If it’s both brothers for that hourly rate, then that is only $50 an hour; and probably also has to cover expenses like business insurance, car insurance, gas, tools/equipment, car and equipment maintenance, certifications and contractors licenses, etc, etc.
And I’d bet their rate even has to take into account the time in their “off” hours when they are writing estimates, invoicing, communicating with clients, marketing, and so forth.
They don’t just clock out when they finish fixing your plumbing. Even at $100 each, it’s not pure profit. Running the business probably eats into a big chunk of their hourly rate.
Why link an article from a year ago, before the trial was even scheduled? You cherry picked one quote ignoring the rest of the article that actually answers a lot of questions your quoted expert asks.
<< “The bottom line is that it’s murky,” said Richard Hasen, an expert in election law and professor at the University of California, Los Angeles law school. “And the district attorney did not offer a detailed legal analysis as to how they can do this, how they can get around these potential hurdles. And it could potentially tie up the case for a long time.””
If you continue to read further in the article you linked then you would see that the DA had an answer to that:
<<“Bragg said the indictment doesn’t specify the potential underlying crimes because the law doesn’t require it.”
But beyond that, the DA did offer an explanation to how they could move forward with charging Trump:
<<“Falsifying business records can be charged as a misdemeanor, a lower-level crime that would not normally result in prison time. It rises to a felony — which carries up to four years behind bars — if there was an intent to commit or conceal a second crime. Bragg said his office routinely brings felony false business records cases.
In Trump’s case, Bragg said the phony business records were designed to cover up alleged state and federal election law violations. The $130,000 payment to Daniels exceeded the federal cap on campaign contributions, Bragg said. He also cited a New York election law that makes it a crime to promote a candidate by unlawful means.
“That is what this defendant did when he falsified business records in order to conceal unlawful efforts to promote his candidacy, and that is why we are here,” one of the case prosecutors, Chris Conroy, told the judge Tuesday.
Prosecutors, however, also alluded to another accusation involving tax law: that Trump’s scheme included a plan to mischaracterize the payments to Cohen as income to New York tax authorities.
“They did talk about tax crimes, and I think that could be potentially more compelling for the jury,” Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor, said on ABC News. “It’s a safer bet than the campaign finance crimes.”
Bragg is “going to bring in witnesses, he’s going to show a lot of documentary evidence to attempt to demonstrate that all these payments were in furtherance of the presidential campaign,” said Jerry H. Goldfeder, a veteran election lawyer in New York and the director of Fordham Law School’s Voting Rights and Democracy Project.”
> And they ignored the statute of limitations in order to bring these charges several years late.
Again, in the article you linked it explains how they were legally able to extend the statute of limitations for this case:
<<There were some extensions during the pandemic, and state law also can stop the clock when a potential defendant is continuously outside the state.
There are only 5 states with federally owned land over 50% (Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Alaska and Oregon). Other states west of the Mississippi don’t necessarily have a large percentage of federal land. For instance, Texas only has 1.78% that is federally owned, Arkansas at 9.38%, Oklahoma at 1.59%, Kansas at 0.52%, and the Dakotas at 3.91% and 5.41%. In fact, there are only ten states with over 30% of federally owned land in the Union, granted they are all in the Western part of the States.
This entire tirade is unhinged and filled with insane claims and trash science.
> giving premarital sex for free to a few select men
Is your problem with this that women are having sex? Or that they aren’t prostituting themselves? Or perhaps the problem that they aren’t having sex “with you”?
> Women are out of control. They can't control themselves, and refuse to be controlled by any man
Control themselves from what exactly? The examples you give are breaking up with/divorcing a spouse, getting cosmetic surgery and dying alone. The biggest problem you have with women, it seems, is that women are fully autonomous human beings.
> Every single woman I've dated has been clinically insane, cheating, and promiscuous beyond belief - first I thought I might be the problem, but then I saw the stats. It's everyone's problem, and women aren't going to fix it.
Stats? What stats?
> 90% of women are hopelessly addicted to hormonal birth control, stunting their sexual maturity.
Literally not possible. Are these the stats that you keep talking about?
> This entire tirade is unhinged and filled with insane claims and trash science.
Which claims are insane and trash science? Because I've looked these up. For example, I said that "Suicides at up 37% in 20 years, 80% male." and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention clearly lists [1] (Data Table: Suicide Rates) the rate was 10.4 per 100k people in 2000, and 14.1 per 100k in 2021. 14.1 divided by 10.4 gives 135.57, an increase of 35.57% in 21 years.
> Is your problem with this that women are having sex? Or that they aren’t prostituting themselves? Or perhaps the problem that they aren’t having sex “with you”?
The problem is that every sexual partner a women has decreases her odds of successful marriage. The Institute for Family Studies [2] (Figure 1) clearly shows a correlation between a woman's premarital sex count and her divorce rate. She literally loses the ability to pair bond.
Prostitution is a very strong word. What I mean by "free" is that they're not securing commitment before giving it up, and ending up with no commitment (marriage). Nice try with the ad hominem. The National Survey of Family Growth [3] lists the number of lifetime sexual partners for sexually experienced men at 6.3; I lost count around a dozen years ago so no, I'm definitely not "unhinged" because "I'm not getting any". Try again.
> Control themselves from what exactly? The examples you give are breaking up with/divorcing a spouse, getting cosmetic surgery and dying alone. The biggest problem you have with women, it seems, is that women are fully autonomous human beings.
Control themselves from spreading their legs without commitment. Control themselves from fleeting negative emotions. Control themselves from destroying families over social media propaganda. Control themselves from permanently mutilating their bodies for vanity.
If being a "fully autonomous human being" means "self-destructing to extinction" then yes, perhaps thinking that women are capable of being fully autonomous humans beings is indeed the grand mistake. No human being is fully autonomous. We are all halves of a whole, and part of larger society. Women seem hell-bent on denying all that, to everyone's detriment.
> Stats? What stats?
The UK Mental Health Foundation [4] finds that "Women between the ages of 16 and 24 are almost three times as likely (26%) to experience a common mental health issue as males of the same age".
The 2018 General Social Survey [5] noted that 28% of young men aged 18-29 did not have sex within the past year, while the corresponding stat for women was 18%. Meaning, more women are having sex with less men -> women are more promiscuous. This corroborates my personal experience in dating.
> Literally not possible. Are these the stats that you keep talking about?
The 2017 rate of birth control among women was 64.9% [6]. It has only gone up following the "sexual liberation" and "fuck around and find out" attitudes. Nearly all women I've dated had a hormonal birth control implant. I can't find conclusive and up-to-date numbers, maybe 90% is slightly high an estimate, but it seems realistic to me.
Nice try, try again. I've now staked my claims in excruciating detail. If you're trolling, nice job wasting my time looking all this up for the umpteenth time.
That was very kind of you, and I appreciate that you value life so much, no matter how small; but I’m going to say you are an extreme outlier.
Realistically, how many people would go to all that trouble to save an ant nest on land that they are building on? And that’s not mentioning how many ants probably died in the move or were left behind and died in the rebuilding of the foundation, even despite all the care you took.
I mean I think I'm a little different, but not completely unheard of. I'm sure if you gave people the option , the time and money, they'd do something similar.
And that’s not mentioning how many ants probably died in the move or were left behind and died in the rebuilding of the foundation, even despite all the care you took.
I don't know but I know enough to know that moving the food source away, removes the ant's, they'll go elsewhere to find food. Now imagine what having an IQ of 5000 and almost unlimited time..."The AI".
Who is forcing them into 12 hour day jobs? Maybe they think they're 'empowered' but let's face it the country is collapsing so most of their careers aren't going to go anywhere.
It's still women who still expect men to be high earners, now men have to do half of the housework on top of spending time with children in the evenings then get screamed at for having mediocre finances when their careers flatline.
They didn't interview men because the responses would not fit the narrative that the BBC seeks.
>Who is forcing them into 12 hour day jobs? Maybe they think they're 'empowered' but let's face it the country is collapsing so most of their careers aren't going to go anywhere.
>It's still women who still expect men to be high earners, now men have to do half of the housework on top of spending time with children in the evenings then get screamed at for having mediocre finances when their careers flatline.
It sounds like you had a bad experience and are now using that to generalize about a large population of people. Why is it only acceptable for men to seek independence and fulfillment from a career? No one is forcing men into a 12 hour a day job, either. It seems only reasonable that if both partners are working, that they split the household chores and child rearing.
Perhaps it’s the working hours, high cost of living, traditional expectations of women and ultra competitive culture that is collapsing society, and not the women wanting better for themselves. Unless your solution is to rollback the clock several decades or force women into motherhood and domestic labor, I’m not even really sure what your point is here.
The solution that many S. Korean women have found for themselves, in order to have a fulfilling career/not be dependent on a husband, is to remain single and/or childless. Clearly these women are fine living on a single income and cleaning up after themselves, so it’s pretty evident that many women aren’t just after high earnings or that they “still expect men to be high earners.” For women who want a career, they don’t also want to come home and be solely responsible for taking care of their husband and kids. If men want to be in a relationship with these career women, then they need to help out around the house. If they don’t want to do that, then it’s pretty clear that these S. Korean women are completely fine being on their own.
> They didn't interview men because the responses would not fit the narrative that the BBC seeks.
Yeah, it’s an article about South Korean women. Not about S. Korean men. Are you saying that the account of these S. Korean women should be totally discounted because they didn’t interview any men?
I agree that the framing is bad and can lead to some people assuming that women are incapable or needlessly fearful, but I’d argue being hyper aware of one’s environment doesn’t necessarily equate to being fearful.
For instance, Japan and Korea, both which are considered pretty safe countries, but have had many issues of women getting groped on public transportation. Japan had to launch an anti-groping campaign (anti-Chikan) it had become such a problem. There’s even a whole porn genre of people groping women on public transportation that’s sprung out of it.
This all doesn’t make women necessarily more fearful of doing everyday things (ie millions of Japanese women use public transportation every day without fear). Some women may have just become apathetic to the danger and some maybe generally more wary of their surroundings (to the point where it has become automatic or an afterthought). In either of these cases, none of these women are afraid of stepping out into public.
Humans are very adaptable. The human brain can only take so much fear before it acclimatizes to the danger. Just like any other person, women can move through life without fear of something even if there is cause to fear it.
I understand your push back of the framing, but I fear your framing also underestimates the unique dangers and challenges that women do face in public, sometimes every single day. Even in countries and cities that are considered very safe.
My point being that we can both acknowledge that women still have an entirely different experience navigating public spaces then men do, but that that ALSO doesn’t mean that women are irrationally fearful of being in public; or any less capable of maneuvering through society safely on their own.
There are plenty of “nerdy”, average/unattractive, and/or “non-white” men etc, etc who have meaningful relationships with women, and some of these women are even smart and/or beautiful. I know a number of these relationships myself and the common denominator that I see between all of them is that there is respect between both parties.
I just want to quote a couple of things you’ve posted.
>Millions of modern educated women seem to be engaging in casual sex with a relatively small number of highly-attractive-looking hyper-sexual men (who probably sleep with someone every night "spinning plates" so to speak).
> …the top 20% and especially the top 5% live like one of the Sultans of the Ottoman Empire, with women ready to deliver themselves to their door for intimacy.
> But the so-called "Chad cock carouse|" has taken such a sheer number of women out of marriage and dating market, that millions of amazing men are left single, sexless, and unable to marry…
>These are the sorts of high quality men that many of these sexually-liberated women “claim they want”…
> ("Chad") men (many who are low income or professionally-unsuccessful) end up having harems of 3 to 5 women, hence massively shrinking the number of women available.
>Why would women do this, rather that have a deep loving relationship with a man who can give her 100% of himself to her (and build a family with that guy)? I have no idea.
It certainly isn't a good thing.
> But then you've got millions of these women who priories the dopamine or serotonin (or oxytocin or whatever) hit of sleeping with various Chads, and the end result is the breakdown of families, and the future of civil society.
Even with all the absolutes and exaggerated claims in your statements, the biggest issue I see in your posts is the way you talk about women.
Look at the words you use. “Claim to want”, “why would women do this”, “millions of these women who priories the dopamine or serotonin [to have sex] with various Chads… result[ing in]… the breakdown of families, and the future of civil society,” “harems of women,” “shrinking the number of women available,” “with women ready to deliver themselves to their door for intimacy.”
Your words paint women as irrational, fickle and emotional beings who cannot reason and don’t know what’s best for them or the world. You talk about them as if they are livestock and or toddlers, not fully-grown autonomous human beings. You’re post screams of the stereotypes that women have been fighting against throughout history.
Talking about women this way is not going to help you form meaningful relationships with them. Women are individuals. They are people. They have their own individual wants and needs, that may or may not match up with your own. Some might, others won’t. Because, again, women are individuals.
If you’re getting to know a woman, and you bring up even a fraction of what you’ve written here, it’s very possible she’s not going to bother to try and get to know you further; even if you do have other great attributes. Because she probably doesn’t want to be treated like a stereotype or a child.
And I’d bet their rate even has to take into account the time in their “off” hours when they are writing estimates, invoicing, communicating with clients, marketing, and so forth.
They don’t just clock out when they finish fixing your plumbing. Even at $100 each, it’s not pure profit. Running the business probably eats into a big chunk of their hourly rate.