JohnsonJones

Oregon got the rough end of this bargain. I'd say their bracket is going to be a lot harder than the other side of the tournament. I don't cheer for Oregon though, and hope they get trounced by either Ohio, Tennesee, Texas, or Clemson (let's be real here though, chance of Clemson beating Texas are...). Somewhere along that line they should be thrashed. Not sure how UGA will do. They are more than their Quarterback, but their Quarterback wasn't in the best shape after the game.

I would assume it's because Trump has already declared that he wants to go after certain people. Pardoning them makes it that much harder for one to imprison others for political purposes. I've noticed that with Trump, what he accuses others of doing to him, is normally something he is all in favor of doing to others himself. In this issue though, he has gone a step further and declared that he will jail anyone he thinks has been unscrupulous (with no definition of that, except basically his own opinion. For example, he says the last election was stolen, and that those in Georgia didn't find the votes for him. There were no votes for him to be found, but because they could not, they would, theoretically, be persecuted and possibly jailed because they refused to break the law for Trump). Trumps comments during wisconsin campaigning Trump threatens over 100 political opponents some excerpts So, I think it's probably because they believe Trump will go after people, not because they necessarily did a crime, but because Trump doesn't like something they did, or those who are advising him want retribution (rather than justice) on certain people.

Going back a notch or two in the conversation, or back a page or two, I noticed someone accused an individual that because they were not necessarily religious, or participated in a set religion, they could not possibly be moral. I would counter, if the Only reason you are moral is because you have religion (and thus are in fear of eternal punishment if you broke the rules), you may not be as moral as you think. It is true, that there are many who fear punishment (which is one reason why there are punishments for those who break the laws of the land) and that is why they do not commit a crime, but there are many other reasons why people follow the law. Some do it because it is the right thing to do. Some do it because they have a morality that is not just based on fear, or because they were taught that a Deity or pantheon would be angry if they were not, but because they have personal morality based upon a respect for themselves and life itself. I deal with many students at the university. There are those that are extremely religious, and those that are not. If we are talking about morals, I have those who claim to be part of a religion that have no qualms about trying to cheat. I have those who claim to be atheist or agnostic that are straight as an arrow and could be trusted with the answers in front of them and they would not look at those answers to cheat on a test. Why would those who have no religion be so honest, while those who have religion be dishonest? (and to be clear, there are those who are religions that Are honest, and those who do not have religion who are dishonest as well, but we are looking at a certain dichotomy here). I would say that it is due to whatever moral compass we have in ourselves already. It does not take a religious person to understand that there are things we can do that will hurt other people, or to cause harm. An individual can feel that it is wrong to hurt others, just as it would be wrong for others to hurt them. They can have a moral code in and of itself that has no religious influence because they know right from wrong. In fact, as members of the church we have been taught that every person has the Light of Christ within them. It is this that enables everyone, no matter whether they are religious or not, to recognize good from evil. If one builds a moral code upon the realization that there is good, and there is evil, even without religion, than it may be that this is just as moral as someone who has been taught morality by their religion. If we go a step further, with those students that are religious but would cheat, I would say that their moral code isn't quite up to snuff. They will act as they think others will want them to when observed, but in secret do as they wish. They act out of fear, rather than love. Now, fear can be a first step in our track to trying to be righteous, but even for a Christian, it is not the best reason to be moral. When we are truly followers of the Lord, we do it because we Love the Lord. We don't follow him because of fear, but because we have the same morals as he does. If, we suddenly no longer had him in our life to guide us, it would not change our character, because our character would still remain. We would Still be moral because that is who we are. It is that character which draws us closer to the Lord. We do not follow him because we have to, but because we Want to. In otherwords, we are not religious or moral because we have religion at that point, we are moral because that is our character to be so. If we are to be more like the Lord, than morality is not something that is dictated to us, but that which comes naturally. The more like the Lord we become, the more we are in how we act and treat others as it is the natural way for us to be. Hence, though we can grow in morality that way, we are not moral because we are religious, we are religious because we are moral and our particular morals dictate we act in a certain way (for example, honoring and respecting the Lord). In that same way, though they may not have a morality that guides them to respect the Lord or any other form of religious practice, someone who is an Atheist or Agnostic can have a sense of morality without being in fear or retribution. One of the most common is how I noted it above, a respect of others and a desire for others to respect them. In that light, adultery would be a horrible thing to do. It hurts another person terribly. In committing adultery, one member of a marriage takes the deepest trust one can have in them and betrays it. That is a horrible wounding to someone. An individual who was an Atheist could say this is an evil that should not be done, and extremely immoral. They would be against it because it harms another person. I can't speak for @Phoenix_person morality or morals, but I have a sense they have a sense of morality. I can say that I have had students that are atheist or agnostic who have had a great deal of morality that they've practiced on their own (as well as those who have not). In that same light, I've had many students that are religious that also have had a great sense of morality, but those who have the best morality among them would be moral regardless of whether they had religion or not, because they are of a moral character that is not dependent on religion, but instead that moral character is why they are religious in the first place.

Regarding Asher One of Asher's blessings is prosperity.

I don't think I have any Native American Blood either. If we were the same age (I think you are quite a bit younger than I am), you are correct most likely. I probably would have had an easier time getting into an Ivy League than you (if I understand your racial background correctly, you have a Korean background if I recall). If the papers were correct, we both would have had a harder time than some other minorities who had equal education as we did (though, if I also remember correctly, the reason for the quota's initially were due to the idea that many minorities were not in environments where education would be equal to those of other races, and such were at a disadvantage already due to having a lower educational experience). Unfortunately, with Asian-Americans that has proven to be somewhat of a fallacy, as many of those from Southeastern Asia descent were shown to also have similar disadvantages in life and as such, the system has only worked to further discrimination against them and other Asians. I wonder though, with Trump's policies, would you be subject to having your citizenship revoked and you being sent out of the US eventually? There is talk that those who were not natural born citizens in the US (you were born in Korea...correct) having a loophole that Trump may eventually use (though it seems to be more focused on Central and South Americans first and foremost) to revoke citizenship from those who born in different nations or countries than the US as a first step in the process of trying to fight back and eventually do away with birthright citizenship.

The Best path forward is to ditch the far left and get an independent who will do their best for the DNC to lead the Democrat party. However, they won't do that. The biggest problem with the Democrats this election is that they were so full of themselves they didn't see that they were abandoning anyone who didn't see it the same way their elites did. The reasons they lost were pretty obvious, and yet they still struggle to figure it out because they have a bunch of elitest so out of touch they still don't know why they lost. It's simple...really... 1. They backstabbed their own candidate. The two weeks after the debate with Biden they didn't focus on what Trump did wrong...they actively sabotaged their own candidate to force that candidate to step down. This was obvious and blatant and upset a LOT of independents (yours truly included). Many of those refused to vote for Harris or anyone that the Democrats decided to crown as the heir apparent. I think this was probably the biggest factor of the loss. If they had a mini-primary it may have repaired a little of that damage, but I still think it was such a massive wound that it was nigh unrecoverable. This was a MASSIVE mistake on the Democrats part. Rather than rallying, they cut their supporters in half instantly. 2. The forgot what the Democrat party was. They focused on small items rather than how the general public felt. There were many (especially young people) that are struggling for food and housing, but they Democrat party simply ignored them. Ignoring the problems a majority of your base is having is never a winning strategy. To make matters worse, whether it was full of lies or not, Trump's campaign addressed the issues and promised they would make them better. 3. They didn't give voice to everyone. It was our way or the higway. I don't agree with the pro-palestinian/anti-Israel movement in the Democrat party, but they should have at least had a spot at the table and be allowed to speak their minds. If we want freedom of speech and freedom of choice, they should have been allowed to at least voice their concerns rather than be shoved into a corner. It's a small matter, but when you've lost so many due to the other issues above, any small amount counts. This applies to many of the smaller matters that were ignored as well (not as big media voice among young men, etc) which I feel didn't have as big an impact as the two items above, but also made the loss far worse. It wasn't stretching the hand across the aisle that sunk the Democrat party in this election, it was ignoring obvious mistakes that I mentioned above. It's not a hard thing to see or figure out. They lost the independents by their actions (and it's really the independents who make the election) and the Democrats are far too blind to see that, from what I'm observing. It's not just the elites, it's the hardcore of their party who think they just need to unify and move further to the left (yeah, that's how Republicans painted the DNC this election...that sure worked well for you guys...Not) It's the matters above, the matters that apply in general to many people (not just the far left issues of whether a transwoman is actually a woman or not) that affected the election, but until the Democrats realize this (or the Republicans screw the nation so badly people want a change), the Democrats will probably still have a problem winning in the near future.

If I remember Horror tropes...that would be a terrible position to be in. Isn't it always that the teens call the police or something, the cop comes, and then as they search around trying to figure why they were called, they get gutted by the big horrible monster or something? The Cops always die in these types of movies...and most of the teenagers too if I recall the trope...with only one or two that somehow miraculously destroy the monster before they are killed themselves. Isn't that how it normally goes? (note: I've never actually watched these movies, so I can't be positive that this is how it works, but I think I've seen a parody or two that makes fun of it).

It does not explicitly mention it. We do not know what exactly the Book of Mormon means when it mentions Horses, though all things have not been revealed. In my opinion (and I am only a amateur Church Historian, my only expertise is my own hobby, rather than any professional pursuits with it) is that analyzing the Book of Mormon would indicate that if there were horses, they were a rare beast. The reason I mention this is that their usage does not seem to be widely prolific in the Book. Indications seem to show that travel was done more by foot rather than any other means. The way things are phrased and how the course of battles and other situations seem to indicate to me that most of the travel, marching (and it's the very usage of the word marching), and approaches would seem more of an infantry type army rather than a calvary approach. The defenses and assaults (walls, ditches) seem more akin to what one does against Foot soldiers rather than artillery or cavalry as well, and the tactics (straight up assault of the walls) are also more of an infantry tactic (where you can climb or otherwise scale walls or ditches). So, though there may have been horses (and indeed mentioned) it would appear to me that they were rare overall, and a majority of the transportation was probably done either by foot, or if usage of carts, by some other form of domesticated animal that could drag a cart, but apparently not a man.

I'm not positive. I read it more of a literal event from the viewpoint of the author, but tradition has it that it is more of a figurative legend. Sometimes, myths and legends have basis on real events, so it is also possible that it is a bit of both. It could be that some of the things that we read about the discussion between the Lord and the adversary are there to give us a framing device and to put us into a moral situation in which Job will find himself, but that the actual story of Job occurred (he lost everything, everyone left him or cursed him, and he still remained faithful for the most part), but that there were some embellishments or other literary facets that were added to help teach a moral of the story. I tend to think that it is either real, or had a basis of reality as we read in Doctrine and Covenants 121:10 a reference that indicates that not only was Job a real prophet, but the situation he found himself in where his friends deserted and cursed him was a real even. Regardless of which it is, or whether it is a mixing of these ideas, the moral of the story still stands, that no matter what trials and tribulations we have, we should strive to be faithful to the Lord, our covenants, and his commandments.

I would imagine that women and men may be of the traditional manner in heaven. I also expect this is what we see in regards to the Lord and his ministry, as there is a tradition among many saints to the belief that he was married in mortality. In this idea (and it is still shared traditionally in many nations, but no longer really one shared among Western Nations) is that while the man deals with what is outside the home, and is king of the land, the woman deals with what is inside the home and is queen within. Thus, while a Father may rule outside the home, inside the home it is the Mother who rules and determines what is what. The Wife and Mother is given the utmost respect and regard, and to trespass her is to trespass the home. Wars and violence go against those who offend a man's wife and home. In some ways it is better (if it is the more traditional roles in heaven) that we do not know much about a Heavenly Mother, for the way some would comment or disrespect her would merit a violent response from her husband...most likely. When dealing with an omnipotent being, being subject to their direct violence and war against you is probably not a position to be found in.

I've only used one vehicle (a chrysler at that) which had this in it. It was my son's van. It seems you can turn it off if you don't like it. It had two batteries. One, I think, is dedicated to the starting and stopping of the engine. It turned off when you stopped at stop lights, and turned back on when you press the gas. If a battery has a problem it turns off this process on it's own and acts as a normal car instead. I personally didn't really care for it.

As @Carborendum said above, in addition, I hear that many times if they are convicted they also get a trip to Korean Jail/Prison. Fun times. Of interest, about half of the past Korean Presidents have gone to Prison.

Happy Birthday, a little bit late.

We don't know, but there are several ideas, some of which the thread has explored. 1. Knowledge. Though they had the physical bodies, they did not have the knowledge to reproduce. They lacked knowledge, thus obtaining knowledge may have been what triggered the ability to have children. 2. Those who gain telestial bodies will not have the ability to reproduce. Adam and Eve started with Telestial bodies. These were perfect Telestial bodies. If it follows the same trend as those who are resurrected with perfect Telestial bodies, they will not be able to have children. There must be some sort of change in order to enable it. 3. Brigham Young's explanation. This indicates that the story of Adam and Eve is highly symbolic in relation to us. The actual even was that Adam and Eve were Celestial beings already. Adam came down and consumed Telestial material, or the products of this world. This infused his body with mortal elements and thus they could have mortal children. In this, Adam is literally physically also a Child of our Father (though with a Celestial body rather than a half mortal, half deific body), and we are literally their descendants. 4. There are many other explanation as well. To say we don't know exactly which one is correct is probably an understatement.

Part of the reasons for the ban were based upon scripture, scripture which Still is canon today. Abraham 1:21-27 The accepted clause at the time of Brigham Young (Whether correct or not) were that those who were of a darker skin tone that were from African (the Continent) descent were the descendants of Ham, and thus also of Cain. This is an unpopular thing to refer to among many today. Brigham Young did not ban blacks from having the priesthood, but said that they would not be partakers of it until all others had their chance to accept the gospel and to receive it. By 1978 the gospel had been promulgated throughout the world. Any who truly would have sought it (at least the familial lines, someone in each family line, though not perhaps individually) would have had the opportunity most likely at that point, sometime in that past century. In fulfillment of prophecy, the 'ban' was finally lifted and Blacks could have the priesthood. It is also retroactive, meaning all blacks from any point in history may also receive the priesthood. This is a very uncomfortable topic and item for many to discuss or bring up. It is something that politically can be polarizing. The Essays themselves which address the issue are not canon and not official doctrine. They are made to explain things and at times phrase them in ways that will not offend. The other side of the coin deals not only with those who may not receive certain blessings, but those who are handicapped, those who are in bad circumstances, and even those who are rich. The following is NOT official doctrine today either (as far as I can tell). We all lived in the pre-existence. While there we made choices. Those choices are reflected in what position we find ourselves in this life. Some of these choices were made by us to help us grow in knowledge and understanding. Others were made because we wanted or did not want certain challenges in this life. If one did not have the priesthood in this life, it was most likely due to choices that they made in the life prior to this one...in the pre-existence. This does not necessarily mean that they were good or evil, but it means that choices they made previously, have an effect on what happened after. The same applies today as well. What we choose in this life, the choices we make, will affect what we do in the next life after this one. Some will choose to follow the Lord and gain whatever is the result of that. Some will choose to live in luxury, pleasure, and riches and will gain whatever is the result of that. I think we had more control over what we would face and deal with, the trials and challenges we would have, when we decided what we needed or wanted in the Pre-existence, as well as if our Lord had a mission for us to accomplish in this life, but our life today still will have an impact on the eternal life we have in the future.

Both. Remember, the Lord has many messages of love and compassion. We see it through him in the New Testament. He is teaching and showing Israel the higher law and it's effects. However, he also fashioned a weapon (and it was a weapon, you can craft one yourself and see that it is not only possible to severely hurt people with it, it is also possible to beat someone to death with it if you make it correctly) and used it to chase evil money changers out of the temple. A very violent act. He wasn't always peaceful. When defending the Sacredness of areas and things he could resort to violence. In the Old Testament there are rules that imply love and compassion. One of the primary commandments we refer to as the 10 commandments tell us to Honor our Father and Mother for example. However, this is the Lower Law, and thus is not as demanding as the Higher Law.

You know, my statement is right in the thread itself. It's not hidden. It's normally considered bearing false witness to try to do cut a statement off to try to make it appear it doesn't say what it does. The full statement is I'm not sure how you can read that as him having only one degree. It's a B.A. in physics. That does not mean no degree, it means he has a B.A. in physics. A B.S. in Economics. However, as I said, we'll have to agree to disagree as I don't think we are going to change stances on this. You don't have to try to say I said something different than I did to disagree with my statements though. I don't think I've ever been a Musk fan. This is my conservative side coming out. I have not been fond of the entire electric car push. If one believes in the Global Climate Change (and I do to a degree, but I feel that in some ways it's overblown, a change of 1.5 degrees, to me, is not that massive. It's the difference between 68 degrees, and 69.5 degrees. Or 69 degrees and 70.5 degrees). I'm not an environmental or climate change scientist though, and it may mean things far worse than I imagine or believe. However, if one feels it's a very dangerous time and we need to act, electric vehicles do not seem to be the item that will promote change. If one researches how the materials are made, and what goes into their creation, they are just as bad as ICE (internal combustion engines). Furthermore, with the prices and limited range, I feel they have more limited appeal. Finally, unless we go full nuclear or solar, they only mitigate part of the problem as their electricity is still being generated by burning carbon fuels. The final problem is that, even if the US and Europe manage to get their carbon footprint to zero, there are many other nations in the world that will not. Our being at zero carbon emissions does not solve the problem presented. The limited range is one of their biggest problems. I would have felt that a better option, if they really wanted us to go to a more electric vehicle, would have been to introduce it otherwise. Make Hybrid vehicles and promote them far more. They will still have the backup ICE so that range is no longer a factor, and people who enjoy the ability to drive without buying fuel could do so in their shorter distance drives. If one were really serious about such things, pushing hard on Hybrids (I feel) would be far more effective in promoting the entire thing rather than trying to shove the entire electric vehicle idea down our throats. Tesla has been at the forefront of the electric vehicle companies, at least in stocks and media presence. Hence, my dislike of the entire forceful push of electric vehicles has probably had a focus on Tesla to a bit. I am actually somewhat neutral on my thoughts regarding Elon Musk, but I've never really been one of his fans either. He's just another person, but I have disliked some of the companies he's had (or, more specifically, Tesla). I am not particularly impressed by his academic or technological prowess (as this thread can obviously show) but I do feel he is a genius of our day. I think people misunderstand what his genius is in. As I've stated, he's a genius in market manipulation and stock control. Those in such businesses probably should be in awe of him. He may be one of the greatest minds of our day in those areas. I don't think he wants to present himself in that area as his genius, he wants to have people think it's in tech, but at the end of the day he's more a Ford (who is a respectable character of history) than an actual Tesla. He's more a Steve Jobs than a Bill Gates. His efforts to try to paint himself as someone to be adored in Tech I do like American made vehicles in general though, just not Teslas. I'll take a Ford or Chevy or GM any day. I am open to changing my opinion (and have on occasion), but it takes something more persuasive (and things I can verify, comments from colleagues in adjoining departments make me trepidatious in regards to some of the praise Musk garners, as I've commented those in the Engineering and other departments who have had experiences with working with him...are not quite that praiseworthy of his technological know how) overall to change it than what I've had recently in regards to Musk. I do think it's great that you have had a good opinion of him for many years and it's not due to political winds that can change on a whim. To often I see people's opinions change (especially recently) in regards to character and ability depending on whether one is part of one political persuasion or another. Analyzing what we think of someone beyond simple political affiliation is probably good, not just for self reflection, but on whether their political ideas actually adjoin with our own. (PS: For example, I've been open about how Trump does not seem to follow the conservative playbook, at least during his last term. In particularly, in regards to diminishing or reducing the budget. He may be Republican and claim to be conservative, but he didn't really do things in a traditional conservative manner. The budget is the clearest one I can point to in how he did the exact opposite. I know he has an unofficial task force named D.O.G.E. which has Musk and Ramaswamy in charge of it, but there is nothing that requires anyone to actually do anything that they suggest or advise. I think it's just something to keep Musk happy, and something Trump will use to blame Musk if the financial endeavors Trump enacts go south. We'll see though. Maybe Trump will be different this time around).

You aren't a Veteran...are you? I don't know if it's indispensable or not. I use USPS to mail 20 dollar bills in cards to grandkids for Birthdays and Christmas though. They may be a little disappointed if that stopped. I suppose I could try another service, never really felt the need to to though.

I believe I said that. Who is selectively reading what now? Again...who is selectively reading what I wrote? Your are missing things. I haven't. I've read that he's kept out of the design process in Space-X, and his thoughts on the designs in Tesla have actually caused serious problems with the company. A licensed Engineer HAS to sign off on things for many Civil and Mechanical Projects. Sure, they can have Engineering Techs and Engineers who haven't passed the tests work under them, but a PE has to be the one who actually signs off on anything and everything. Musk is (as far as I know) not even educated as an Engineering Tech. One example of his genius ideas was trying to design a sub to rescue a bunch of boys trapped in a cave. The experts didn't accept it and rescued the boys. Musk in retaliation tried to falsely paint one of the rescuers as a criminal (of which we won't go into detail about as it's quite grotesque). All because his idea was deemed foolish and unreliable and Musk couldn't accept the hit to his narcissistic Ego. That's not the sign of a great scientist, a great engineer, or even someone who is greatly educated and is still learning. A Surgeon can have others helping him in the surgery room. They are also trained and normally certified by some process. That still doesn't mean you would want me in there, no matter how much I've read, or learned (or even practiced on corpses and animals in learning environments while learning other professors and doctor's professions and emphasis of study) without me being an actual licensed surgeon. You almost definitely don't want me AS the Surgeon. I'm not sure why you are so enthusiastic about Musk...but...you do you. Most that I've known that have met him and/or worked with him do not have anything good to say about his engineering abilities (or scientific abilities for that matter) behind his back. Have you even ever met the guy? Musk hasn't worked in the field though, and hasn't actually even had an Engineering Tech's education in it as far as I can tell. Even his BA (not a BS) in Physics is somewhat of an enigma (as per Snopes, the degree which is supposedly a BA of Physics doesn't even show the word Physics on it from what I can tell, it shows a general degree of Arts...at least the BS of Economics shows that it's for Economics). He couldn't muster the maths and sciences enough to even get a B.S. Degree. This is the guy you are defending as some sort of Engineering genius? You mean this https://blastar-1984.appspot.com/ Musk claims it is better than Flappy bird. My 8 year old daughter wrote a labryinth game for the Apple IIe in the 80s that I feel is better than this. But....you do you. It's hard to find information on this and what actually happened. I do not know a ton about Zip2. It appears it was a web based item and was programmed by software engineers, and then Musk would go back over it after they left (some say he didn't sleep all that much and would spend hours working on it). It's main competitor was CitySearch?? That seems more of a web based search engine...or more aptly...a directory. If it's just a directory...I've made those for my department in regards to classes, schedules, and professors. Probably not as complex as Zip2 or City Search (in fact, I can guarantee they weren't even a 1/100th as complex), but if that's all it was...I'm not terribly impressed that this implies he had great programming skills. I also didn't spend 80 hour weeks making this stuff (more like one week, and then updating it once a semester). It sold for quite a bit though, so it was something noteworthy I imagine. Python is pretty basic from what I understand, and running it with a basic instruction of how to run a line of code is something I (who has no training in Python and is technologically illiterate from what I can tell, have actually done with one of my grandson's projects) have done. If he can't run that, and an technological illiterate can, I'd say the co-creator of Doge probably has a better perspective of what he's talking about (Musk brags about things to show off, but in reality doesn't have the actual skills to back some of those items up). We'll just have to agree to disagree in regards to Musk. If you notice though, he was put in charge of D.O.G.E (funny again, how much the co-creator of Doge coin basically put Musk down)...not anything scientific. PS: The funniest thing about all this though, is if we go back a few years when Musk wasn't seen as a Conservative, and was seen far more liberal....were your thoughts so praiseworthy of his efforts then? Or have they changed as his own political aspects have changed?

He doesn't have a degree in Engineering. He isn't even educated in it. How can he be a singular engineer without any training, education, and definitely not certified??? Not only would it be illegal for him to sign off on things in mechanical and aeronautical items, he probably doesn't have the first clue in what he would be doing. I thought you were an Engineer yourself. I would imagine you know this? I'm not an Engineer, but I know what the actual Engineers think of his qualifications in our departments (and some of these guys have personal experience with Musk, so I'd probably go with their opinions over yours...no offense). HHe has a B.S. in Economics, but not Physics (edit: it's a B.A. which means less strenuous and intense classes in general for the degree). Sources??? On that note, I've been self-taught to be a Medical Doctor and know something of how to do Surgery... Would you trust me with your medical health and to do surgery on you? I literally have top experts in the field within several hundred meters of me which I can consult almost every weekday!!! I don't have any licenses and haven't been approved to do so....but I think I have a general idea how it works. (Edit: Just to be clear, I wouldn't trust me with your medical health. As I said, I a not actually a doctor, and am not a medical professional or personnel. Just like I probably wouldn't want someone who wasn't medically trained and certified to do my healthcare, I wouldn't want an engineer who wasn't trained and certified (in Civil and Mechanical, that means to sign off on something it would require a P.E.) to sign off on projects where human lives were at stake. ) Here's a source talking about Musk's qualifications and expertise from someone Musk actually really wants to promote (so someone who created something Musks is actually trying to promote and thus should be favorable to Musk...right??) Regarding the creators of Doge (you know, that thing Musk even made his new US department an abbreviation of...D.O.G.E.) Dogecoin creator says Musk a grifter who couldn't even run code That said, I think Elon Musk is actually a genius, but not in the Scientific fields. He is an absolute genius in Stock Manipulation. Probably one of the greatests ever...at least thus far. You don't get rich from being a genius in science generally unless you have someone who is good at finances and marketing, but you do get rich being a genius in finance and markets. It makes sense his B.S. was in economics. As an aside, my grandson in High School works in Python and can program in it. He hasn't even gone to college and can do a lot of things in Python.

Edit: In retrospect, my post was done in poor taste, so I'm editing it to say something different. This doesn't seem to be my type of movie to watch, I'm not the biggest fan of these types of movies, and the content seems a little more violent than what I normally would decide to view.

I've seen a few complaining about Trumps pick for SecDef, but personally, I have no problem with the choice. He's served in the military, was deployed in a combat zone, and earned two bronze stars. That's good enough for me. I have some problems with some of Trumps other choices for positions (Gaetz as AG? That's a little foolish), but I feel his choice of Sec Def was a solid one.

I saw this coming. I even have posts in the forum to show i saw this coming (or at least Trump becoming President again). I'm not a Republican (and definitely not someone who supports Trump, which is probably very obvious from those same posts). In truth, (I don't think it's you influencing me) I think I may actually be leaning more towards a libertarian viewpoint these days.

You know, the obvious choices seem to be simply ignored by the DNC. Mark Kelly or Shapiro were the Obvious choices for a VP selection this time around, yet they chose someone who was from a relatively safe state that wouldn't really bring anything to the election itself (sorry, but Walz just didn't bring anything that would help Harris win iMO). Shapiro would have had the midwest just as well as Walz, but with the added bonus that he probably could have brought PA to her. Mark Kelly on the otherhand has all the hallmarks that make people want to vote for him, Tragedy he overcame, American Hero, military experience, etc. To me, he should be the obvious rally point for the DNC...but will they choose something like that? Nope, they'll probably go for someone that manages to offend everyone, even their own party members. I also highlighted the groceries and affordable housing items above. That's one item I think really sunk the Democrat message this election. It doesn't matter how good they say the economy is (and I heard it repeatedly) if a young student or young adult can't afford to buy food and is one rent raise away from not being able to afford to pay to live where they are currently living.

That money isn't going to go to the states. The DoE is what gave that money to the states. Once the DoE is gone, that money is not going to go anywhere close to the states at all anymore. There will still be the taxes that bring that money to the government, but it's going to stay with the government (for who knows what, ideally it would be to pay down the deficit and debt, but if we see what Trump has done in the past, it will more likely go to enrich someone instead and the deficit will grow regardless).