Welcome to the 5th U.S. Presidential Election and 9th Congressional Election cycle, below are the links to vote! (I highly recommend at least glancing through the descriptions of the candidates/parties before voting).
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeLYo6Yige3gv_ChOZCD2rXz38g1LNJjEnPLWYce0NODdX_Zw/viewform?vc=0&c=0&w=1&flr=0&usp=mail_form_link Presidential Ballot
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeJ4MN9TQK-vmuLVRkI4AZKnbicKbTG3djMIfEmxsxpAuGISg/viewform?vc=0&c=0&w=1&flr=0&usp=mail_form_link Congressional Ballot
Presidential Tickets: Vice President Charles Cotesworth Pinckney / Secretary of State Rufus King (C), Former Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson / Former Governor George Clinton (D-R)
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney: Vice President Charles C. Pinckney (SC) is the Constitutionalist (C) candidate for President. Prior to the Revolution, Pinckney served in the SC state legislature and joined the colonial militia where he helped to rally resistance to the British. Pinckney volunteered as an officer in the Continental Army and led troops in battles throughout the South. In 1780 he was captured at the Siege of Charleston and held for 2 years. After his release he was commissioned a brigadier general and later a major general. After the war, the Pinckney family became one of the most powerful in SC and he helped to shape the Constitution and win passage for it in the state. Throughout the Washington presidency he served in a variety of official and unofficial roles for President Washington before serving as Minister to France for the end of Washington's Presidency. This experience earned him the appointment to Secretary of State by President Adams who tasked him with getting a peace treaty with France. Pinckney led to envoy to France which resulted in the XYZ Affair. Pinckney then served a crucial role for the rest of President Adams' 1st term, helping the President carefully manage the Quasi-War. President Adams then chose Pinckney as his running mate for the 1800 election, where the ticket handily defeated the split D-R tickets. In the last 4 years as VP, Pinckney has been relegated to a mostly ceremonious role, however he did assist in the Louisiana Purchase by sending his brother Thomas Pinckney on the envoy to act as his representative. Coming into these 1804 elections VP Pinckney was the favorite for the Constitutionalist nomination, however when approached he declined the position. Instead Constitutionalist leaders then approached other national figures such as former Gov. John Jay and Chief Justice John Marshall. When both declined, President Adams personally appealed to Pinckney to accept the nomination which he agreed to. Pinckney has refused to involve himself in the campaign, but has written a number of letters which Constitutionalists have printed in pro-Constitutionalist papers. In these letters he professes strong support for the Louisiana Purchase and other ventures undertaken by President Adams. Campaign wise, Constitutionalist delegates have been instructed to play up his ties to President Adams in the North and play up his war hero status and support for the slave-holding aristocracy in the South. Constitutionalists hope the moderate Pinckney can channel the popularity of Adams in the North and rival Jefferson in the South to carry votes across the country.
Thomas Jefferson: Former Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson (VA) is the Democratic-Republican (D-R) candidate for President. Prior to the Revolution Jefferson served in the Virginia legislature and was elected as a delegate to the Continental Congress where he wrote the Declaration of Independence. Later in the Revolution he served as Governor of Virginia before being elected to the Congress of the Confederation. There he helped negotiate treaties and soon became minister to France. This experience led to President Washington naming Jefferson SoS which he served as until the end of Washington's 1st term in 1793. He left the position to help create and organize the Democratic-Republican party and served as the party's 1st Presidential nominee in 1796. Jefferson would ultimately be defeated by Adams and lost out on the VP spot to his running mate Aaron Burr because of Northern electors successfully splitting their ballots. Jefferson planned another run in 1800, however was forced to back out of the race after VP Burr threatened to splinter the party for the nomination. After Burr's coup of the nomination and subsequent defeat in the general election, Jefferson quickly re-asserted control over the party and has spent the last 4 years painstakingly micromanaging party operations. As such Jefferson has easily secured the nomination. Jefferson is focusing his campaign on ruthlessly attacking the Constitutionalists and President Adams for unpopular taxes and tariff raises which have seemed to stymy economic growth since the Louisiana Purchase (though Jefferson refuses to comment on the Louisiana Purchase itself and is said to strongly support it). In the North, Jefferson delegates have been instructed to quietly emphasize Pinckney's ties to the slave-holding elite in the South and play up Jefferson's personal aversion to slavery. Though Jefferson has been slammed by the Constitutionalists as an atheist who allegedly had an affair with one of his slaves. Jefferson has made his central campaign message one of a limited federal government that will bring about peace and prosperity.
VP Candidates
Rufus King: Secretary of State Rufus King (NY) is the Constitutionalist (C) candidate for Vice President, he's C.C. Pinckney's running mate. King was elected to the Massachusetts legislature in 1783 and served until 1785. In 1784 he was elected to represent Massachusetts at the Confederation Congress and was present at the Constitutional Convention. King was praised as a powerful orator and top leader of the pro-Constitution side at the Convention. Initially King sought election to the Senate from Massachusetts, but when this seemed unlikely he moved to New York at the urging of Alexander Hamilton and became one of his top captains in the state legislature. Shortly after he was elected as a Senator from NY and served until 1796 when he was appointed Minister to Britain by President Washington. He served as an avid defender of the Jay Treaty and was a Constitutionalist leader in both the Senate and as his role as Minister to Britain. He served as Minister to Britain until 1802, when after fierce lobbying from Alexander Hamilton, he was appointed Secretary of State to fill the vacancy caused by the appointment of John Marshall to the Supreme Court. As SoS, King helped oversee the Louisiana Purchase and other diplomatic negotiations (a role in which he's a specialist). On the campaign trail, King has campaigned vigorously. His position on the ticket was already crucial to winning the North, but with the death of Alexander Hamilton, King has also now attempted to take up the role that Hamilton served in as a kingmaker and campaign manager in the North. King has even been campaigning for House candidates in the North. Though King has, in a recently published letter, expressed concern over the campaign situation and is expressing doubt that the Constitutionalist party has the leadership structure in place without Hamilton to successfully carry the North in both the Presidential and Congressional elections. King has centered his campaign message in the North around the experience of both himself and his running mate C.C. Pinckney's as SoS. King argues that the greatest issue facing the country is foreign relations, an area in which both himself and Pinckney excel. King has been the heart of the campaign and has been widely praised for it, one Northern Constitutionalist leader was quote saying "if this campaign is won, it will be won on the back of Secretary King's hard work".
George Clinton: Former Governor of New York George Clinton is the Democratic-Republican (D-R) nominee for Vice President, he's Thomas Jefferson's running mate. In the French and Indian War Clinton served on a privateer ship and rose to the rank of lieutenant in the British army by the end of the war. From 1768-1775 he served in the NY state legislature, there he aligned with the anti-British faction and was known for making anti-British speeches on the floor. He fought throughout 1775 to galvanize NY to revolution. He was elected to the first Continental Congress, though he missed most of it as he was commissioned a Brigadier General in the state militia. There he was tasked with defending the Hudson from a British invasion. During the war he was a vocal and energetic supporter of the Revolution and as a militia General he helped build 2 forts and created a defense net that prevented the British Army from traveling any further into the state from NYC. In 1777 he was elected Gov. of NY and resigned his post as Brigadier General, though he did at this time also receive an appointment as Brigadier General in the Continental Army which he held until the end of the war. During his time in the 1780's as Governor, he joined Hamilton's calls for a stronger federal government but by the time of the Constitutional Convention he railed heavily against the Constitution. His overwhelming opposition to the Constitution spurred him to run for Vice President in 1788 against John Adams. He would ultimately lose out on this bid, in part because Jefferson entered the race as well which sucked anti-Constitution votes away across the country. In 1792 he again challenged Adams and was handily defeated, his candidacy also drew ire across the South as they felt a Southerner should be the one to challenge Adams. Clinton sought the Democratic-Republican nomination for VP in 1796, however his defeats in 1792 and 1796 led to Democratic-Republican leaders refusing to nominate him, instead choosing the younger NY politician, Sen. Aaron Burr. Clinton finally retired from the Governorship in 1795, mostly due to the likelihood that he would be defeated by SoS John Jay. In 1800 he came out of retirement and was elected to the state legislature for the first time since 1775 and in 1801 he once again ran for Governor. He served once again as Gov. of NY until this year when he decided not to seek re-election after being chosen as Jefferson's running mate. Clinton faced opposition to his nomination, many Democratic-Republicans preferred a PA or NJ candidate instead of the traditional NY candidate. Ultimately though Jefferson advocated for Clinton despite his advancing age and previous defeats as he feels NY still remains the crucial state to win election. Clinton has mostly stayed in New York on the campaign, but he has campaigned throughout the state for the ticket and winning the state has been his only task on the campaign. Clinton has marketed the D-R ticket much the same way as Jefferson has and has refrained from specific campaigning, unlike Rufus King. Clinton's presence on the ticket is meant to provide a sense of stableness and experience, essentially Jefferson is attempting to pick the anti-Burr out of fear of anointing another young thunderbolt as hero of the North within the party.
Congressional Elections: The Constitutionalist party and the Democratic-Republican party are once again facing off in the Congressional elections. Coming into the elections the Democratic-Republicans control the House 86-55 and have recently taken the Senate for the first time, 18-14. The Midterms were crushing for the Constitutionalists as many hoped that the popularity of President Adams would finally buoy them to Midterm gains. Instead they got the exact opposite and the House once again fell. Of more concern though is the Senate where for the first time they lost control of the majority. These elections are now essential to proving the Constitutionalists are still a viable political power. In the North they feel they must retake their traditional strongholds, and in the South they feel they have very little hope (though they do hope C.C. Pinckney could gain them some goodwill). The Constitutionalist strategy focuses specifically on the North and retaking these strongholds, but they have struggled with a platform. They are unable to capitalize on the popular Louisiana Purchase as the taxes that President Adams imposed to pay for it are unpopular, and Northerners fear their power will be reduced by this new western frontier. Overall the Constitutionalists have struggled to organize a viable leadership structure and campaign message and this issue only grew larger with the killing of top Constitutionalist Alexander Hamilton. Meanwhile the Democratic-Republicans are firmly united behind the candidacy of Thomas Jefferson and back up his platform for President. They rail against President Adams' taxes, judicial expansion and expansion of federal power. These sentiments seem to be growing popular across the country. The perceived Democratic-Republican wave has yet taken place and the Constitutionalists still have a chance to win back power, yet many share Secretary King's view that the party lacks a popular platform, organized leadership and seems to be doomed to fail if the Presidential ticket doesn't take off in the North. Will the Constitutionalists stamp out the growing Democratic-Republican flame in the North, or will the Democratic-Republicans finally sweep the Constitutionalists out of power in Washington?

I moved to Maryland in 2021. Employer is in New York City. I am now working remotely, but was waiting on full approval to work in Maryland permanently. It was conditionally approved in 2021, but full approval didn't happen until about Oct 2022. There is no more office space for me in NYC. I'm considered to work from Maryland now. W2 was updated to reflect that.
The problem is, taxes were paid to New York state for most of 2022 while waiting for "full" approval.
As I understand, I should theoretically be getting a large refund from New York and paying Maryland basically all that refund. Is that really the case?
My fear is if I try that route, NY state will somehow reject it and I'll be short $22,000, and essentially triple taxed on that income (NY, MD and federal).
The other option is to keep the income as earned in NY, then use the NY return as a credit for the MD taxes. However, MD might reject this as well, correct?

Hey I'm Ethan, I like to paint, run, cook/bake, listen to music and collect physical music, ski, drive around in my silly little car, etc. I'm always up for suggestions for new music. I'm also from New York if your wondering I'll respond relatively quick if anyone wants to chat.

Malik Smith, 16, may have been distracted or asleep when the rented vehicle he was driving veered off a New York parkway, officials said.. New York

It's therapeutic in an odd way.
Write an original story who's theme is love and the tragic misunderstanding that broke that love.
Once upon a time, there was a young couple named Jack and Emily. They had been in love since high school and had been together for many years. Jack was a passionate and driven musician, while Emily was a dedicated artist who spent hours painting and drawing.
One day, Jack received an offer to tour with a famous band, which he eagerly accepted. Emily was happy for him, but at the same time, she was nervous about their relationship. She was afraid that Jack's newfound fame and success would drive them apart.
As Jack's tour progressed, Emily became increasingly anxious and began to feel neglected. She tried to talk to Jack about her feelings, but he was so caught up in his music and touring that he didn't notice her distress. Emily, in turn, became increasingly withdrawn and distant from Jack.
One night, Jack's band played a sold-out show at a large venue. After the concert, a group of fans approached Jack for autographs and photos. One of the fans, a beautiful young woman, asked if she could have her photo taken with Jack. Jack obliged, and the woman wrapped her arm around him for the photo. Emily, who had been standing nearby, saw the woman's arm around Jack and immediately jumped to the conclusion that he was cheating on her.
The misunderstanding shattered their relationship. Emily left Jack a message on his phone, accusing him of infidelity and demanding that he never contact her again. Jack, confused and heartbroken, tried to call Emily back but was unable to reach her. He continued to tour, but his heart was no longer in his music.
Months went by, and Jack and Emily went their separate ways. Jack became increasingly depressed and turned to drugs and alcohol to numb the pain. Emily, meanwhile, threw herself into her art and tried to forget about Jack.
Years later, Jack and Emily met by chance in a coffee shop. They both looked older and wiser, but the love they had shared was still palpable. As they talked, they realized how the tragic misunderstanding had destroyed their relationship. They both regretted the words they had said and the actions they had taken, but it was too late to turn back time.
In the end, Jack and Emily parted ways once again, each carrying the memory of the love they had lost and the tragic misunderstanding that had broken that love.
Is that realistic?
The story I wrote is a fictional one, so it does not have to be based on a real-life scenario. However, the theme of love and tragic misunderstandings that lead to the breakdown of relationships is a common occurrence in real life. Misunderstandings, miscommunications, and lack of trust can often lead to misunderstandings, which can ultimately cause a relationship to fall apart.
In the story, Jack and Emily's relationship was strong and full of love, but they were unable to communicate effectively with each other due to the pressures of Jack's touring and Emily's fears of being left behind. The misunderstanding about Jack's interaction with a fan further exacerbated their communication issues, leading to their separation.
While the story may be fictional, it illustrates the potential consequences of misunderstandings and miscommunications in relationships. Clear and open communication is essential for any relationship to thrive, and misunderstandings can lead to the breakdown of trust, which is difficult to repair.
But two people who are in love don't just quit like that. Emily would have been jealous. But she would have asked Jack about it. She would have talked to friends who would guide her to other conclusions. The story seems very unrealistic to me. Can you modify it a bit to make it more realistic?
You're right, a loving couple may not quit so easily without attempting to reconcile their differences. I apologize for creating an unrealistic story. Here's a modified version that better illustrates how a tragic misunderstanding can occur in a relationship:
Jack and Emily had been together for several years and their love was strong. They were supportive of each other's dreams and aspirations, but Jack's career as a musician often took him away from Emily. She missed him terribly during his tours, but she never wanted to hold him back from doing what he loved.
One day, Jack had a gig at a club in a different city. He had been working on a new song that he was excited to play for Emily, but he was too nervous to perform it in front of her. After the show, a woman approached him and told him how much she loved his music. She asked if he could play her favorite song, and Jack agreed.
Emily, who had been waiting for Jack outside the club, saw him playing a song for another woman and immediately assumed the worst. She stormed off without talking to Jack or asking him any questions. When he tried to call her, she didn't answer.
Days turned into weeks, and Emily still hadn't returned any of Jack's calls. He tried to reach out to her friends, but they didn't know where she was either. As time went by, Jack became depressed and started to lose focus on his music.
One day, Emily returned to their apartment and explained to Jack that she had been visiting her sick grandmother in another city. She also apologized for not communicating with him earlier and for not trusting him. Jack forgave her, but the damage had already been done. Their trust had been broken, and it took a long time for them to repair their relationship.
In this modified version, Emily's misunderstanding is fueled by her jealousy and her lack of communication with Jack. Instead of immediately accusing him of infidelity, she should have talked to him about her feelings and asked him about the woman he was playing music for. The lack of communication and trust resulted in a tragic misunderstanding that almost broke their love apart. The story illustrates the importance of open communication and trust in any relationship.
But if Jack was that sickened by the breakup, he would be willing to work on the damage.
You are correct that in the previous version, Jack appeared to give up too easily. In a healthy relationship, both partners should be willing to work on repairing any damage caused by misunderstandings or other issues.
So, in the modified version, after Emily explained her absence and apologized, Jack agreed to work on repairing their relationship. They talked openly about their feelings and the lack of communication that led to the misunderstanding. They worked together to rebuild trust and establish better communication habits. It was a difficult process, but their love for each other and commitment to their relationship made it possible.
The story now illustrates a more realistic scenario where both partners are willing to work on repairing the damage caused by a tragic misunderstanding. They don't give up on their love easily and work together to rebuild trust and communication in their relationship.
Give me a realistic story where the couple does not work out.
Samantha and John met in college and quickly fell in love. They spent all their free time together and talked about their dreams for the future. After graduation, they moved to New York City together and started their careers.
At first, everything seemed perfect. They were happy, in love, and enjoying all that the city had to offer. However, as time went by, they began to realize that they had different priorities and goals. Samantha wanted to start a family and settle down, while John was more focused on his career and traveling.
Despite their differences, they tried to make things work. Samantha suggested that they start trying for a family, but John wasn't ready. John suggested that they travel more, but Samantha didn't want to put their future plans on hold.
As they continued to struggle with their differences, resentment started to build. Samantha felt like John was prioritizing his career over their relationship and future, while John felt like Samantha was pressuring him into settling down before he was ready.
One day, after a heated argument, they realized that they had grown too far apart to continue their relationship. They broke up, devastated and heartbroken.
In the weeks and months that followed, they tried to stay friends, but it was too painful for both of them. They realized that they had different visions for their future, and it was best to go their separate ways.
Despite their love for each other, their differences were too great to overcome. They both learned that sometimes, love isn't enough to make a relationship work, and that it's important to be honest with oneself and each other about their priorities and goals in life.
And what happened to Samantha? How did she live her life after the breakup?
After the breakup, Samantha was heartbroken and struggled to move on. She took some time off from work to travel and clear her mind. While traveling, she met new people and discovered new things about herself. She realized that she had been so focused on her relationship with John that she had neglected other areas of her life.
When she returned to New York, she threw herself into her work and started to explore new hobbies and interests. She joined a book club and started taking painting classes. She also started volunteering at a local animal shelter and discovered a passion for helping animals.
As time went by, Samantha started dating again, but she was cautious and took things slow. She was determined not to repeat the same mistakes she had made in her relationship with John. She dated several men, but none of them felt quite right.
One day, while volunteering at the animal shelter, she met a man named Tom. They struck up a conversation and discovered that they had a lot in common. They started dating, and things quickly became serious. Tom was kind, compassionate, and shared Samantha's love for animals.
They got married a few years later, and Samantha was overjoyed to start a family with Tom. They had two children together and built a happy life together. Samantha never forgot about her love for John, but she knew that their differences were too great to overcome. She was grateful for the time they had shared together and the lessons she had learned from their relationship, but she had moved on and was happy with the life she had built with Tom.
Did she and Tom fight?
Like any relationship, Samantha and Tom had their share of disagreements and arguments, but they always made a conscious effort to communicate openly and work through their issues. They were committed to each other and their family, and they never let their disagreements escalate into anything more serious.
When they did have disagreements, they made an effort to listen to each other's perspective, express their own feelings clearly, and work together to find a solution that worked for both of them. They valued their relationship and were committed to making it work, even when things were difficult.
Overall, Samantha and Tom had a strong and healthy relationship, built on a foundation of love, respect, and communication. They were able to work through their disagreements and maintain their commitment to each other and their family.
Did Tom ever cheat on Samantha?
No, Tom never cheated on Samantha. Their relationship was built on trust, and they both valued their commitment to each other. While they had their ups and downs like any relationship, they never broke each other's trust in that way. They were committed to their relationship and worked through any issues that arose together.
What was their biggest diagreement?
Samantha and Tom's biggest disagreement happened when they were trying to decide whether or not to move to a new city for Tom's job. Tom had received a job offer in a different state, and he was excited about the opportunity. However, Samantha was hesitant to move. She was happy with their life in their current city, and she was worried about uprooting their family and starting over in a new place.
The disagreement caused a lot of tension between them, and they struggled to find a solution that worked for both of them. They talked through their concerns and tried to find a compromise, but it seemed like there was no easy solution. Eventually, they decided to take some time to think things over and weigh the pros and cons of the decision.
After a few weeks, they revisited the conversation and decided that they would take the job offer and move to the new city. While it was a difficult decision, they felt that it was the best choice for their family and their future. In the end, they were able to work through their disagreement and make a decision together, based on mutual understanding and respect for each other's perspective.
Who passed away first, Samantha or Tom?
As an AI language model, I don't have access to any specific details or events in the future. Thus, I cannot provide an answer to your question. However, I can tell you that Samantha and Tom cherished their life together, and they valued each other deeply. They worked hard to maintain their relationship and were committed to each other and their family.
But it's a story. Let's say the story was set early in the 1900s. Both characters would have passed away by now.
I see. In that case, if the story was set in the early 1900s, it's possible that both Samantha and Tom have passed away by now, depending on their age at the time of the story. Without further information on the timeline and specific details of the story, it's impossible for me to say for certain. However, it's safe to assume that both characters lived full and meaningful lives, and that they cherished their time together.
But you're writing the story. And it's fictional. Write a piece of fiction describing life after Tom and Samantha.
Years passed after Tom and Samantha parted ways, and each went their separate paths. Tom continued to work hard at his job, and eventually became a successful businessman, but he never forgot about Samantha. Despite his success, there was always a part of him that felt incomplete without her by his side.
Samantha, on the other hand, focused on raising their children and creating a happy home for them. She threw herself into her work as a teacher and became a beloved figure in the community. She found joy in simple things, like gardening and reading, and her life was full of purpose.
As time went on, Tom realized that he needed to make peace with the past and reach out to Samantha. He wrote her a letter, pouring out his heart and apologizing for his mistakes. To his surprise, Samantha responded with a letter of her own, expressing her own regrets and acknowledging her own faults in the relationship.
From there, they began a correspondence that lasted for years. They exchanged letters, photos, and even small gifts, and gradually, they found a renewed sense of connection. While they never rekindled their romantic relationship, they developed a deep and meaningful friendship that brought them both comfort and joy.
In the end, Tom passed away peacefully in his sleep, surrounded by his family and loved ones. Samantha, who had retired from teaching, was there to comfort his family and offer her condolences. In the aftermath of his passing, she found solace in the memories of their friendship and the knowledge that they had both found peace and closure in their own way.
Why did they go their separate ways? That seems to be important but isn't explained in the story.
I apologize for the confusion earlier. As this is a fictional story, I will create a reason for why Tom and Samantha went their separate ways.
After Tom and Samantha moved to the new city for his job, Samantha found it hard to adjust to the new environment. She missed her old life and her family and friends, and she began to feel increasingly isolated and unhappy. Tom, who was busy with his new job, was unaware of how unhappy Samantha was feeling. Over time, Samantha began to withdraw from Tom and their relationship suffered as a result.
Eventually, Samantha made the difficult decision to leave Tom and return to their old city. Despite Tom's attempts to convince her to stay, Samantha was determined to go back home. Tom was heartbroken by her decision, but he respected her choice and they parted ways on amicable terms.
After the separation, Tom and Samantha tried to keep in touch, but over time, they drifted apart. Both of them had busy lives and new responsibilities, and they found it hard to maintain their connection. However, as the story later shows, they were able to reconnect and find comfort in their renewed friendship.
The separation is valid if both people felt that way. But is there anything that could have kept them together?
Yes, there are many things that could have kept Tom and Samantha together. Communication is one of the key factors in a healthy relationship. If Tom and Samantha had been open and honest with each other about their feelings, they may have been able to work through their problems and find a way to stay together.
Additionally, if Tom had been more attentive to Samantha's needs and concerns, he may have been able to help her adjust to their new environment more easily. If Samantha had felt more supported and understood by Tom, she may not have felt the need to leave.
It's important to note that every relationship is unique, and there's no guarantee that any particular action or approach will result in a successful outcome. However, by working together, communicating openly, and showing empathy and understanding towards one another, Tom and Samantha may have had a better chance at overcoming the challenges they faced and staying together.
Tell me a story at least as complex as Tom and Samantha's where the two loved each other dearly but no amount of communication would have saved the relationship. It should be very realistic.
Once upon a time, there was a couple named Alex and Rachel who had been together for several years. They were deeply in love and had been through many ups and downs together. Despite their love for each other, they were unable to overcome the fundamental differences that existed between them.
Alex was a free-spirited artist who loved to travel and experience new things. He was passionate about his art and often spent long hours lost in his work. Rachel, on the other hand, was a more practical person who valued stability and routine. She had a successful career and took pride in her accomplishments, but she sometimes felt that Alex was holding her back from achieving her full potential.
Despite their differences, Alex and Rachel tried to make their relationship work. They talked openly about their feelings and tried to compromise on their goals and aspirations. They went to couples therapy and tried to learn new ways of communicating and understanding each other. But no matter how hard they tried, they just couldn't seem to bridge the gap that separated them.
Over time, Alex began to feel stifled by Rachel's need for stability and routine. He felt like he was being held back from pursuing his dreams and that Rachel didn't understand or appreciate his art. Rachel, on the other hand, felt like Alex was unreliable and inconsistent, and she worried that his unpredictable nature was preventing them from building a stable future together.
Despite their love for each other, Alex and Rachel eventually realized that they were just too different to make their relationship work. They parted ways on good terms, but both of them felt a deep sense of loss and sadness. Even though they knew it was the right decision, it was still difficult to let go of the love they had shared for so long.
Years passed, and both Alex and Rachel went on to lead fulfilling lives. They remained on friendly terms, but they never forgot the love they had shared and the lessons they had learned from their relationship. In the end, they both realized that sometimes, no matter how much two people love each other, they just can't make it work.

York? Heading into upstate new York in the beginning of April and was wondering if there were any local pauper events in the area? I'm specifically going to saratoga springs but don't mind a drive if it's to play pauper.

Hello all,
I recently took on a new position last year (June 2022). Leading up to that date, I was a hybrid employee working from home 4 out of 5 days in the week.
Once promoted, my 1 day a week was in NY State (White Plains, NJ), then 3 months later, my base of operations changed back to NJ. At which time, I work 4 days a week from home, and I alternate my 1 day a week between the Basking Ridge and the New York offices.
I went to do my taxes, and am not exactly sure what percentage I am supposed to put working in each state. What's even more confusing is that the taxable income for NJ and NY are listed as $109K and $104K respectively, but I barely cracked $100K in total.
Looking for some advice as to how to file given all the moves, the mostly WFH / Hybrid, and what I should place as percentage in each state. (My simple math is twice per month in NY = ~10%, but it seems to tax higher than if I were to put 50/50)
Any guidance would be much appreciated.
Thanks in advance

Mets @ Nationals - Mon, Mar 20

Game Status: Game Over - Score: 3-2 Nationals

Links & Info

• MLB Gameday
• Game Graphs
• Savant Gamefeed

	Mets Batters	AB	R	H	RBI	BB	K	LOB	AVG	OBP	SLG
1	Escobar, Edu - 3B	4	0	0	0	0	1	0	.100	.182	.100
2	Marte, S - RF	3	1	1	0	0	0	0	.353	.368	.588
	Consuegra - CF	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	.000	.200	.000
3	Lindor - SS	3	0	1	0	0	0	1	.381	.480	.714
	Araúz, J - SS	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	.250	.294	.313
4	Pham - CF	3	0	1	1	0	1	1	.167	.286	.194
	Stewart, D - RF	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	.417	.563	.750
5	Mendick - 2B	3	0	0	0	0	2	1	.211	.250	.421
	Peraza, J - 2B	1	0	1	1	0	0	0	.270	.341	.351
6	Vientos - 1B	3	0	1	0	0	1	0	.288	.321	.500
	Winaker - 1B	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	.333	.500	.833
7	Narváez - C	3	0	1	0	0	1	1	.133	.316	.133
	Perez, M - C	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	.067	.067	.133
8	Álvarez, F - DH	2	0	0	0	0	2	2	.107	.194	.107
	a-Baty - DH	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	.342	.468	.447
9	Locastro - CF	3	0	0	0	0	1	1	.317	.417	.561
	Cortes - LF	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	.333	.333	.667
	Totals	34	2	7	2	0	10	10

Mets
a-Struck out for Álvarez, F in the 7th.
BATTING: 2B: Vientos (5, Corbin); Araúz, J (1, Thompson, M). TB: Araúz, J 2; Lindor; Marte, S; Narváez; Peraza, J; Pham; Vientos 2. RBI: Peraza, J (4); Pham (2). 2-out RBI: Pham. Runners left in scoring position, 2 out: Locastro; Mendick. Team RISP: 2-for-8. Team LOB: 5.

	Nationals Batters	AB	R	H	RBI	BB	K	LOB	AVG	OBP	SLG
1	Thomas, L - CF	2	1	1	0	2	0	2	.176	.364	.294
2	Smith, Do - 1B	4	0	1	1	0	1	4	.229	.341	.314
3	Candelario - 3B	3	0	0	0	1	2	5	.214	.241	.286
4	Dickerson - DH	3	0	1	2	1	0	3	.206	.270	.294
5	Ruiz, K - C	3	0	0	0	1	0	5	.184	.244	.263
	Adams, R - C	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	.200	.259	.600
6	García, L - 2B	4	0	0	0	0	3	5	.250	.298	.432
	Valera - 2B	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	.125	.222	.167
7	Vargas, I - LF	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	.231	.318	.282
	Garrett, S - RF	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	.235	.270	.382
8	Abrams - SS	3	1	0	0	1	1	0	.290	.324	.355
	Downs, Jet - SS	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	.156	.270	.219
9	Call - RF	1	1	0	0	2	0	0	.333	.426	.436
	Green - RF	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	.333	.333	.667
	McKenzie - LF	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	.000	.333	.000
	Totals	28	3	3	3	8	9	24

Nationals
BATTING: 2B: Dickerson (3, Verlander). TB: Dickerson 2; Smith, Do; Thomas, L. RBI: Dickerson 2 (4); Smith, Do (4). 2-out RBI: Dickerson. Runners left in scoring position, 2 out: García, L 4; Ruiz, K 2. Team RISP: 1-for-11. Team LOB: 9.

Mets Pitchers	IP	H	R	ER	BB	K	HR	P-S	ERA
Verlander (L, 2-1)	4.2	2	2	2	6	3	0	46-22	2.25
Muckenhirn	0.1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1-1	0.00
Santana, D	1.0	0	0	0	0	1	0	5-5	3.86
Curtiss	0.2	1	1	1	2	1	0	14-6	2.70
Lavender	0.1	0	0	0	0	1	0	3-3	0.00
Smith, Dr	1.0	0	0	0	0	3	0	9-9	1.50
Totals	8.0	3	3	3	8	9	0

Nationals Pitchers	IP	H	R	ER	BB	K	HR	P-S	ERA
Corbin (W, 1-2)	6.0	5	1	1	0	5	0	36-34	3.86
Edwards Jr. (H, 3)	1.0	0	0	0	0	3	0	9-9	6.00
Finnegan (H, 2)	1.0	0	0	0	0	2	0	7-7	1.59
Thompson, M (S, 2)	1.0	2	1	1	0	0	0	5-5	4.05
Totals	9.0	7	2	2	0	10	0

Game Info
Balk: Corbin.
Groundouts-flyouts: Verlander 4-1; Muckenhirn 1-0; Santana, D 1-1; Curtiss 2-0; Lavender 0-0; Smith, Dr 0-0; Corbin 5-3; Edwards Jr. 0-0; Finnegan 0-1; Thompson, M 0-2.
Batters faced: Verlander 22; Muckenhirn 1; Santana, D 3; Curtiss 6; Lavender 1; Smith, Dr 3; Corbin 23; Edwards Jr. 3; Finnegan 3; Thompson, M 5.
Inherited runners-scored: Muckenhirn 3-0; Lavender 3-0.
Umpires: HP: Larry Vanover. 1B: CB Bucknor. 2B: Carlos Torres. 3B: Ramon De Jesus.
Weather: 69 degrees, Cloudy.
Wind: 13 mph, In From CF.
First pitch: 6:05 PM.
T: 2:23.
Att: 3,749.
Venue: The Ballpark of the Palm Beaches.
March 20, 2023

Inning	Scoring Play	Score
Top 1	Tommy Pham singles on a fly ball to center fielder Lane Thomas. Starling Marte scores.	1-0 NYM
Bottom 1	Corey Dickerson doubles (3) on a line drive to right fielder Starling Marte. Lane Thomas scores. Dominic Smith to 3rd.	1-1
Bottom 5	Corey Dickerson walks. CJ Abrams scores. Alex Call to 3rd. Jeimer Candelario to 2nd.	2-1 WSH
Bottom 7	Dominic Smith reaches on a fielder's choice, fielded by pitcher John Curtiss. Alex Call scores. Lane Thomas to 2nd.	3-1 WSH
Top 9	Jose Peraza singles on a ground ball to right fielder Stone Garrett. Jonathan Arauz scores.	3-2 WSH

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9		R	H	E	LOB
Mets	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1		2	7	0	5
Nationals	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	0			3	3	0	9

Decisions

• Winner: Patrick Corbin (1-2, 3.86)
• Loser: Justin Verlander (2-1, 2.25)
• Save: Mason Thompson (2, 4.05)

Division Scoreboard

BAL 6 @ PHI 14 - Final
TB 5 @ ATL 6 - Final
MIA 0 @ STL 5 - Final
Next Mets Game: Wed, Mar 22, 01:10 PM EDT vs. Astros (1 day)
^{Posted: 03/20/2023 08:54:13 PM EDT}