Highmark

Just make things illegal because once you do it stops them......oh wait.

Simple....the Council should just tell the criminals to knock it off. They will listen.

With increased testing will come increased positive results. The focus should be on hospitalization and mortality of those without "pre-existing" conditions. Neither of these are occurring at significant rates.

Sure they did......never claimed they didn't however it did get worse when Trump was trying to improve trade deals with them. You seriously need to pay attention more. https://www.investopedia.com/trading/chinese-devaluation-yuan/ On August 5, 2019, the People's Bank of China set the yuan’s daily reference rate below 7 per dollar for the first time in over a decade. This, in response to new tariffs of 10% on $300 billion worth of Chinese imports imposed by the Trump administration, set to go into effect September 1st, 2019. Global markets sold off on the move, including in the U.S. where the DJIA lost 2.9% in its worst day of 2019 to date. It is just the latest salvo in the U.S. China trade war, but certainly not the first time China has devalued its currency. KEY TAKEAWAYS After a decade of a steady appreciation against the US dollar, investors had become accustomed to the stability and growing strength of the yuan.

Generally liberal so I really don't think about them much at all.

Canada's death rate for the infected is 6.5%. America's is 2.9%. Much rather get sick here.

I never claimed the economy was terrible under all of Obama's Presidency although he did little to help it. I would have described it as fair. I said QE should have ended much earlier than it did and interest rates were kept too low for too long. Even with "QE" there are different types that most people don't understand. Under Trump I was trying to explain the Fed's action was for much different reasons.....mainly China manipulating its currency, the strength of the dollar and other countries lowering or keeping their interest rates artificially low. Its hard to raise rates when virtually EVERYWHERE else has much lower rates. Still to this day I don't agree with the fed rate going under 3% unless extraordinary circumstances but that doesn't mean I can't understand the reason WHY they may be doing it. This is not defending just an understanding of the process. https://www.macrotrends.net/1329/us-dollar-index-historical-chart

Needs a bath. Freshened the engine up last year with new pistons and rings and spaced the cylinders up. New track and studs as well. Got a chain case...used sealant was instead of a gasket as they aren't available from Yamaha anymore. Bought some gasket material and will cut my own.

Guys like Kerry want to control the world.....not just the ME.

Dude explain and defend are different. Do you at least acknowledge there were different economic factors during the different times we are discussing or do you look at everything myopically? I didn't do any explanation previously because THERE WASN'T A JUSTIFIABLE REASON FOR IT BEING DONE. FFS man you are dense. Even when under Trump I said there were economic reasons for doing it I stated I DIDN'T AGREE WITH IT.

Stalk much? Where am I from and what do I do? I find it hilarious you cannot understand the difference between explaining and defending. Yes I have made comments about interest rates needing to stay at a certain level. I did mention under Obama they should have been increased sooner and I did say under Trump it was wrong to decrease them but given the situation I at least understood why it was being done. What was happening economically in 2016 was much different than in 2020.

Absolute fact.

Will influence some but the MSM did a good job convincing the weak that Trump was/is in bed with Russia. Strozk was on the other night saying Trump still is a pawn of Russia.

Holy fuck are you wrong. Damn I wish the search feature was like it use to be.

Thought you were bright enough to tell when someone is discussing the reasoning not whether or not they agree. I still don't agree with the interest rates at where they are even though I understand why the Fed took the action it did. I'm sure those reasons are over your head so I won't go into them again. Always been against high deficits and still am. I'm just smart enough to understand the difference between discretionary and non discretionary spending and what the POTUS has input into. I also understand that the Presidents first year in office is not their budget. https://www.cbpp.org/blog/discretionary-spending-headed-to-historic-low-even-with-budget-agreement-boost Bailouts. Again was against them in 2008/9 even though I understood the reasoning. Same goes for the pandemic bailouts. Don't agree with them but understand the need for them with the govt shutting down large segments of the economy. My choice would have been no bailouts and no shutting down the economy after a couple weeks of getting a hold on what we were dealing with. War in Iraq and Afg I have evolved on but I've held this position for a long time now. Get out of everywhere.

Well he's right there. despacio slowly Dictionary despacio( ADVERB 1. (not quickly) a. slowly Deberías manejar más despacio en la carretera.You should drive more slowly on the highway.

The question should be whose views evolved the most over time. Without question I'd say Vince and MC.

Often times we simply do not know enough about cases to accurately make a judgement on why exactly someone is ruling in the manner they are. I'll give an personal example. Some ground I purchased had an easement ruled to traverse thru the ground prior to me buying it. When I researched the case it was ridiculous why it was ruled in the manner it was. To put it short the original court said it should take the route thru the ground I purchased. The law stated it was to take the nearest feasible route which would have been thru the neighbors unless more financial impact would occur. It went to the appeals court and the appeals court reversed the ruling and said it should go thru the neighbors ground or nearest feasible route. It was again appealed to the state supreme court which reversed it back to the original ruling because the appeals court considered new evidence of which they shouldn't have ONLY because how the appeal was filed. Basically only one side show'ed loss of property value in the initial case and in the appeal the other side tried to show loss in value. In the end the state supreme court said they were only looking at how the appeals court got the technical aspect of the ruling wrong taking new evidence into consideration. If they filed the correct appeal in the first case it would have been ruled differently. So the law had less to with how the final appeal was considered than the technicalities of appeals and evidence. Crazy. The minutia often times is overlooked. I think there was a case not long ago on immigration that I actually agreed with the liberal side of the case when you looked at what was actually being reviewed.

I haven't been completely happy with Kavanaugh either and much rather would have had someone more in the mold of the other 3. Most comparisons are voting similarities on justices appointed by the same President. Not sure how that completely measures their overall voting in such a short period of time. From your article. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch have a 72.73% agreement rate right now. https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/04/empirical-scotus-is-kavanaugh-as-conservative-as-expected/

I'm speaking in overall views or rulings. Its documented how similar they are.

Out of over 104 million kids under the age of 25 we have had less than 380 deaths. .00036%. There will be close to 15,000 suicides in the same age group over a year's time.

Broadly I would say so the President can act quickly after or before a terrorist attack without fear of going thru a whole impeachment trial. Its likely been and being abused however I can see how this be useful in limited cases.