my enemy is my enemy’s enemy. Nothing more.

Always has been. Sometimes my enemy’s enemy and I want the same thing for a little while.

Maxim 29.

That waste heat is very humid, which causes corrosion and mold issues.

Has he ever apologized for anything? Ever? Even sarcastically?

If everything is a national emergency, nothing is.

I am appalled at how well “flood the zone” and “move fast and break things” works to destroy a nation. If sanity ever returns, the response to either action needs to be the death penalty. I don’t know how to properly write a law for that, but it is clear to me that any lesser response will only cause the bastard to back up, and try again.

What do the rules of professional conduct say about a client who repeatedly and aggressively ignores the law and the orders of the court?

Not being sarcastic here, I’m honestly curious. The lawyer can’t control the client, so what do?

We have no guidance or direction on what we need to do,

Wrong. You have plenty of guidance. It’s called “the law” and you went to school to learn how to understand it. If your people get instructions to violate the law, the instructions are invalid.

This is not complicated.

I think is milenials are still good. For a few more years. Also, we are the only generation that can save files, and know where they went.

But more youngsters would be nice.

President Miller, you mean?

You know you can get sued without actually doing anything wrong, don’t you?

I think they have a legitimate concern, and a few protections to keep them from having to go to court (again) every time they write someone a ticket might be in order.

But that shouldn’t be enough to override the need to hold police accountable for their actions.

The positive side effects are usually just the effects.

Quite a few, starting with, “how is that relevant?”

Just because someone is the moral equivalent of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch does not inherently mean that they are also the intellectual equivalent of the same.

True enough. Used to be, we were the only game in town, and we knew it.

Our smarter presidents tried to make sure we remained the best option, or at least a good option. Trump, as you have noted, makes is the worst option.

Does anyone in Washington understand that a “deal” generally includes giving the other guy something they want, not just demanding things that you want?

Have you seen his competition?

The majority of those problems go away if more people had their basic needs met.

If this was true, there would be no reason not to vote on it all together.

This happened under Biden. (Schumer then, too, I belive) Separated a bill, passed the parts the Republicans wanted, then the Republicans voted against the part the Democrat wanted.

Bend over, here it comes again.

I’m not sure I’d call that “unfortunate.” I’ve said for ages that if we can just get more people to vote, it will be good for the democrats. Work the rise of MAGA, I’ve included that if we can get them to think before they vote, that will be even better.

No-one is every gonna call it anything but the Epstein ballroom.