Are they enjoying their 7,000 in promised DOGE and tariff dividends?

Unfortunately there is case precedent that this wouldn’t count, legally.

It’s considered fundamentally the same as “our party will cut taxes if we win”.

Of course the answer is “ok, but then why couldn’t you do it the last two years, and you promised 5,000 for DOGE and 2,000 for tariffs, you never deliver anything except high prices.”

Depends, are they biting their thumb at me? Might have to pull out my rapier.

Of all the things wrong with him, I would not be surprised if he at least had the physical fitness to meet his standards. I suspect his obsession with this stuff carries over to him personally, and he likely compulsively works out.

His liver may be pretty trashed, but that doesn’t get in the way of these tests.

Judging from the comment section, yes

Not only are they expecting it to go over the cliff’s edge, they are outright hoping for a collapse-level event.

They believe the only way forward is for a catastrophe to happen to make ‘the masses’ accept their “told you so” and will magically follow them when the time comes, that elections are broadly counter-productive because ‘the masses’ are, effectively, ill equipped to take care of their self-interests and need a core of ‘smart people’ to make the decisions for them. No where do I see how they reconcile their inability to win a contest of rhetoric but somehow win whatever decidedly less civilized power contest that would happen in such a catastrophe.

I will say I don’t see a realistic chance of the ‘best’ outcome, even if the legislature finally is opposed to the executive branch, we are dealing with an executive branch that is willing to break laws and only 2/3rds of Senate could hold it accountable, and that’s absolutely not going to happen. But it is certainly worth a shot to move the needle in the right direction.

Also, the coalition scenario doesn’t play out in the American system, so we could use some unlikely seeming reforms to get there. More parties with a more sophisticated voting system and perhaps removal of directly elected executive.

Not everyone’s school time was shitty.

Especially those of us who had school before “A Nation at Risk” incited changes in education.

Reagan’s department of education concluded that falling scores meant kids were slacking and needed to be pushed harder on standardized testing. The result was culling of recess, gym, arts, and things like home economics/shop class. To make more room to hammer in “important” stuff. So the experience became razor focused on some of the most soul crushing material without much reprieve. Note that there’s a thought that making people take the tests they didn’t used to take caused scores to go down, rather than some soft laziness of the system, so we might have ‘fixed’ the wrong things.

Then COVID happened and schools dramatically cut back on social events and interactions. Even as the critical threat of COVID subsided, I think administration found it easier to manage the students this way, so students did not access to lockers back (because that would encourage congregation in hallways) and on top of everything else, they have to lug all their school stuff around. Somewhat a mixed bag as most of the 'textbook’s are digital now, but still have a few big ones.

For me, school had carved out time to socialize pretty freely, to be vaguely active in a gym class, to just do some woodworking stuff, to do some cooking and sewing. Recess until like 13 years old. Current kids stop getting recess about 10 or so and unless they join a sports team likely never see physical activity from school again, and while there are still electives, much more rare. I don’t think I even saw an option for a ‘home ec’ class in my kid’s elective options, everything seemed to be more ‘substantial’ than those sorts of classes I had growing up.

That was effectively forced by the supreme Court, not the administration. Administration planned to keep the money.

Of course in that scenario it may be private information, but given you are trying to file it, inherently you at least are in the realm of sharing it.

I would imagine things like asking for legal advice on a crime committed, which could hilariously backfire when that chat transcript shows up in court.