Hodad

This is the third anniversary of the deaths. Do you have some expectation that the president will just show up annually? And for every soldier lost or just some? What is your actual expectation of presidents with regard to fallen soldiers? A) You don't have any such expectations. You really don't give a shit. You are just politicizing these deaths as cynically and casually as they have been politicized from the moment they happened. It's gross. This was a photo op, plain and simple. Trump wasn't graveside last year and he won't be graveside next year.

"I honor you with this photo op of meeeeeee!" 😁👍

Why are you always reposting random shit from Twitter? What is the point?

Yeah, gross.

In fairness, he might not have gone for the photo op. He might just have wanted to deliver a final jibe to the "suckers and losers."

If they can convince their viewers to keep watching after there's documented proof that the organization deliberately lies to them on a massive, orchestrated and deliberate scale, I don't think there's much they're viewers can't be convinced of.🤷‍♂️

Looks like it must also be repaid upon transfer-- along with 20%(or so) of the value increase. Which is interesting. Functionally this would prevent most cases of leaving it to a family member without big cash back to the state. In practical terms it would likely require refinancing, which again triggers the increased value repayment, which is then rolled into a new mortgage with an equity position to eliminate the need for cash. At any rate, in a real estate market like California, recouping the loan value + 20% of the appreciation of a home held for any significant period of time would be a great deal for the state. Essentially self funding the program. I think one could make an argument that it should only be open to citizens. But there's also a compelling argument to be made that any taxpayer should be eligible.

Meanwhile, back in reality, here's the actual vaccine schedule for the first 15 months.

*Typed out while mainlining Fox News, where the hosts share messages about lying to their gullible audience, but the gullible audience keeps coming back.

Have you ever heard of a home that is never sold?

The wisdom of this proposal aside, your "math" is off. It's not a gift, it's a secondary loan for down payment assistance and closing costs for people who already qualify for a home loan (financially stable, tax-paying folks contributing to the economy). The loan is repaid to the state as well as a share of the increased value when the home is sold. And it could add a relatively small number of plausible buyers into the market (adding demand) to increase prices slightly, it's not even in the same galaxy as a 1:1 price increase. For reference, in a state of over 39 million people, 1,700 of these loans have been issued -- total count for the program, none to undocumented, of course. So adding undocumented folks who are already positioned to afford a home in California means we're talking a very tiny drop in the bucket.

Read your post. This thread exists because CP jumped online to talk about it, not because of any Democratically aligned posters doing as you describe. In other words, your premise was a bust before you ever posted. Although my handler is all over my ass to start a counter thread about the 200 Bush, McCain and Romney aides who have repudiated the Trumpification of the party and endorsed Harris instead. Earned endorsements rather than bartered, no less. 🙄

No, change of venue is for situations in which it is not possible/probable to assemble a fair jury. Sorry, but the idea that they can't empanel a fair jury of 12 people (plus alternate) from a population of millions is preposterous. That's why it was quickly dismissed on appeal--twice. From a legal perspective, the argument was a non-starter. Trump just deployed it to stall and rile up his base--people who previously knew nothing about a change of venue, but suddenly had strong opinions on the subject--opinions that Trump had just given them.

Because in America, where no one is above the law, political candidates should get special treatment "just to be fair." Got it.

Not what she talked about, but also, no, she didn't. Assuming she voted in the primary her vote helped send a delegate to the convention. Once Biden dropped out that delegate was free to vote for a new nominee. And in this case most voted for Harris. She didn't lose her right to vote. The candidate she supported dropped out.

Two major problems with this thread: 1. She's disaffected, not disenfranchised. 2. The condition she describes goes back decades. There is a great episode of This American Life from ten or 15 years ago in which John McCain and Russ Feingold talk about the reality of money in politics, the unpleasant burden of constant, daily fundraising, and why laws to limit donations (bipartisan, no less) are so important. This was the whole point of McCain-Feingold and why the farking Citizens United decision was such an egregious disaster. Now it's a no-holds-barred arms race that DEMANDS that politicians cater to special and elite monied interests simply to compete and survive. For every arsehole who believes that corporations are people and that "money is speech" this is the reality you built. Fark you.

CouchPotato is a "dem minion"? Interesting theory.

That's almost a coherent response. I'm sure it's made sense in your head.

Don't be silly. Being a NY Times bestselling author is absolutely something to brag about. That's why the publisher mentions it in the marketing of every subsequent book--usually right on the cover. And making three million dollars as an author is pretty damn good. I'm not surprised that you don't people who would buy such a book, but my MIL has her memoir on the shelf. Plenty of other people read it as well. You're spinning up a very weird conspiracy theory here.

1. No, you really can't. You have no grasp of the matter whatsoever. 2. Though I occasionally type "lol" it's rare that something actually makes me laugh. Congrats! 3. Nobody was "forced" to vaccinate. And vaccines were relatively effective at reducing transmission, though less effective (as in all things) as new variants emerged. It made sense to keep the unvaccinated out of public both for their own safety and the safety of others. 4. No, again you are lying. "Almost all deaths" were not among the "60+ crowd." I gave you the goddamn CDC breakdown like an hour ago and apparently you've already memory-holed another inconvenient fact. Color me surprised. ETA: My extended family actually has COVID right now. We got it from a 16 year old whose parents decided not to vax or test. She gave it to her 77 year old grandmother as well. Some people are sick but functional. Some people have spent days in bed. I'm asymptomatic (knock on wood) likely due to a June booster for international business travel. Anecdotal, of course, but it lines up nicely with the data you pretend doesn't exist.

I think the OP should be congratulated. He's come up with a topic that builds bridges and fosters unity. People all across the political spectrum can agree that this subject is profoundly stupid.

You're right. Totally unfair. We should start having people stand trial in the jurisdictions in which the crimes were committed to avoid any appearance of bias.

Lol. She wrote multiple NY Times Bestseller books that did well enough to earn $3m, right? You must have very high standards for "doing well." And doing the work to earn money as an author is decidedly different, is it not, than receiving lavish gifts from politically interested billionaires? There is no evidence of Biden's corruption. There are tons of unfounded accusations from the Republicans, but like Trump's secret evidence of election fraud, nobody has actually produced anything.

No, she wasn't, goofus. There's nobody even empowered to do such a thing. She won the votes of the convention delegates to become the nominee. Anyone was welcome to throw their hat in the ring. They chose not to.

1. Good for you, Canada! Since you don't understand rates and can only speak to raw numbers, you must conclude that Canadian COVID is much less dangerous.🙄 2. Awww, your feelers are obviously hurt. That's a tough thing when feelings are all you have. If that were true of my IQ it would be terrible news for you. 3. Of course it's worth noting. When the elderly are prioritized for vaccination and vaccinating at a much higher rate it obviously skews the risk profile for the vaccinated cohort. You never managed to understand that either--also not shocking news. So sad that you've been repeating the same dumb shit for 2 years, looking at irrefutable data demonstrating vaccine efficacy and pretending like it doesn't exist. You incel trolls have a lot of free time though.