nanana

Not meant to be a rhetorical question, but what metrics do you think we could hold Trump accountable for, in terms of keeping his promises (whether you think they are hideous promises or not)? And then, also adding whether the promises are good? Here are some thoughts: 1) Trump has often said he's against war and nation-building and in favor of letting other countries be successful on their own without US money and firearms. Has he said this consistently enough (without at the same time saying the opposite of this) to consider it a "promise"? If so, was it a good promise that will move the country in a better direction? 2) Trump has been pretty clear about illegal immigration. Is this a campaign "promise" that can be measured? A good promise? 3) Trump has been pretty clear that military standards are very low and that improving performance is more important than female and trans participation in the military. Is this a "promise"? A good "promise"? 4) Trump has said he wants to cut spending. Is this a "promise"? A good "promise"? 5) Trump has said he's strongly in favor of free speech? "Promise"? "Good" promise? 6) Make America Healthy Again, promise? good? If not these, are there any other discernible "promises" he has made that can be used to determine success measures?

Sorry @BBBxCumDumpster I was a bit pompous, think your response is fair enough. I think I MAY be naive, but more folks on this site seem to be leftist, so it inflames my desire to push the ship toward middle and find common ground where we can. I spent much of my time on the left and thought the left was closer to justice, so when I began to see the justice in the positions of the right too, I just couldn't unsee it. I appreciate your point that there is mercenary treachery on both sides of the aisle. It's unfortunate that Biden left really no way out of the politicization of government since the only solution was to punish the folks that politicized government, which will have no credibility with the left, because they will - rightly or wrongly - see it as war. Are there any principles left to reclaim in the middle while still removing the corruption and criminalization of government? What neutral third party is in a position to do it? I'm not really following the eugenics garbage point, this feels like massive hyperbole. Can you give an example of what you're referring to? That whole autopen thing is crazy, especially when you realize that according to Jake Tapper, the White House was managing the whole concealment of Biden's mental state. Who knows if Biden had any input into his autopen? What makes anything he signed with an autopen credibly signed?

@BBBxCumDumpster, you may be a good politician but you're no statesman. Give me someone who can create peace and understanding across the mythologies of tribes rather than foment EITHER/OR-ism and selective blindness any day.

but I think my favorite is when a guy grabs my ass without any words or while introducing himself, or slips his hand down my shorts and puts his finger on my hole.

I liked when a guy told me he wanted me slipped down to his base, also liked when a guy said he wanted to leave a load in me and tell everyone I was full of his seed.

Doesn't that have its greatest (and perhaps only, but on shaky ground on the "only" part) manifestation in imprisonment for crimes? Without wishing to defend the US approach to crime, which needs some serious reinvention IMHO, I think a criminal judgement at a stage or federal level precipitates the removal of a variety of "rights" such as voting rights, etc., depending upon the rules of the jurisdiction.

For us pigs, maybe we should be comparing notes on the HOTTEST members of Congress. (congress.gov as dating app?) Here’s a link to headshots: [think before following links] https://www.congress.gov/members?pageSort=name&q={"congress"%3A"119"} Just a few here to seed the list. I like Dan Crenshaw’s pirate look. Brandon Gill’s pretty. Sam Liccardo looks like a nice manly romp. Ritchie Torres looks like a cutie. Gabe Vasquez is a swipe yes! Who else?

I think you have a point @Rillion, but I interpret Trumps crazy talk as having a purpose that bidens crazy talk lacked, it comes across more as a destabilizing negotiating technique, whereas Bidens crazy never advanced negotiations. But I think Smart people might disagree with me and have great insights. But theres definitely something more EFFECTIVE about Trump than Biden, for better or worse (my perspective but enjoy when people see it differently than I)

@versslut you raise a good point (except I dont agree with your views on meat think it’s super healthy with all the caveats @viking8x6 added. What makes you more concerned about RFK Jr than any of the following ex-leaders of US health agencies, ALL of whom went to work for pharma or agribusiness? Do their entanglements just get a free pass? HHS (Department of Health and Human Services): Alex Azar: After serving as HHS Secretary from 2018-2021, Alex Azar became a senior executive in residence at the Miami Herbert Business School. He previously worked at Eli Lilly and Company as President of their U.S. division. FDA (Food and Drug Administration): Patrizia Cavazzoni: Formerly the head of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, she became chief medical officer at Pfizer. Scott Gottlieb: After serving as FDA Commissioner from 2017-2019, Scott Gottlieb joined the board of directors of Pfizer. Mark McClellan: Following his time as FDA Commissioner, Mark McClellan served on the board of Johnson & Johnson. Andrew von Eschenbach: This former FDA Commissioner later joined the board of Bausch Health. Margaret Hamburg: After leaving the FDA, Margaret Hamburg became a director at Alnylam Pharmaceuticals. Lester Crawford: He served on the board of Bexion Pharmaceuticalsafter his time as FDA Commissioner. Stephen Hahn: Former FDA Commissioner, Stephen Hahn joined Flagship, a company formation firm that helped create Moderna. USDA (Department of Agriculture): Clifford M. Hardin: After serving as Secretary of Agriculture from 1969-1971, he joined the Purina Corporation. Richard Lyng: Former USDA Secretary, he later formed an agricultural consulting firm, Lyng and Lesher Inc.. NIH (National Institutes of Health): Elias Zerhouni: The former NIH Director joined Boston Pharmaceuticals as the new Chair of its board of directors. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): Julie Gerberding: After her tenure as CDC Director, she became an executive vice president at Merck, a large pharmaceutical company.

I would almost hazard to assert (no facts here sweet fact-checkers) that the Buddha himself is not as enlightened as any doctor that happened to exist after a Lucky-Strike doctor, naturally they all learned from the profitable glamorous mistakes of their medical predecessors.

What makes people think that we weren’t bought off to forget the wisdom? @pozbearwi without wishing to make your knowledge from god incorrect what makes you think that we’re on a continuous unsubsidized continuous increase of knowledge? I guess In your mental model all rackets ended in the 1950’s? Yet I’ve seen you describe Trump as a treasonous traitor. So only evil in the past that you perceive stopped in the past and didn’t continue into the now? if our doctors were corruptible 50 years ago and they are now incorruptible what will smokers (or pro-vaxxers or food pyramid advocates or [insert current narcissistic hegemonic health blah-blah-blah here)] in 2075? I think most fans of health modernism imagine that technology will break through our current medical superstitions but it won’t be technology it will be people in whatever year that is current being willing to question the momentary orthodoxy based on whether people are their healthiest or not.

Okay another question. Have we stopped learning such that all mistakes are in the past?

You rock! Thanks for making your thought process clear @PozBearWI

@PozBearWI not that you need my permission but you’re welcome to trust anyone you want. Im having a hard time with your reaction though. Do you think that doctors 50 years ago were fundamentally different in their savvy than current doctors are? Don’t just do a shitty red downvote. Share your wisdom and make me smarter. Or without regard to my smartness at least answer these questions: 1) how do you interpret the medical profession’s willingness to endorse the healthfulness of Lucky Strikes 50 years ago? AND 2) if they were fundamentally different than they are now, what makes them trustworthy now? (Or maybe you smoke Lucky Strikes or own their stock so you perceive wisdom in the doctors who advocated that smokers choose Lucky Strikes for their healthy qualities? I know you have a brain @PozBearWI so can you at least share your insights as to why you think the medical profession is more trustworthy now than during the Lucky Strikes era? (Too much to ask?)

Here are some happy images of the medical profession recommending Lucky Strikes: [think before following links] https://tobacco.stanford.edu/cigarettes/doctors-smoking/20679-physicians/ Not sure why people are so trusting of the medical profession. Many amazing care providers but they have to deal with the same corrupting forces that most other professions have to deal with.

Hi @AlwaysOpen, Your critique partially resonates with me inasmuch as I do not agree that non-US citizens don't have constitutional rights. I don't believe the Constitution GAVE anyone rights; I think the Creator gave all humans inalienable rights that the Founders simply piled onto. So, I am horrified that this Administration is gulaging non-citizen residents who speak out against zionist genocide. I think Trump's comments about Canada, Greenland, Gulf of America etc. are a bit strange but they feel like trial balloons more than actual annexations and thus need to be treated differently in analysis. But, there is a huge hole for me in your analysis. It's sort of like not being able to tell the difference between someone in your house because you invited them over for lunch versus someone in your house because they broke a window, snuck in, and started removing your valuables. I am making this stark comparison NOT because I believe all illegal immigrants are committing OTHER crimes, but more because so many dismiss the ORIGINAL illegal entry as a trivial thing. Once this is trivialized, critiques inevitably turn to racism as the only analytical tool in the toolbox. there is another piece missing, and that is that illegal immigration generates massive tax liabilities or debt liabilities for taxpayers, who are obligated by their leaders to fund welfare for illegal immigrants. Would you concede that illegal immigration is a huge enabler of the drug trade, of gangs, and of human trafficking? (I myself do not know that it is, but it seems highly likely that failure to police borders is logically an enabler of all of these things, even if the percentage of illegal immigrants involved in these crimes is relatively small.) I have been hard pressed to explain why people turn to racism as an explanation for "everything" (self-admitted hyperbole), but I recently came across an explanation that I think fits the pattern more effectively, namely territorialism. Many conservative people love all of god's children and all of the cultures they have created wherever they are on the planet, but they are aware that cohabitants of an area take hundreds of years to generate cultures, which help people make sense of everything from small hand gestures (thumbs up), to the way a phrase is understood (e.g., "Death to America"). If you measure in-group versus out-of-group preference, you'll find that a huge preponderance of people all over the world prefer their own group partly because it is REALLY HARD to understand another language, another culture's body-language, another culture's humor, etc. These misunderstandings generate a lot of friction. It doesn't necessarily mean that they hate other races or wish to go to war against people far away. BUT, they don't necessarily want cultures from another territory changing the nature of their society. Much of these frictions can be explained by territorialism rather than racism. I think people can be territorialists but not racists, and I think people can be both. I DEFINITELY believe in racism, but by one measure at least (intermarriage), Brazil and the US are by far the least racist countries in the world. This is already too long a post, but the whole piece about media seems incredibly partisan and fails to recognize the corruption of and loss of credibility of mainstream media, along with the active censorship by the Biden administration, which leaned heavily on social media to censor and shadow-ban (sorry, will label this an assertion since I don't have time to cite sources here, but anyone with any doubt about this can at least look up the Twitter files and Mark Zuckerberg's commentary. Great to see critiques of our government on the site, keep them coming. I'm surprised that after five months of the Trump administration Democrats aren't leaping right into the Libertarian bed to shrink the power of the government :-).

Hi @TaKinGDeePanal, Thanks for sharing your super-thought-provoking thesis and some really interesting sources. It convinces me that you have a point, though for me it isn't proof per se. Still, a great injection of fact and strategic interpretation that enlarged my mental model of what we are living through. It goes so much further when you can see someone's thought process, immediately generates an empathy for a brain in action. I will definitely think of your posts in a different way going forward. Best, @nanana

You question why Dems got so many fewer votes but seem to be completely uncurious about how Biden could get an unprecedented jump in the number of votes in 2020 compared to Obama or Clinton. You then “think” that Musk rigged vote tallies. Any supporting evidence for that “thought”?

Hi @meetme, I just downvoted this because you raise a legitimate concern about corruption and Presidential overreach but you seem to be blind to Biden and Democratic overreach. I’m very intrigued that the US uniparty knows how to frame issues so that partisans are able to pick up on the other party’s abuses but not their own side’s abuses. While we’re so divided we’ll never be anything but prey for the uniparty.

At one time, it wan't a vaccination if it didn't prevent transmission or infection. I guess big pharma successfully changed the definition and fooled people into blaming those who didn't believe in big pharma. I for one don't accept that inversion of responsibility. It's not my fault if people misplace their trust, and it's not an excuse to turn rights into privileges. To use an analogy that may hit closer to home, perhaps barebackers should not be allowed in public spaces since they spread disease and drive up the cost of insurance for everyone.

Sorry Erik62. And all. That was an amygdala hijack. I apologize for the outburst. I do Stand by the view that the initial comment was really inappropriate, but mine was more inappropriate especially if I wish to model civil behavior.

BTW HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT, go fuck yourself if you think you have the right to put people in sterile compounds, you should have had a pink star on your assface and gotten locked up for being a stupid faggot.

How do you feel about kids who die of vaccine injuries, or get pericarditis or myocarditis? Should parents be punished for forcing their children to be injured?

Any lads know how to hook a mouth to a cock at an opera?

Hi @TaKinGDeePanal , I excerpted several things that seem like malinformation, misinformation, and disinformation, along with appreciation for the heads up on the bomb threats, which I either never knew or totally forgot. While I do not wish that our dear censors would subject your unsupported assertions to the same banning that they regularly accept non-leftist unsupported assertions, it would be really nice to see some sources for what you assert here. BTW, I personally have no problem telling the difference between (or at least have a high tolerance for) an asserted interpretation, hyperbole, a hypothesis, an opinion, a "fact" (be it true or false), and a "statistic" (be it logically or illogically cited). I don't have a problem with "gut" either. (Dear censors, consider giving us all some grace to mix our interpretations and assertions in with your love of "facts" of whatever source you think credible.) here are some sources for my assertions: Relates to "pro-Trump MSM/Russian social media disinformation" - Russiagate is a hoax: [think before following links] https://www.racket.news/p/why-is-russiagates-origin-story-redacted. - The Durham Report provides pretty conclusive evidence that FBI/DOJ ignored leads about the "Clinton Plan intelligence" to falsely associate Donald Trump with Russia and acted only on the uncorroborated "Steele Dossier" which hid the Clinton connection: [think before following links] https://www.justice.gov/archives/media/1381211/dl (look at p.78). - although I'm unable to find a citation for the debunking of the Russia social media election interference, this wikipedia article shows the extent of US interference in foreign elections (over 60 citations of US interference versus 15 for Russia. Even if you add the Soviet Union [an extra 28] despite the fact that it was a different government, it strains credibility that bots on FaceTime spouting ideologies that didn't resonate with a native population would turn an election ([think before following links] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign_electoral_interventions). Relates to "Gaza (which we Kremlinologists know to be the Second Front of Ukraine)" - can you at least do more than appeal to your Kremlinologist priesthood authority and explain? It's an interesting, provocative statement that would be fun to hear more on. It's not clear whether you are saying that Russia and Israel are on the same side, or that Ukraine and Israel are on the same side. Relates to "the majority of the US voting public deciding that a black female was inferior to a white male" - I'm interpreting this as your privilege (which I fully support) to assert that racism and anti-feminism were the main causes of Kamala's defeat. If you have any polling data or numbers on how much these factors contributed, it would be more to chew on than an identitarian assertion. Relates to "voter intimidation, e.g., arson attacks on ballot boxes and bomb threats being called in to polling places" - crazy, I don't remember this at all @TaKinGDeePanal, here are some sources on the Bomb Threats: [think before following links] https://apnews.com/article/vote-ballot-drop-box-democracy-fire-f66c52f774955106fb9e7c8172825cff and [think before following links] https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-statement-on-bomb-threats-to-polling-locations, none of which appeared to be credible so far. Of course, the first news source claims to debunk 2000 Mules, when in fact they are casting a very reasonable doubt on 2000 Mules, so it makes me distrust the source's ability to be fully logical. Given the use of Russian e-mails, combined with the fact that none were credible, I hypothesize that this was a false flag smear, but I am not stating a fact, merely a hypothesis.