TriGirl

Thanks, Oren! That makes sense. I kind of wish they had kept the change, at least for one election cycle. I was looking forward to that knucklehead Congressman learning how many die-hard Republicans he didnt' have in his new district! See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

The news reports I've been hearing say that this is the "first" gerrymandered state that has been called out. But Florida was redistricted a few years ago by a Republican state congress -- an act that was reversed due to a lawsuit and subsequent court action. What am I missing? As an aside, I'm still trying to figure out how the US congressman from what at the time was my "new" district, got to avoid having his seat on the ballot that year. The officials at my polling place said that his seat wasn't on the ballot because no one was running against him. I tried to argue that I had the right to write in another candidate. I do believe that was the issue that triggered the lawsuit which got the districts reset to their previous regions. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

Bill Mahr does an infrequent segment on "Real Time" he calls, "I don't know for a fact, I just know it's true." This is something straight out of that comic bit. "I don't know for a fact (e.g., have proof) that Comey planned to assassinate Trump. I just know it's true." See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

On the radio, I only listen to NPR and WTOP, so at least as of my drive in, no.

That dominated the radio news here this morning! First count had the other candidate winning by something like 10 votes. Recount turned out to be even closer! Just goes to show that EVERY vote counts! See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

Hmm... maybe that's what I saw. I've lived here several times over the past 20 years, and only started seeing that recently. Thanks for the info! See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

This makes sense to me. Any emergency vehicle for which other drivers would be required to yield. I would think the neon lights UNDER a car could be any color. I think your idea of having them for added safety (assuming they were steady color and not distracting) would be encouraged, especially for motorcycles. I have heard in other areas that they are illegal while the vehicle is in use, but that was in an area where the trend was to have more elaborate and distracting lighting schemes (posed danger to other drivers on the roads). See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

I would agree with this, except these vehicles were all on public roads (come to think of it, a couple were seen in Maryland, too). I didn't know about blue lights in WI. Interesting. I've never seen a cop car without blue (except the removable "cherry" light on unmarked cars). I went to college in Michigan -- cops had blue on the cars there then. My biggest concern here is that this morning a white vehicle was coming toward me on a two-lane road, with blue lights flashing. It looked like an SUV of some sort, similar to some of the law enforcement vehicles in this area. Therefore, I pulled over. As it got closer (and of course once it passed) I could see it was a tow truck. If I keep seeing blue lights on non-police vehicles, I won't think about ceding right-of-way when an actual law enforcement vehicle is approaching, so was wondering whether anyone else (particularly in law enforcement) could clarify anything more. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

I grew up with a fire inspector, who drove a department car with red and white strobe lights on it. My step-dad explained that people should be able to tell it was not a police car because it didn't have blue lights. Based on his instruction, and supported by every other emergency vehicle I've seen around the country, I've understood that only law enforcement vehicles are allowed to have blue strobes (sometimes mixed with red and/or white, but blue indicates police). Lately I've seen several vehicles in the northern Virginia area with blue strobes -- a couple of them were tow trucks (historically would have had orange/yellow lights), and a few were just personally owned vehicles with blue strobes as decoration. Was I mistaken to believe that only law enforcement could have blue lights on their vehicles? If that was the rule, when did it change? See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

From the article: Which goes to show how valid this claim is(n't). So yeah, without a "valid legal claim" you go to the court of public opinion. Unfortunately, the jury in that court has such a degraded understanding of rule of law and public domain that he's going to get a lot of support. At the very least, this incident and the president's stance will be added to the list of examples of how the system is rigged and "they're" all out to "get" him. I'm sure "Hillary" or "Obama" are behind this! See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

I saw that interview as well. The military ballots and provisional have not allbeen counted, though, and they won't be counted until Dec 26 (if I recall correctly). However there are not likely to be enough of those to change the outcome. Don FIFY. Fixes my view as well. I was trying to square the idea that my ballot just must be postmarked by election day -- it obviously arrives at a later date. I'm sure the ones the Sec State referenced were ballots they had received thus far. So, perhaps it's a continuing process -- not to mention, the ones reported first thing were some percentage of the total absentee ballots to be submitted. Therefore, we are in agreement: the number to be counted likely will not affect the outcome. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

I expect that it will be close enough that the mail in vote will have major effect. I expect that the mail in vote is predominantly Republican . I saw an interview with the Alabama election commissioner about an hour before polls closed. He said the absentee ballots were already tallied, and they would be the first results to post once the official reporting started. That's nice to hear -- that the absentee ballots were acknowledged and a report on their results was scheduled. I'm a regular absentee voter (not Alabama, but still...), so I do kind of wonder about that. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

You aren't watching the right news. CNN explained it last week. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

THAT is the point. They were close to the same age. The husband wasn't 32 when they started dating. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

LOVE me some Kevin Smith.

IMO an honorable person would have resigned a long time ago. Or should never have gotten into bed with the moron in the first place. Jerry Baumchen I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, in that if the administration is going to be such a disaster, at least he thought (maybe?) he could try to salvage/offer some protection to a major facet of it. I firmly believe this is Sec. Mattis' take on Defense as well. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

Well, they are still legal tender! See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

The pennies at least were rolled, so it isn't like the clerk would have had to count them out individually. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

Okay -- just another bit of evidence then that the EC long outlived its purpose, and should be eliminated (during the elections, historians interviewed on news programs claimed also the "educated voter" mandate). See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

It seems to me like the lessons we are not teaching well are: 1) Respect yourself. Know yourself, know your limits and tell others when they are exceeding them. 2) Treat others with the same respect that you want them to treat you with. See -- you make my points so much more succinctly than I do! Thanks Bill.

Partly because of what society has taught boys vs girls about how to act toward and around the opposite gender (sorry for just using the binary. Making a point here). Huge generalization on my part, I know -- but so was yours, so there ya go. Exactly. We teach girls not to wear this, or not to do that. We don't teach boys not to do this thing or that. We don't teach boys to learn about the person, not just look at the wrapping. Maybe if we plant the seeds of respect for self and for others in ALL kids' heads, something may grow and bear some fruit in more of those situations. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

OTOH, if the rules applied to all candidates running for an elected post at the federal level (and applied to all three branches, even though the Supreme Court is appointed and confirmed), it would be equitable. I only mention an amendment because each branch has qualifiers already spelled out in their respective articles in the Constitution. Therefore, I'm advocating adjusting those qualifiers -- or passing laws if an amendment is too high of a goal. We should also consider revisiting the purpose and applicability of the electoral college. It's original intent was to be able to cast an educated vote if the masses "didn't understand" or messed up. We certainly do not live in a one voter/one vote system at this point. If we want to argue that the people are ill-educated, ill-informed and incapable of choosing someone qualified, then the EC should do its job per its charter. Otherwise, the EC is an outdated system that no longer serves its intended purpose. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

RE amendment: since the original qualifications are in the Constitution, it may take an amendment. However, if legislation (US Code) could be enacted sufficiently, then I'd be all for it. RE gifts: The problem is there are too many legal loopholes that the current administration is using to its advantage. Definitions of gifts, wording of the emoluments clause, etc. Again, codifying what has been "common practice" would be helpful. Just because someone "shouldn't" do something doesn't mean they can't. This administration is the clear illustration of that. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

Just a thought: we could always use new blood in the judges' community! I haven't exited a plane in flight in three years, but have remained incredibly active in the sport by judging. ETA: Though I'm unavailable to do it this year, judging Collegiates is the most fun of all. Those kids are motivating!

Here's my point: The Constitution needs to be amended to include more qualifications (or laws enacted to codify long-standing traditions -- put in writing the "unwritten rules"). Since it's "impossible" to separate the person from the brand, this candidate should not have been considered eligible to run (blind trust rules and all). I would like to see as well some kind of experience qualifiers put into the rules. No, I'm not saying I'm qualified to spell out what those limits should be, so let's not get into a flame war over this. However, the issue certainly rates consideration. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!