People love to think that just because we use some bad Latin that lawyers are wizards, but it just ain't so, tech weenies and SovCits. There's no magic words.
"And I learned that doing a divorce for 2 twentysomething idiots with no kids and no stuff is really easy, and I WAS overpaying him for his services."
I was 29 when I got divorced, a no-fault in Connecticut. We were not "idiots." Neither of us paid a dime. That was 1977. Now lawyers want big money to write something "legal" for a will that expresses my wishes: "Give all my money to the ACLU and the Innocence Project."
how is Bill Browder letting his son be such a dipshit so publically? Honeslty, whatever you think of Bill himself, the work that he is doing with the Magnitsky Act is important and has a global spotlight, I'm not necessarily surprised that his son is this effing Duning-Kruger, but I would hope that it would be kept under wraps
Also, what's Bill Browder's kid doing with Peter Thiel who, in all likelyhood, would be delighted to have a literal Russkiy Mir as long as he got to be in the inner-circle
The presumption is, had Stein's voters voted for Clinton instead, Hillary would have won PA, MI and WI.
The first problem is, Stein's voters had absolutely no obligation, moral, political or otherwise, to vote for a candidate they didn't like for whatever reason (spoiler alert--it was policy-based, not personality-based).
Second, here are the '16 results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wi... Yes, if one adds Stein's totals to Clinton's, Clinton wins PA, MI and WI. However, there's a flip side to this silly equation, that Libertarians had an equal obligation to vote for Trump; and in all cases, had they done so, Trump still would have won those states.
And then there's a second flip side: all the states Trump would have won had Gary "feel the" Johnson not siphoned away RW votes--even after factoring in Stein's votes as Clinton's: ME (that would have added 2 more EVs to Trump's total); MN (10 EVs); NV (6 EVs, and Stein wasn't even on the ballot); NH (4 EVs). If anything, Dems should thank Johnson for keeping Trump's EV totals down.
Blaming Nader (2000) or Sanders/Stein (2016) for Gore's and Clinton's defeats represents the triumph of denialism (of structural campaign weaknesses, in terms of candidate, campaign and especially chosen issues) over analysis; and as such, is an exercise in intellectual dishonesty.
Definitely. Luckily he was too broke for it to matter and there were only the two kids.
People love to think that just because we use some bad Latin that lawyers are wizards, but it just ain't so, tech weenies and SovCits. There's no magic words.
A hard 26.
Ask your provider if dying is right for you.
"George Santos" wrote the US laws and codes. He knows them by heart. He's never lost a case.
All Latin is bad.
Don't forget Jill Stein.
I went to college with a guy with a hairline like that, at 20. He's when I decided that some guys are just born old. Women too, of course.
Proving that anything that results is a penalty fine is legal for rich people.
"And I learned that doing a divorce for 2 twentysomething idiots with no kids and no stuff is really easy, and I WAS overpaying him for his services."
I was 29 when I got divorced, a no-fault in Connecticut. We were not "idiots." Neither of us paid a dime. That was 1977. Now lawyers want big money to write something "legal" for a will that expresses my wishes: "Give all my money to the ACLU and the Innocence Project."
Sounds like a "physician's assistant" has diagnosed your terminal cancer from your choice of shirt. Yep, been there.
how is Bill Browder letting his son be such a dipshit so publically? Honeslty, whatever you think of Bill himself, the work that he is doing with the Magnitsky Act is important and has a global spotlight, I'm not necessarily surprised that his son is this effing Duning-Kruger, but I would hope that it would be kept under wraps
Also, what's Bill Browder's kid doing with Peter Thiel who, in all likelyhood, would be delighted to have a literal Russkiy Mir as long as he got to be in the inner-circle
And still a virgin.
The presumption is, had Stein's voters voted for Clinton instead, Hillary would have won PA, MI and WI.
The first problem is, Stein's voters had absolutely no obligation, moral, political or otherwise, to vote for a candidate they didn't like for whatever reason (spoiler alert--it was policy-based, not personality-based).
Second, here are the '16 results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wi... Yes, if one adds Stein's totals to Clinton's, Clinton wins PA, MI and WI. However, there's a flip side to this silly equation, that Libertarians had an equal obligation to vote for Trump; and in all cases, had they done so, Trump still would have won those states.
And then there's a second flip side: all the states Trump would have won had Gary "feel the" Johnson not siphoned away RW votes--even after factoring in Stein's votes as Clinton's: ME (that would have added 2 more EVs to Trump's total); MN (10 EVs); NV (6 EVs, and Stein wasn't even on the ballot); NH (4 EVs). If anything, Dems should thank Johnson for keeping Trump's EV totals down.
Blaming Nader (2000) or Sanders/Stein (2016) for Gore's and Clinton's defeats represents the triumph of denialism (of structural campaign weaknesses, in terms of candidate, campaign and especially chosen issues) over analysis; and as such, is an exercise in intellectual dishonesty.
So my shouting "So let it be written, so let it be done" at the end of staff meetings is entirely pointless?
Expect flaming dog-doo from Amazon any day, Spartan dog!