BIGUN

Except her lead statement of, "It decided that the president of the United States, possibly the most powerful person on earth, has “absolute immunity” is incorrect. The Supreme Court ruled that former presidents have at least some immunity from criminal prosecution for “official acts” in office, no matter their “politics, policy, or party,” but stipulated that that protection doesn't cover everything. Chief Justice Roberts laid out three different categories of presidential acts: Official acts that rely on core constitutional powers, for which “immunity must be absolute” Official actions “within the outer perimeter” of official responsibility, that require at least presumed immunity Unofficial actions while in office, from which the president has no immunity https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-does-the-supreme-court-ruling-mean-for-trump-6-questions-answered#:~:text=In a historic decision%2C the,protection doesn't cover everything.

Morning, Marc. After reading your post with quotes last night; I decided to verify what was written. I understand these are not your words, but a quote." Nor, could I find the source of your quote. But, I decided to go right to the source of which you reference and downloaded the Project 2025 "Mandate for Leadership" and just finished all 871 pages. I could not find your quote by reading, nor with using the "find" function. Side note: Is anyone on here aware that this "Mandate for Leadership" started in 1979 by the Heritage Foundation and was presented every four years after an election - no matter which side was in office. It was and has been a recommendation document. As I read thru it - there are a couple of important concerns for Democrats, 1) Women's Abortion Rights, and 2) Climate Control. Before everyone starts quoting what others have wrote about Project 2025; I would suggest reading the actual document, copying those areas that cause concern, pasting them with the page number on here. There are things you may agree with and things you don't. I didn't agree with all of it. I'm surprised the Democratic party does not have a similar document - perhaps if they did, both sides of the aisle could sit down and interlace what is good for the nation as a whole rather than partisan screaming points - by those who interpret it for others. Nigel mentioned your military service and "heartbreaking." I served under every President between Nixon and Bush v.1. We'll survive. Personally, I'm proud to be in a nation where we can at least have this kind of dialogue - not a luxury that many other of the 195 countries on this planet have. A Banana Republic damn sure would not have this kind of dialogue.

Which is, 1) exactly what people are doing, or 2) making their own burritos at home. EDIT: Don't forget your military discount of 10%

Morning, Jerry. Maryland Gov. Wes Moore said Sunday that he will not seek the Democratic nomination this year and he does not foresee President Biden leaving the race, making clear that the president is staying the course despite the bruising debate performance that sparked concern among some members of the party last week. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wes-moore-2024-presidential-nomination-biden/ So, I guess he was at least approached. But, that appears to be the end of it. At least for this round.

What'd Lori say about the bay leaf?

Afternoon, Jerry No worries. You're probably right, but I didn't know who Obama was either till late in the game. Keith

Have you written your congressional leadership about either?

While I respect the CV of the authors, this is a partisan piece laced with the ECON 101 definition of, "too many dollars chasing too few goods" and it's a year old. The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) increased 3.3 percent over the last 12 months. Nor, do you address the pseudo-inflation measures created by most businesses not understanding/knowing how to marginalize vs. markup of their businesses.

1. Always cite your source. I'm tired of having to look your quotes up and am not doing it anymore. You want to have a discussion - include it, so I can see whom and in what context it was written. 2. You don't know how it works either. CPI for May attached. What I am saying is - people are over-inflating inflation because they don't know how to marginalize their business against the CPI. I will also say that I - in part, get some of it. the CPI is after the fact and businesses try to stay ahead of it, so they over inflate and create an inflation brush fire. You don' t really think the Taco Bell 5 layer Beef Burrito pricing went from $2.47 to just over $6 due to inflation, do you? cpi.pdf

Those are flash suppressors or compensators not sound suppressors (silencers). A sound suppressor slows down and cools gas to reduce the sound of gunfire. A flash suppressor reduces the visibility of flaming gas. A sound suppressor also reduces muzzle flash, it’s a side effect of the gas containment. A flash suppressor, on the other hand, offers no sound reduction. All a flash suppressor/compensator does is redirect the sound from front to side or side to front. Final note: A sound suppressor (silencer) doesn't eliminate all sound. For the most part, it reduces the sound by X db and there is a an after Y number of yards formula that the sound can't be heard.

Two Items: 1. Pseudo-Inflation. Most businesses don't know how to marginalize their business against the CPI, so when they hear inflation, they do a 20% markup on all times to stay ahead of it. They hear it again and add another 20%, etc. 2. Home prices. Zillow's artificial housing index algorithm.

Jerry, I tested this for you and it appears there is such a subtle change for the select item to the text box to enter, You might try it again and see if you can enter data.

Morning, Jerry. From a strategic perspective; I can't help but wonder ff Newsome, Whitmer would be perceived as more polarizing and push more R's to vote against them. For me; I would again not vote for either. Suggested, Wes Moore as someone I would vote for, a somewhat moderate, but no discussion. Am I missing something about him?

Cross - Posted in the other thread, so delete if you feel necessary: I would vote FOR Gov. Wes Moore. “We are proud to endorse Wes Moore because he will be a governor who serves all Marylanders,” said the National Security Leaders for America. “After years of service to this nation, we know moral courage when we see it. Wes Moore has the moral courage necessary to take on the most pressing threats to our essential yet fragile democracy. He is a patriot who understands that America is more than Red and Blue. He understands his job is to serve his country, not his party.”

Not a lawyer, but think that depending on jurisdiction is about the same. Ohio: Fail to prevent or halt the commission of an offense or to apprehend an offender, when it is in the law enforcement officer’s power to do so alone or with available assistance. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/harrison/latest/harrison_oh/0-0-0-10250

Most states have a "Dereliction of Duty" or "Neglect of Duty" clause for police officers.

I've been saying the same about you for some time and you don't listen either. <Had to do it.>

I would vote FOR Gov. Wes Moore. EDIT: “We are proud to endorse Wes Moore because he will be a governor who serves all Marylanders,” said the National Security Leaders for America. “After years of service to this nation, we know moral courage when we see it. Wes Moore has the moral courage necessary to take on the most pressing threats to our essential yet fragile democracy. He is a patriot who understands that America is more than Red and Blue. He understands his job is to serve his country, not his party.” Course, I don't know if a moderate from either party is going to cut it. It's all just a schtick.

Jerry Baumchen for President.

I'm really not sure the direction of this. If there is no regulation . . . You want me to beat 'em up?

No, Joe. Not at all. Then why don't you just drop your fleet of a/c as the great example of how not to add CO2 to the environment. Why are there laws at all? I understand. You've made it clear several times.

177,000+ in the last war would disagree with you - if they could. That law-abiding trope is what makes the difference between chaos & order. To be direct, I'm thankful most combat vets can integrate back into societal norms. Not even close to saying that. Until the law is changed, why would they surrender their guns. You've made it clear that it's all just a schtick.

That's his M.O. He doesn't add or contribute. He tears down. He didn't say - that's a good plan (like others), but here's some things to consider making it better (like others). All he does is pull some one line from somebody's post and hollers, "Gotchya!!" I'm just done with it and have blocked him.

I spent fucking days developing the Gun Responsibility Bill before this thread was developed about five years ago. I replaced it in this thread. I've spent hours encouraging my friends on both sides of the aisle to send it to their representatives. I even made it easy by suggesting the NFA be used for all weapons since it seems to be lawful since no one has taken it to court. That's how I got serious. In light of the lack of gun responsibility laws enacted to minimize the shootings, then our only recourse is providing security measures. Now, I don't know if you're close enough to the line for a ban, but you're passed my line for being blocked. Done.

You know they do. Probably 90% of my friends are combat vets from one, two or three wars. They were trained on it, they've seen what an AR platform rifle can do and in many cases have used it on the enemy. But, they are also law-abiding.