For what it's worth, the name is Mt. Cheaha.

It is a crease; the link leads to to a higher-resolution picture that clearly shows the crease, after showing the so-called "proof."

https://twitter.com/KotasQuinn/status/1311289019892858880/photo/1

More baloney from the baloney factory. The "wire" is a shirt crease.

https://twitter.com/KotasQuinn/status/1311289019892858880/photo/1

No one needs a link--it's all right out in the open for everyone to see. Trump's obsequious behavior around Putin at Helsinki (I think), along with his private meeting with Putin (without even a translator), Trump's rejecting the US intel community's findings about election interference from Russia on the basis that Putin said he didn't do it (HAHAHA!), and then ignoring the bounty issue are more than enough evidence.

If you are not aware of these facts, then you are willfully ignorant. If you are aware of them and you reject the conclusion that Trump is beholden to the Russians/Putin, then you lack basic reasoning capability.

I'm not the troll. The OP started this thread; I just responded, just as I am now.

Talk about lying liars! Trump has been trying to make that case since before his inauguration. His House and Senate gangs investigated, along with his cowed DOJ and FBI, and found exactly nothing, because it was fiction.

I don’t know how anyone can support Trump when he is so under Putin’s sway that he won’t take any action about the bounties offered on American GIs. Trump is a wannabe dictator with fascist methods. He is corrupt, incompetent, and so self-centered that he can’t do anything for which he sees no personal gain to be had. Now, even the myth of his wealth and business acumen has been shown to be all hot air—all his own, of course.

You are scamming yourself to refuse to recognize the generally slimy character of the current crop of Republicans.

And it's nonsense!

You think? Oh, of course not. It doesn't matter--the facts are that comparing the number of indictments and convictions of personnel from presidential administrations since 1980 will show clearly that Democratic administrations produced very few, while the Republican administrations had many. Given all the Republican claims of Democratic corruption and the numbers of Republican criminals, it must mean that the Republicans are all crooks and too stupid to cover their tracks or to catch Democrats in misdeeds, or the Democrats are just clean or genius-level at getting away with things. It's pretty much an Occam's razor question. Of course, Fox News has never had a correct answer.

Most restaurants I patronize figure the tip pre-tax. I try to be fairly generous, because the staff generally work very hard, and because I got in the habit to compensate for the madhouse my eight grandchildren usually create, not to mention the adults. Of course, those are just fond memories for the time being. I now tip more generously for take-out than I used to do, trying to support the restaurants and staff I like.

I think there are some simple ways to calculate the tip yourself if you don't like the restaurant's computer numbers. Multiply by two (and adjust the decimal) for a quick twenty percent. Divide by six to get between sixteen and seventeen per cent. Move the decimal one place left, and add half for a precise fifteen percent. Divide by four for twenty-five percent. And you can always round to suit yourself.

"Occur" and "happen" are the first two definitions for transpire in most dictionaries. Your attempted definition is not understandable, particularly to distinguish it from occur and happen. Another definition is "become known;" perhaps that is what you meant.

I had both eyes done, August 4 and August 11; my ophthalmologist recommended the basic lenses set for distance vision with the expectation that I would need glasses for reading and for a correction for astigmatism, and I agreed after reading what the other lenses choices meant. The surgeries went very well, the recovery was easy, and the results pretty darn good, given to what poor eyesight I had become inured.

I have only just ordered my new glasses--I had to wait for three weeks after the surgeries to get a new prescription, so I haven't had the right glasses yet--I still need reading glasses for close work and reading screens, but I don't need anything beyond about a foot-and-a-half. It will be a week to ten days before I get my new glasses, but I expect them to work really well.

I have been using my old glasses to take pictures, or really, just to chimp afterwards or to read the info on the review screen--I can see plenty well to take the pictures through the viewfinder. I think I made the right choice for me in taking the simpler implant lenses and using glasses. I have never minded bifocals (mine have especially large reading sections) but my experience with lineless trifocals and bifocals was unsatisfactory, and I didn't think I would like implants with either bifocals or trifocals because I expected the size of the reading and screen areas to be too cramped for me.

So, I suggest you discuss the options with your doctor and tell him exactly what you want and expect and get his recommendations, and make your decision from that. I would lean toward the options that are the least complicated and most likely to fit what you want in terms of the field of vision. Good luck! I am basically certain you will like the results of replacing the cloudy lenses you must have now.

I caught a longish series a couple of years ago--a young GBH was wading around in a golf course pond without much to show for it. Then it turned its head sideways and nearly upside down to look left. Pretty soon, it had a fist-sized turtle it kept trying to position to swallow. After dropping it a couple of times, the bird got the turtle positioned and down it went! The heron took a couple of mouthfuls of water and stretched its neck up, but the turtle moved into its abdomen. I was amazed--I had expected it to peck and pull the turtle apart to eat the insides. I never expected it to eat it shell and all.

It was strange to watch for another reason--the turtle's feet and claws were extended and reaching around and it was definitely swallowed alive. Great blue herons must have a heck of a digestive system and pretty darn tough insides!

No, it does not. The PSU has multiple connections for the various items--hard drives, optical drives, video cards, and card readers, plus anything else in the computer that requires power. All of those have to be connected to a functioning power supply.

How about thirty?

https://www.businessinsider.com/countries-that-recognize-birthright-citizenship-jus-soli-2018-10

I don't think kindergarten will help you with adult discussions; perhaps you should finish high school civics courses. College and law school might help when you want to discuss the issues at hand.

I did not call anyone a name, although I did describe the op-ed as "idiotic." I also stated clearly that the op-ed is utter nonsense.

I obviously assumed too much: the op-ed is nonsense because the U.S. Constitution sets the requirements that only a natural born citizen at least thirty-five years old who has been an actual resident at least fourteen years is eligible to be elected president or vice-president. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, ruled that anyone born within the territories of the United States is a natural born citizen, so long as his parents are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

The op-ed makes spurious arguments that Harris's parents were somehow not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. It simply ignores the law while creating "facts" it assumes without any basis.

What rebuttal? What falsehoods? Please make clear statements/questions.

As for what laws or precedents I think wrong, there aren't any in this discussion. The ones applicable to the point of the op-ed I dispute are below.

The United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1 includes the specific eligibility qualifications to be president:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

"Natural born citizen," while not defined in the Constitution or in case opinions, has been determined clearly by the United States Supreme Court to include a person born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, as long as they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649.

Federal law also makes children of a United States citizen born outside of the territories of the United States natural born citizens, but that has nothing to do with Ms. Harris.