ghterve

I call that following the same successful recipe that got us the Falcon 9.

The mindset that considers those tests failures is the same one that would still be in bureaucracy hell determining what 40 year old technology we should repurpose to get a future over budget, late, and under performing solution designed and built.

Fuel cells don't burn the hydrogen. There is no combustion.

Ah but how convenient it is that anything we look up that doesn't fit your narrative can simply be dismissed as being the MSM which obviously has an anti Trump agenda and therefore is a lie. That's pretty convenient, yes? It is almost like that's exactly why Trump made up this whole MSM is liars who are out to get him thing. He has even tried to turn "doesn't like Trump" into an insult that he then uses against anyone not supporting his lies to try to discredit them so that his own lies seem more believable.

I hope you can eventually see out of his cloud of lies, deception, and manipulation. It may be painful briefly, but you'll eventually start seeing all the ways you have been manipulated. It will eventually feel good like a nice warm blanket to finally be free of it.

She did sign that letter. But she had previously said they did have the affair (and described it in detail). And shortly after she signed that letter, she admitted to Anderson Cooper the letter was a lie. She explained that she lied because... Get this... She was concerned about legal complications because she had accepted the hush money to not reveal the affair.

She also admitted that statement was a lie during her recent testimony while under oath. Signing that statement was not likely a crime. But if she had lied under oath this month, that would be a crime.

So, she was clearly lying at some point. Why do you choose to believe the much less plausible option that she was truthful the one time in 2018 but she was lying all the other times? There's no logical explanation for that, yet the opposite (lied in the 2018 statement you posted) has much more logical support. The only reason I can see to believe her only that one time when she had reason to lie is because it lets you believe Trump's lies that you really wish were true.

Again, do you think they can just ignore things like statute of limitations and proceed anyway just because they don't like Trump and are out to get him? The case would not be in progress if that claim of yours was accurate. The charges were indeed filled before the statute of limitations expired. This is a real court with real rules that apply and matter. It isn't a clown sham court like Trump wants you to think it is. Facts do indeed matter. Stop fabricating them (or believing someone else's fabrications) to fit a narrative that you want to be true.

You're just imagining facts that are convenient to what you want to think but are not true. This case has been in the works for years. It didn't just happen recently all of the sudden because it is election season.

How do you think they just skipped the parts where they would state the actual alleged crimes? They in fact didn't skip that part.

Or that didn't happen and you think it did because you listen to and believe lying liars who lie.

Boot the laptop from a USB memory stick that has a Linux installer on it.

What commodities go down? Inflation ensures that that's not common.

I'm confused because I'm unfamiliar with any governments in the US that require homeowners or renters insurance. The closest I can think of is that FNMA or FMAC backed mortgages would surely require insurance to cover their collateral, but the government doesn't require that you have a mortgage backed by either of those.

So.. what are you talking about with "the government makes you have it"?

Also, how is it a scam? If you want to insure against a risk, you can choose to purchase an insurance policy against that risk. Sure, the insurer wants to make some profit off of that, but government insurance regulations and competition both help to keep that profit in check a bit...

What?