iNow

Adding to these excellent ideas, another path involves placing a sacrificial backer board tight against the workpiece being cut. Could be plywood or any scrap piece of any species really. It serves to reinforce the fibers and wood grains such that when the saw blade (or drill bit or chisel or planet or whatever) pushes through and you get less (or nearly zero) tear-out. Here especially a circular saw against a straight edge strikes me personally as being the easiest and cleanest. Hope it turned out well, and congrats on the new floor!

I think the only time this “used to be the case” was before Thomas Jefferson and his allies ran attack ads against John Adams, so basically ONLY true that one time btw the handoff from George Washington to Adams. Artack ads aren’t new. Propaganda isn’t new. Even the ability to self-select our own news and information sources (which themselves often push false narratives about opponents like Ben Franklin did) isn’t new. It’s just supercharged now with social media and the easier ability for foreign adversaries and uber wealthy to play key roles in the conversation. Not really true (in the US, anyway) once we factor in gerrymandered voting districts and how the electoral college supersedes popular vote for executive office. There’s not merely ONE electorate, though. Elected reps only ever represent a fraction of the people, and that fraction isn’t always terribly large.

My approach would be to use a circular saw against a straight edge, or (even better) a track saw if you have one. Trying to manage a piece that large on a table saw is doable, but more dangerous and more difficult to do well. As you may know, lots of doors these days are hollow core, so be thoughtful about what kind of edge you’ll be left with if removing too much material. On those, only the perimeter areas are solid wood. Not really an issue though if it’s solid wood throughout.

I absolutely support this in spirit, but worry a LOT about how it’s going to siphon votes from the least bad / less crazy candidates given our lack of a ranked choice voting option. For example, maybe I’d like to vote for Yang as my first choice, but if the other 2 candidates are Trump and Biden, I’d HATE for my Yang vote to lead Biden to lose and allow Trump to slide his greasy thieving fascistic self back into office. Would be ideal instead to say, “I want Yang, but if he doesn't win then my vote must be counted for Biden.” But we don’t have that, so my concerns outweigh my support for these Forward folks.

It’s working, and they’re going to keep doing it in even more nefarious ways because of it being rewarded. Btw +1. Good questions ✌️

I’d ask you what exactly you wish to discuss, but last time I did that I got neg repped and I try to adjust my behavior based on social feedback.

How very balanced of you

Is that your moderate impression of me?

Don’t bother. Nobody reads them anyway

Doesn’t much matter. IMO, what he actually said was worse.

He didn’t say condoning. He said promoting.

Here’s another idea for some potential inspiration

Reality isn’t always balanced. Facts aren’t always supportive of moderate views. I have no struggle with balance and moderation, but I do struggle when others engage in bad faith. Correct. Let’s say we’re dealing with a morbidly obese patient and discussing root causes. One one side of the equation are genetics, sedentary lifestyle, and the decision to eat a dozen KrispyKream donuts for breakfast daily, 4 BigMacs daily for lunch, and an entire bucket of Fried Chicken for dinner with full sized bags of Doritos for snacks in between. On the other side of that equation is how the patient also chooses to chew gum with sugar in it instead of sugar free gum. In this discussion, you’re choosing to focus primarily on the gum. Others are responding to that choice. SMH.

FFS. Never mind.

How? Maybe with unicorns and sorcerers?

The useful idiots were recruited when they voted for him. He wouldn’t have been elected without them. I have a hard time swallowing this narrative that BLM protests are what made them rush the Trumps side, especially since 1) they were already at his side before the protests, and 2) they tended often to be the ones engaged in stirring up that violence at those BLM protests as a sort of false flag operation. You’ve got the cart before the horse IMO, and might consider reflecting upon your own stance more closely before casting aspersions at others for living in fantasy worlds. It’s easy to become defensive when the people with whom you’re interacting seem to take every opportunity to throw needless jabs.

My review of the Sun: One star

It’s clearly the latter, but not exclusively. There was plenty of recklessness and incompetence to go around, but they’ll be better prepared next time. https://www.axios.com/2022/07/22/trump-2025-radical-plan-second-term

Correct, but invasion is the key verb, not semiconductor manufacturing capability

The commander in chief who provides the highest ranking orders for those troops is the one who caused and supported the attack. There’s a reason it took them so long to get there. Orders to deploy, especially on domestic soil, have to come from someone high up. Those orders didn’t come.

MigL is correct. As is JCM. It is being questioned therefore by definition is questionable. The answer to that question is they’re wrong. Biden did win. The question has been answered even though people keep asking it. It was a semantic comment IMO, not an assertion or statement of belief. At the same time, since so many millions continue to believe the disinformation and are questioning the election, we should be more cautious here when talking about it ourselves and strive to make clear our own position that the election outcome is obviously legitimate.

Your opinion is duly noted Yes, via impeachment, but that ship has sailed. Another possibility is some sort treason conviction, but that too seems beyond unlikely.

Thanks for the neg rep Vat. Glad you're voicing your scholarly thoughts that way Clearly, the issue here is the OP just blogging and not setting up discussion... no problem with sharing the link... again.

Drain the swamp in order to make it several orders or magnitude bigger and toxic and more disgusting. Exactly

If this is to be a "news" thread, then perhaps a better focus is how very capable, very well funded, very organized Trump supporters are actively planning to radically reshape the US Government if he takes power again. Changing policies, appointing high level lieutenants who will nod yes to any command even if it goes against our constitution and is illegal, thinning out multiple layers at the justice department, and installing more federal judges to make it so enforcement action against these insults would be nearly impossible. They're also building databases and enemies lists, and planning to pull back worker protections so they can more easily remove opponents (read: tens upon tens of thousands of federal workers) from key positions currently protected by law. From Axios:https://www.axios.com/2022/07/22/trump-2025-radical-plan-second-term "This isn't a bunch of fringe characters blowing hot air. It's well-funded groups run by former top Trump administration officials, working with Trump’s blessing — and, in some cases, direct financial support." But again... what shall we discuss? Only you can make clear the intent of the thread.