Unfortunately, everyone who defended Clinton’s use of email is in a weaker position to complain about this. Cuts both ways

Proceed

F-15 - Eagle

F-16 - Fighting Falcon

F-35 - Lightening II

F-47 - Krasnov

These names are just getting worse with each new jet

I value any well executed set up and pay off. I’m just not seeing that here.

OK, so, no actual attempt at humor

deleted by creator

?? ?

Yes and no, I’d say on that. Reagan really worked against unions, I agree. And democrats are always worried about how they are going to get paid. But there was a real turn toward “market solutions” for problems that had traditionally been addressed by government during this period, and I don’t believe it was entirely due to corporate bribes or financing. When Bill and Hillary attempted to change healthcare with corporate partners, I think it was more from their genuine belief that that was a new, better way forward. They were wrong, and I am sure that they benefited in terms of contributions, but I think it came as much out of their beliefs about the unpopularity of former democrats and the perception of economic malaise in places like England as it did from union weakness. The democrats could have helped rebuild the unions. They did not (and here I think you are right, because as time went on they really began to be paid well to forget the unions)

I think you are forgetting the basic premise of the theory

Yeah, maybe. I mean, the republicans at this time did start to resonate with the public, but I think it had more to do with the times and with Reagan himself.

Reagan was much more likeable than the likes of Goldwater, Buckley, or any other figure at the time. And he was attractive to the evangelicals, which became a whole new arm (with issues) of the party.

Also, of course, the economy of the 70s was just right for a party that could lean into hate, fear, & greed.

Reagan, though. He could sell all of it in a way that few others would have been able to pull off. I remember wondering at the time how he could draw so many in. People just liked him, horrible as he was.

He was terrible, and perhaps worse: he was so popular. He got two terms, then his vice president got a term. So popular it seemed to be (to me) that he was the reason we ultimately got stuck with the “Third Way” democrats, which is when the working class was finally completely abandoned.

He really screwed us all

Seriously! My 2003 has a CD player and a tape deck

*rogue

Press “D” to depose

Your last paragraph really nails it

Oh, I don’t think I did any more nagging than most fathers. You can tell when the kids start being more in to other things than hanging out with their parents, but you still miss it a little.

That seems like a reasonable reading and yet even so, I think the article pushes it. I was the primary care giver for my sons and I can’t imagine that even the “chattiest years” would have amounted to more than 5 or 6 years. Kids very quickly get involved in school, friends, etc., to the point that conversations subside. And by the time kids are older, it is difficult sometimes to get as much conversation from them as you’d like.

The researchers don’t know for sure why women are the more talkative gender during the near-40-year stretch between 25 and 64, but they say one possibility is that those tend to be the child rearing years, and women, who often assume the role of primary caregiver,

They really seem to be reaching on this one. I don’t think anyone, if asked to define child rearing years, would stretch those years out until 64. Also, 40 years is a significant percentage of average lifespans.

The whole article seems to be trying really hard to not come to the conclusion that most people would naively assume to be correct.

Reagan did a lot of shitty things. He did do them slowly, though, and was cheered on more. Trump is like stupid, vengeful Reagan, and Reagan was stupid already.

Of all the things that could be nationalized, TikTok