Total posts: 1,950
Posted in:
Since Double R missed it, I'll just spell this one out . . . .
- Every single pro-Trump organization has been penetrated by at least one branch of federal law enforcement.
- Ray Epps first proposed the idea of entering the Capitol building to the crowd of January 6th protesters, under circumstances where he was caught on video instigating a riot and therefore acting as a provocateur.
- At the time Ray Epps did so, he was immediately accused of being a "Fed!" by numerous of the crowd members.
- Unlike Ray Epps, all other such provocateurs have been charged with at least one, and almost always multiple, crimes in connection with their presence and actions during the events of January 6th.
- Only Ray Epps has not been charged with any crime in connection with his presence or acts during the events of January 6th.
On these facts, many have alleged Ray Epps was acting on behalf of at least one branch of Federal Law Enforcement.
The pattern of planting a provocateur amidst a group that is politically disfavored is the oldest trick in the FBI's book. For example, they did it with far-left wing groups during the 1960s, all groups affiliated with MLK during the Civil Rights Movement, as well as any other group Hoover opposed. They continued the same practices throughout the 80s, with Latin American rights groups. The focus shifted from minority groups to so called "white nationalist" groups, who are mostly just wannabe LARPer so called "militias" during the 1990s, specifically after the Eric Rudolph bombings. They briefly transitioned to allegedly "Islamist" groups during the War on Terror, and now once again oriented their ire back to the fringe populist right starting at the beginning of Trump's presidency. Now, they're menacing parents who show up at school board meetings.
The FBI's internal metrics for determining threat scale and magnitude are based entirely on their "infiltrating" a "cell" of "extremists" who are "threats to national security." It's not that the bureau is inherently politically biased, but these entrapment schemes are how they justify their asks for increasingly wasteful budgets year after year after year. Comey perfected this comical exercise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
And if there was any doubt that Ray Epps had nothing whatsoever to do with any false flag measure, MSNBC, NBC, CBS and PBS corroborate what CNN wrote. So you know it's true.
Created:
Posted in:
Meanwhile, Fed Ray Epps' actions speak for themselves
Created:
-->
@Reece101
for example I have a massive fruit and vanilla ice cream smoothie once or twice a week.Fruits being banana, mango, red papaya, dragonfruit, pineapple, strawberry, black berry, blue berry and other fruits I may have on the table or in the fridge.
None of this is keto, but if you cut out dairy you'd be a lot better off. My suggestion is you avoid higher fructose/glycemic impact fruits like bananas, stick with fruit that has more fiber in it, like berries.
You should also consider salads. Leafy greens with cheeses, nuts, oil/vinegar based dressing (or only those items) and variety of fiber sources. Try to keep net carbs under 50 or so per day.
I mix almond milk with regular milk.
Avoid this. Almond milk has an incredibly high amount of sugar and/or sugar alcohol, which destroys the whole point (from a biochemical perspective) of doing keto in the first place. The point is to keep net carbs very low. If you must consume a liquid dairy product, try whole milk unsweetened kefier. Not only is it delicious (kind of like heavy cream, tbh.), it is also good for you and your microbiome (the preservation of which is the whole point I am suggesting you eat fruits and veggis).
I’ve been mostly skipping breads, fizzy drinks, potato, sweet potato, savories, etc. The usual.
Avoid all grains. Rice, potatoes, bread, pasta, potatoes and the like. Those are bad. Those are what throw your body from "fat burning" mode back into "fat storing mode," b/c of their immediate glycemic impact and high carb content.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The validity of my arguments have nothing to do with my intentions.
No, but your intentions certainly color your understanding of the facts; or even your recognition of what information counts as a fact. The difference between us is that you hate Trump, whereas I am ambivalent to him. I am neither predisposed to convict him in the court of public opinion nor exonerate him in that or any other forum.
You have not meaningfully addressed what I said. Instead, you have dismissed it entirely and repeated what you wrote with somewhat different words. I am reminded of discussions I had with skeptics over Trump/Russia. I leaned hard into that, because there was an amount of smoke that could not have been caused by anything other than a specific type of fire. Or so it seemed. Turns out there was only a little smoke. The rest was shadows, fog and bad weather. The alleged timeline produced by this so called "committee" is full of holes, inconsistent with the public record and cannot be taken seriously. It is less plausible than Trump/Russia, which was compellingly presented. But
We have reached the point where further discussion on this issue ceases to be useful, or even entertaining.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
To distract Americans from the spectacular extent of Joe Biden's failures, the magnitude of his incompetence and the depths of his corruption, of course.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
This is a congressional hearing, not a criminal trial. Innocent until proven guilty are instructions for the jury. It's not reasonable in any sense to apply this to the investigators, if they don't presume anything they have nothing to investigate.
Have you lost whatever semblance of a mind you ever might have had, ever, at any point in your life? In this country, we do not empanel courts of high inquisition. Every occasion where we have done anything close to that remains in infamy.
I've got news for you: It turns out that you have a right to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, without regard to whether you're before a committee or a jury.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
It’s never a good idea to willingly testify in front of a committee that already has a guilty verdict on you.
It's never a good idea to testify in front of a committee, period. Especially one that is wholly unmoored to facts or reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I'll wait.
It's unclear what you thought you'd accomplish here. I'm going to set this out in really simple terms: just because you can use a word to characterize something, doesn't mean you're not engaged in biased advocacy in choosing that word. Do you understand the difference between "bias" or "advocacy," and falling within the scope of a "definition"? The issue raised was whether your use of the most inflammatory language you possibly could come up with, in fact, fairly described what happened. Do you somehow fail to understand that?
Congress was evacuated from the Capitol at 2:24pm, by that point the barricades had been breached for almost an hour and the Capitol building itself for almost 30 minutes.
Accusations about what I did or didn't read do not change the implausibility of the January 6th committee's alleged "timeline," which was the entire point of why I linked the time-stamped video.
If at 2:24, as you claim, a crisis had manifested to such an extent that congressional evacuation was required, would ten minutes later cops be calmly waiving people through the door as if nothing was the matter? I think not.
This is common sense.
These witnesses are making accusations against people who have no opportunity at all to cross examine them.Bullshit. Every individual who had involvement in the events the committee is investigating has been invited to testify, many of them subpoenaed. It turns out the only individuals willing to testify under oath are the ones whose story is unfavorable towards the nonsense you are peddling. At some point you should be asking why that is, but you won't.
Being invited or compelled under duress (read: subpoenaed) to testify is not even remotely close to the same thing as having an opportunity to cross examine a witness who is testifying. It is clear these basic procedural matters are something you're not familiar with, yet you had the audacity to respond with a declaration of "Bullshit!"
You had no idea what you were talking about and didn't even know enough about the process to know that you didn't know what you were talking about.
Remarkable. Particularly in view of your other obnoxiousness.
I continue to show incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If your point is that I need a more "specific" argument, you're doing a bad job of making it.
What I said about Roe has nothing to do with what I said about vaccine mandates.
Further, you seem to think I want to ban all abortion. If you think that, you're pretty laughably mistaken.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I agree, but most philosophers didn't agree to that. And would not. Certainly not Rousseau, any humanist or anyone who thinks humans by nature are inherently good. Or even inherently neutral. They are not.
Meaning is something that I think can't be understood . . . it isn't even coherent, outside of a theological level.
I forget the exact line, but it's the one Jordan Peterson references from Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground.
"I am a man, and not a piano key."
Something like that.
Created:
Posted in:
Vaccine mandates are inherently immoral, unethical governmental overreach. There is no justification for them. There is no excuse. If you support them, you are wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I agree. There are those who will drink the kool aid. And that's really all the January 6th committee is. Though it's also a masturbatory exercise of anti-Trump rage; a coordinated struggle session.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
[Alleged] video footage showing the mob rioters plowing through the police barricades surrounding the Capitol, smashing windows and climbing in, breaking down doors, and beating up Capitol police officers as they did all of this.
There are four observations to note about your claims, there.
- Characterizing the individuals who participated in the events of January 6th as a "mob" or "rioters" is inherently biased advocacy. It would about four seconds for any idiot to figure out which side of this issue you're on, which is why your purported exercise of "explaining" is anything but.
- Characterizing those individuals' actions as "smashing windows and climbing in" or "ploughing through police barricades surrounding the capitol" is not inconsistent with what I said above. Those individuals movement towards the Capitol building was enthusiastic, as they were excited, enticed and encouraged to stampede, do so in the direction of the Capitol building to be conveniently let in by police there.
- The footage I linked from January 6th clearly indicates that after 2:34 PM, police let the protesters in through the upper west terrace doors. Nothing in that video suggests that police were "overwhelmed" or "overran." A steady stream of protesters were allowed in by cops standing at the interior doors.
- The timestamp is on the video itself. Based on your timeline, these people should have been stampeding across police barricades or have already done so on their way to overwhelming the police in something like a storming of the bastille. And is that what you see, here?
I don't care how media report what people say in a congressional investigation. These witnesses are making accusations against people who have no opportunity at all to cross examine them. Those allegations are being lodged in the context of a transparently partisan committee, without any actual (i.e., non-Liz Cheney) opposition. And then whatever they say is being twisted, contorted and exaggerated to the greatest plausibly conceivable degree by an activist media who downplayed BLM riots as "mostly peaceful protests."
Realize I am not expecting you to agree with me here. But I am telling you why the January 6th committee is a complete failure. David Brooks called it before the end of the first week: Democrats preemptively legitimized January 6. They didn’t know they were doing it at the time, but Democrats spent the summer of 2020 legitimizing “mostly peaceful” riots, arson, and murder during the George Floyd riots. Denounce whataboutism all you like, but as a political matter, whataboutism matters and always has. It is very difficult to argue that political violence is unacceptable when you have spent so many years accepting it.
Further, Democrats have attempted to delegitimize every single presidential election they have lost from 2000 onward, specifically 2016. The main organizing idea of Democratic politics from 2016 to 2020 was that the 2016 election was somehow stolen from Hillary Rodham Clinton, who insisted that Donald Trump was an “illegitimate” president. They didn’t know it at the time, but Democrats spent those years building the political defense of the 2020 attempt to overturn the election of Joe Biden.
So this probe is completely illegitimate; defenses of it do not even rise to the level of idiocy. It has produced nothing whatsoever other than the astonishing revelation of additional security footage, characterized ad nauseum as you have above. The January 6th hearings failed to tackle any consequential issue about the incident, will not hold anyone accountable and most Americans have tuned them out. As political theater and a play for the midterms, they’re pathetic.
To the extent any officers may have found themselves caught between a the protesters and the Capitol building, as the committee footage purportedly shows, we still have no idea how that happened. Why were numerous warnings about the crowd's size and anticipated activity totally ignored? Why did police decease their numbers despite the fact that they knew a crowd of this size was coming to Washington for the purpose of protesting certain political activities on that date? In the Capitol building? Why was that crowd of people riled up by instigators who were almost certainly plants by federal law enforcement? If they weren't plants, why haven't they been charged like everyone else?
The burden of proof for its claims lies solely with this so called committee. They have failed without exception to substantiate anything they've alleged with respect to "insurrections" or any "coup," particularly with respect to Trump. This is even more transparently bullshit than Russiagate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I would love to know your thoughts on the actual case being presented. Like the fact that Trump wanted the mob that attacked the Capitol to be armed and wanted to lead them himself, both of which were stopped only because people in his own government stood up to him and told him no.
My thoughts on the "actual case" are based on what the committee has failed to uncover, present or illustrate to the American media. What the committee has failed to present is actual evidence. There is no direct evidence to support the claims the January 6th committee has made regarding Trump's role in instigating an insurrection. There is no indirect evidence to circumstantially support the same claims. To the extent anything held out as purported evidence has been presented, nothing whatsoever has even crossed the threshold of plausibility. Which is why we're in congress as opposed to a court of law, presumably. The democrats have overplayed their hand. A captive media who will report whatever conspiratorial ideations democrat strategists come up with have failed to move the ball forward for democrats as a party on issues pertaining to January 6th. We've seen the tweets they hold out as "evidence" of Trump's purported "role," but they fall short.
Do not make the mistake of assuming I approve of what Trump or those fools/idiots on January 6th did, however. Because I absolutely do not. I live in a city where protests far more violent than that took place right outside of my office and my then-apartment. Whether conducted by BLM or idiot/fool LARPers from the midwest, their only remedy is at the ballot box. That remedy had not been exhausted, regardless of whatever happened that they believe calls the outcome of the 2020 election into question. The electoral process occurred and resulted in Joe Biden winning, which wasn't surprising given how democrats re-wrote the rules of mail-in balloting during COVID to their advantage and seemingly exploited that set of circumstances to their advantage. Even still, any remedy is at the ballot box alone. To that end, we'll see what happens in the midterms this November and in 2024. I suspect a change is gonna' come.
As to the claim that a "mob attacked the Capitol," there is no evidence for that either. There's video of a protest taking place in proximity to the Capitol, police channeling that protest towards the Capitol Building and police opening the doors for protesters to welcome them in. There are videos of curious looking folks engaged in acts of provocation, encouraging protesters to move in that direction. But the crowd of protesters wasn't headed in that direction before certain provocateurs herded them in that direction, in much the same way that border collies herd sheep into a pin. Sure is interesting how those same provocateurs have curiously have evaded criminal prosecution, while everyone else has been arrested, charged and many remain in solitary confinement.
As to the claim that Trump somehow wanted any of that, the press release, tweets and video evidence plainly indicate otherwise. He literally told that lot to stand down and go home. Whether he played some role in causing that protest to form in the first instance, as he may have done, doesn't alter the fact that he went on TV and Twitter and specifically said to desist all such protest activities. In light of that, portraying Trump's actions as some kind of a coup, attempted coup or the protest as any sort of "insurrection" is absurd. Insurrection is a crime, for which none have been charged under American law. If there was even a plausible claim that anyone had engaged in "insurrection" as that term is defined by law in this country, the charge would appear on the indictments. Again, no one has been charged.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
@Intelligence_06
@Double_R
I think the problem is that Joe Biden is too basic as a president. He does everything a president is essentially expected to do without bringing anything special that could bind the US populace together. That in today's standards should be expected for a US president so really in fact Biden is being subpar as a president.Biden is terrible at selling himself to the public, it's almost like he doesn't think that part matters. And I think he is trying to hard to appeal to the far left, that's just not what got him elected.
- Shell president. Intelligence's claim that Biden "does everything a president is essentially expected to do" is interesting. There's more going on there than might be gleaned from a first glance, intentionally or not.
- It's worth noting the differences in expectations, based on their source. The party establishment who chose Reagan expected almost nothing of him. I am reminded of Chomsky's criticism of Reagan, in handling Iran-Contra.
- Chomsky's basic point was that no one expected Reagan to be able to keep track of what his administration members were doing in the shadows, because there was nothing going on upstairs. By that time, he was so far gone and his brain was so riddled with Alzheimer's, Reagan was probably being truthful when he claimed not to have known.
- But that wasn't the whole picture, either. No one expected Reagan to know what was going on, because Reagan was not elected to be a thinker, strategist or decision maker.
- Reagan was not elected to be a commander in chief or chief executive. He was elected to be a figurehead for the monied interests that, at that time, defined the Republican establishment. Basically, Reagan was the first shell president.
- Incorporeal form wasn't enough. The party establishment who chose Biden expected less than nothing of him; simply not being Donald Trump was enough.
- That plan hasn't worked out so well. Biden isn't specifically the second after Reagan (other contenders are out there), but he's certainly a shell. And that's what Biden was expected to do by the people who put him in that position.
- There is nothing going on in his head. And what little bandwidth Biden ever had, he focused on looking out for his own financial interests.
- Biden's political career has been defined at every stage by riding the tide in whatever direction it's flowing. I am not saying he shouldn't change over time or that his political views shouldn't evolve. I'm saying he never had political views, probably beyond the fifth year in DC after his brief, failed venture in private practice. He stopped giving a shit about civil rights and started caring a LOT about the monied interests that defined the Democratic Party because they paid him for his trouble. His net worth is proof positive, if there was any doubt.
- But the party agenda isn't the only source of expectations on the line. The American people expect the economy to grow or at least be stable, for oil prices to be reasonable and to be able to afford to fill their tanks on their way to work. At the very least.
- Biden is failing them in every way that matters. Despite the fact that his own fellow Democrat figured this out more than 30 years ago, "It's the economy, stupid!" Biden's economy is a disaster.
- There is no end in sight to Biden's economic failures, among others.
- The career politician can sell. It's not precisely clear in what context you're claiming Biden is terrible at selling himself, but his political track record would say otherwise.
- No one becomes a career politician as successful as Joe Biden's has been over all of these years while at the same time being "terrible at selling himself to the public."
- He isn't the best, but that doesn't mean he isn't at least marginally good. Biden certainly isn't as good as Obama, but if that's the standard then there have been exactly three politicians in living memory who could approximate that bar. Reagan, Clinton and Obama. No one else comes close. Not even by a mile.
- Biden is more like a stupider version of John Kerry, that is at once more aloof and less capable of handling basic responsibility. But Biden is better at selling than Kerry.
- The problem is what Biden is selling, since he's delivered them a bill of goods so far. As I have said before, folks just don't want what he's offering. Trump ended regime change wars, did not launch a war while he was in office and the economy was at an all time high. Then COVID hit, Fauci lied, the CDC played politics, Democrats supported lockdowns and destroyed the economy.
- There's a figure in the survey I linked above, identifying a large percentage of Americans who actively believe the Federal Government has set out to do them harm or will harm them in the near term. That's the point we're at. Inflation is through the roof. The debt is out of control.
- The apocalyptic economic forecasts that deficit hawks complained about during the 1990s, thereafter again before Bush invaded Iraq (at which time, they were no longer concerned with the deficit) and again at the time Obamacare was considered by Congress.
- COVID spending and Biden's economic policy (again, not like he designed it; it's just what's happening while he's in the oval) has set the stage for those forecasts to become reality. More reckless inflation, at least in the United States and Europe, has not been caused by the acts of a government since the Weimar Republic. People feel that pain every day they go to the grocery store, fill up their gas tank or observe the buying power of their dollar erode before their eyes.
- Again, this is also not to imply that Biden has, in fact, done things to directly cause, for example, high energy prices. He has not. Biden is apparently so economically illiterate that he doesn't understand how oil/petrochemicals are bought or sold, as commodities. Much less how the supply chain works. Blaming Biden for the economy is like blaming a dog for failing to solve a high school student's differential equation homework. All the dog knows how to do is eat the homework. And apparently the rest of his administration is in the same boat.
- But all of this shit still happened on his watch. Biden chose this job and this life. The buck stops with him, whether he's lucid enough to comprehend that fact or not.
I will say though, the left is increasingly difficult to appease. They actually care about issues, so he's is in a bit of a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. If he cancels all student loan debt he loses the moderates. If he fails to do so he loses the base. If he goes all out on climate changed he gets blamed for gas prices. If he doesn't he loses the environmental advocates.
- Biden doesn't give a fuck what the left thinks. All he does is placate them, because that's all that can be done for them.
- Meet their demands today, they'll have more ostentatious ones tomorrow. Basically, Biden is doing the old trusty "pretend to be useful" trick, kicking the can down the road while making this look like an exercise in furtherance of their interests.
- This is hilarious, but only because of how fundamentally stupid leftist progressives have become. They're off the rails, and everyone knows it.
- The only thing Biden seems to care about is Ukraine, because that is the only situation where he's acted. I disagree with essentially every aspect of his strategy, but it's fairly obvious what's going on. At least to anyone with knowledge of the industry.
- Ukraine is about natural gas. There are tremendous proven gas reserves in Ukraine's EEZ (hence why Russia seized Crimea). Ukraine's reserves are large enough in size to displace Russia's stronghold on that market in the European continent.
- Before those reserves were discovered in 2013, Ukraine had no pathway to NATO membership because Ukraine had no strategic value.
- Now with those reserves known and available for potential commercialization, Ukraine all of a sudden matters.
- It took the media a hilariously long time to pivot; basically as soon as they figured out Biden stood to benefit personally from dealings with a certain Ukrainian energy company. Now they have, and so instead of being the second most corrupt country in Europe populated by Azov Nazis and anti-semites, Ukraine is the embodiment of our highest democratic ideals --- or so says the media. This is stupid. This rhetoric is stupid. People who believe it are stupid.
- There are, however, very good reasons to have done far more than Biden did in Ukraine. But that's not how this is going to work. Here's the State Department's playbook:
- Status Quo Ante: United States has tentative deal to commercialize Ukraine's oil fields, on terms not as favorable as United States would like.
- Step 1: Let Vladimir Putin destroy Ukraine's infrastructure.
- Step 2: Arm Ukraine to resist Vladimir Putin and provide logistical support.
- Step 3: Once Putin's forces are exhausted (a point we are fast approaching), discuss the terms of reconstruction with Ukraine.
- Step 4: Finance Ukraine's reconstruction, via World Bank or other similar apparatus.
- Step 5: Use terms of financing as leverage to get better deal with Ukraine's natural gas fields, than before Putin invaded.
- Step 6: Admit Ukraine to NATO.
- Step 7: Commercialize Ukraine's natural gas, displacing Russia's hold on the natural gas market in Europe.
That's what this is really all about. It's as plain as day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The polls and ratings are clear.
- Most Americans are ambivalent.
- The majority of ambivalent Americans have disengaged from the J6 reporting, because the regard it as an exercise of political manipulation which they resent. In this way, Democrats lose.
- There three groups of non-ambivalent Americans: (a) those who supported, (b) those who did not support or oppose and (c) those who opposed.
- Of those who supported, a clear majority has no objection to anything Trump did or was accused of doing. In this way, Democrats lose.
- Of those who neither supported nor opposed, a clear majority does not think anything concerning J6 should impact 2024 in any way; in the generic ballot, they pick Trump 3/5 times over any generic democrat and all three major democrat contenders (except Bernie Sanders). In this way, Democrats lose.
- Of those who opposed, nothing they have been able to say or do has meaningfully harmed Trump's odds of winning in 2024, both a Republican primary and the general elections. In this way, Democrats lose.
Created:
Monmouth University Polls follow suit!
Majority say federal government actions are hurting themWest Long Branch, NJ – The number of Americans who are financially struggling has increased by double digits in the past year as inflation and gas prices top the list of problems faced by the nation’s families.. . .A majority of 57% say that the actions of the federal government over the past six months have hurt their family when it comes to their most important concern. Just 8% say Washington has helped them and 34% say federal actions have had no real impact on their top concern. In prior polls, between 34% and 47% said government actions have hurt them on their biggest family concern. The current poll marks the first time this sentiment is in the majority. The results also indicate little optimism about the future – just 23% expect that future government actions over the next few years will help improve their family’s top concern while 45% say Washington will hurt them. One year ago, that response was basically flipped (40% expected to be helped and 34% expected to be hurt).. . .Biden’s overall job rating continues to trend downward. Currently, just 36% approve of the job he is doing while 58% disapprove. It has now been a year since Biden held a net positive rating (48% approve and 44% disapprove in July 2021). Just 10% of Americans say the country is headed in the right direction while 88% say it is on the wrong track. This marks an all-time low for this question going back to 2013. The prior low was recorded in May of this year at 18% right direction and 79% wrong track. Just 15% approve of the job Congress is doing, matching the May result.“The state of the economy has Americans in a foul mood. They are not happy with Washington. However, that has not changed the overall picture of whom they want in control of Congress. The question is who actually shows up to vote in the fall,” said Murray.
Created:
The data are in. Americans hate deranged jackass Joe Biden, more than they ever hated Trump.
A new Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll survey found that 71 percent of Americans do not want that to seek reelection.
- The poll was conducted from June 28-29,
2022 among 1,308 participants.
- Results were weighted for age within gender, region,
race/ethnicity, marital status, household size, income,
employment, education, political party, and political
ideology where necessary to align them with their actual
proportions in the population.
- Propensity score weighting
was also used to adjust for respondents’ propensity to be
online.
The data are abysmal . . . for Biden and Democrats.
- Inflation and the economy are overwhelmingly the most important issues to voters.
- More than 70% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track.
- More than 71% of Americans think the economy is on the wrong track.
- More than 72% of Americans think the economy is weak, and remains underwater, a trend that has worsened since May 2021.
- More than 64% of Americans think their personal financial situation is getting worse, a trend that has acutely worsened since May 2021.
- Almost half of Americans expect a recession next year and more than 40% are pessimistic about their lives, personally, during that time.
- More than 60% of Americans doubt Biden's mental fitness to serve and more than 64% think he is too old.
- More than 71% think Biden should not run for a second term, because (a) he's a bad president (45%), (b) he's too old (30%) and (c) it's time for a change (26%).
- Fewer think Trump should not run for president, only about 61%. January 6th played least prominently among their reasons why, outranked by concerns of his personality and divisiveness. Curiously, 55% of this lot at least somewhat closely followed the January 6th hearings.
- Less than 38% approve of Joe Biden, overall. An all-time low. Donald Trump's current approval rating is higher.
The Democrats' situation is even more perilous. Despite everything, Biden still is the overwhelmingly clear leader of the DNC taking almost double the support of Kamala Harris, his next runner up, in a primary. Donald Trump beats Joe Biden and Kamala Harris by clear margins.
Astonishing failure!
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
@RM: How dare you even reference my username. I am sure there is some pile of shit you need to swarm around. Get on with it then.
@bmdrocks21: If ever I was in need of a quick tl;dr for what the low-information illiterate left thinks, I'd need look no further than RM's commentary. This comment, though not yours, is perhaps the most vapid in this thread so far:
You have to love the irony of how friendly Coal is to homophobic ideologies and cultures, considering he himself is gay. You are passive-aggressively using his own nonsense against him so fucking well.This is just stupid, how can he even be blaming the progressive media for this?
I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you both (a) did not "like" RM's comment and (b) recognize it for the stupidity that it is. However, if you unfortunately did "like" RM's comment, let us undertake a salutary learning exercise together.
- "the irony of how friendly Coal is to homophobic ideologies and cultures." A non sequitur is a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement; something said that, because of its apparent lack of meaning relative to what preceded it, seems absurd to the point of being humorous or confusing. Here, we see several examples. There is no such "irony," because I have said nothing indicating or implying any such "friendl[iness]" to any "ideology[]" or "culture[]," whether "homophobic" or otherwise. One may only suppose that to whatever extent RM incorrectly assumed otherwise, he based that assumption on what I said about abortion. The last time I (or anyone else with neurons connecting between their ears) checked, abortion and gay anything have nothing to do with each other. On every level that matters, they're incongruous. Conceptually, biologically, existentially, practically, sexually or consequentially. Incongruous. The fool.
- "considering he himself is gay." Only the most supremely pig-headed leftist troglodyte would have the unmitigated audacity to claim that people must belong to some certain political "tribe" simply based on a purported identity-claim. This will be shocking to the low-information illiterate left, but sexual orientation does not dictate policy, values or political alignment. As luck may have it, not all gay people think alike. It is incredibly homophobic, bigoted and air-headedly stupid to think you or anyone could ever lasso all gay people (much less lesbians, bisexuals or "trans") under one political cause, much less presume to infer what they think about things outside of LGBT related issues. Which abortion is not. And never was. As I have said above. People should try to be better than the mouth-breathing dipshits that would call Larry Elder the black face of white supremacy. But that's basically what RM tried to pull here, against me. Pathetic.
- "You are passive-aggressively using his own nonsense against him so fucking well." If you have been passive aggressive, you get a pass solely because arguing with me is a lot like taking a beating. Or so I'm told. But you are not "using" anything I have said "against [me]," in any way . . . "so fucking well" or otherwise. As I am sure you are aware. RM has these little temper fits whenever he feels the need to get down on his knees and blow anyone he feels argumentatively cucked by, against someone he perceives as a common enemy. Here, RM feels like he needs to get on his knees (see post #47) and blow you because you're argumentatively cucking him by actually responding to me, someone he perceives as his common enemy. What you should do is put a ball-gag in his mouth, tie him in a leather hooded suit and lock him in a cage in some kind of dungeon. Realize that RM is basically DArt's gimp. That is not to imply I'm Marsellus Wallace, but some have compared the experience to facing "a couple of hard pipin' [n-word] to go to work . . . with a pair of pliers and a blow torch" and "get[ing] medieval on yo' ass." Now he can go back to the box he was formerly locked in.
- "This is just stupid, how can he even be blaming the progressive media for this?" What's stupid is saying things things like Nos. 1-3. I also don't think I used the word "progressive" or "media." Since RM seems to struggle with basic comprehension, I'll repeat. What I said was that the Supreme Court will not "revisit" sodomy laws. I explained that any such argument is nothing more than another pathetic attempt by the leftist radicals who want to group unlike groups under the same penumbra of "oppression." So, the argument that SCOTUS is coming for the gays after they "came for women" is absurd, vapid, senseless and utterly unsupported. I elaborated more on this subject in post #48, if there was any confusion.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
A very strong precedent was just overturned, so I wouldn’t be surprised if, say, gay marriage was an issue returned to the states. Or perhaps gay adoption could be treated differently by more than just religious adoption agencies in a state, as a future example case.
Gay marriage/rights have no analogy in abortion. Ogberfell is about as likely to be overturned as Loving. Both are settled law. Abortion never was.
You know what Ogberfell was about. I assume. Loving was a case wherein an interracial couple, the Lovings, married and were charged with violating the state of Virginia's Racial Integrity Act. That "law" criminalized marriage between so-called "white[s]" and so-called "colored[s]." The Lovings were tried and convicted, and their conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court of Virginia. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, holding the "Racial Integrity Act" violated the equal protection clause; their conviction was unconstitutional. Thus ended the era of anti-miscegenation laws in this country, along with all other race-based legal restrictions on marriage.
Note the parallels, legally. In Loving, the State of Virginia argued its anti-miscegenation law did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because the punishment was the same regardless of the offender's race, and thus it "equally burdened" both whites and non-whites. The same arguments were made with respect to gay rights. According to the social conservatives of something like 20 years ago, banning gay marriage/denying equal protection did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because the burden is the same regardless of a person's sex/gender, and thus applies equally to all.
In Loving, the Supreme Court found that Virginia's anti-miscegenation law violated the Equal Protection Clause because it was based solely on "distinctions drawn according to race" and outlawed conduct --- namely, getting married --- that was otherwise generally accepted and which free people were endowed with the liberty to engage in; and were endowed by God with the right to engage in; the right to get married. The same applies to gay rights. According to the majority of literally everyone, banning gay marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause because it too is based solely on distinctions according to sexual orientation and outlaws conduct --- namely, again, marrying.
So, if there is an analogy to draw between gay rights and some other historical/landmark line of judicial civil rights precedent, it's to race-based discrimination . . . and specifically, it's an equal protection analogy to anti-miscegenation laws which, as I just noted, are unconstitutional. The reason is because both directly implicate rights that are enumerated by the Bill of Rights. Abortion does no such thing. Gay rights are about as likely to drop as segregation is to return; the latter of which being the more proper comparison, historically speaking. Both are settled law. Roe never was, even by the plain text of the opinion when it came out. So called "trans" rights are another matter, though.
Unlike gay marriage, which involves clear question of enumerated/fundamental rights at numerous constitutional levels, abortion is a judicial creation by an activist court that willed a constitutional right into existence by sheer force from the bench. Most folks just have no idea how legally controversial Roe was when it was handed down, regardless of their familiarity with how that controversy appears to manifest in pop culture. Many have this misguided idea that, somehow, there was a constitutional right to abortion when, in fact, any lucid reading of American legal history on this subject reveals plainly that (a) abortion has always been regulated by the states (b) as a matter of policy. The right to abortion has no treatment similar to any right enumerated in the Bill of Rights or otherwise recognized as fundamental by American courts (e.g., interstate travel, the right to parent one's children, privacy as such, marriage or self defense).
If you had any doubt, note the split between high-volume GOP donors on abortion and gay rights. They're on the fence about abortion and have been since before Roe even came on the scene. They never supported it by a clear majority and those who do are still sympathetic to the fact that this is a matter of policy before anything else. The Republican elites on all camps have normalized homosexuality and gay marriage, with now only a very select few holdouts objecting. They are few and far between. The needle began to move when Dick Cheney's daughter came out. If you want some metric for just where the ball is among the folks that decide these things, David Boise has been lead counsel in favor of recognizing gay marriage/rights.
Created:
Posted in:
I saw that video too, and literally lol'd.
Funny thing about most Somalis and actual immigrants from Africa . . . they tend to be very conservative and decent people. Some of them are Islamic and some of them are Christians. But nearly all of them who make it here tend to be exceptionally hard working, honorable and trustworthy. Basically the opposite of the Squad. No wonder they hate her.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
There is some merit to believing more cases will be lost for them, although I don’t think the political capital exists for sodomy laws.
Which cases? Because I see no world where the "sincerely held religious beliefs" doctrine gets extended any further than it already has.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
The Supreme Court will not "revisit" sodomy laws. This is yet another pathetic attempt by the leftist radicals who want to group unlike groups under the same penumbra of "oppression."
The argument that SCOTUS is coming for the gays after they "came for women" (#phrasing lol) is absurd, vapid, senseless and utterly unsupported.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The actuarial data are pretty clear and have been for some time.
- There were overwhelmingly more deaths of despair than of COVID-19, even if you take the alleged causes of death identified on death certificates at face value among the cohort comprising individuals aged 18-64.
- If you correct for the fraudulent death counts, the factor could be as high as 5 deaths of despair to every 1 COVID death among the same cohort.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Wickard v. Filburn
Wickard v. Filburn was egregiously wrong, at every level that a case could be wrong.
The facts of that case should nauseate any decent thinking person. In that case, a meager, small-time farmer in rural Ohio who owned a miniscule plot of land (literally, only 12 acres) was fined for violating a law passed by congress called the "Agricultural Adjustment Act."
In plain English, the farmer grew more wheat than bureaucrats thought he should be allowed to grow. So they fined him, made him destroy his crops and wasted the commodity, at a time when people were starving and only beginning to recover from the Great Depression that was already prolonged by Roosevelt's economic illiteracy and a wash of other, similarly misguided, "progressive economic reforms."
According to the Supreme Court, "[t]he wheat industry ha[d] been a problem . . . for some years. Largely as a result of increased foreign production and import restrictions" declines in "annual exports . . . left a large surplus in production which in connection with an abnormally large supply of wheat and other grains caused congestion in a number of markets."
The Agricultural Adjustment Act is a textbook example of legislative stupidity. The Act imposed limits on production that were based on the arbitrary whims of incompetent regulators, disguised under the pretext of yield forecasts. The idea was that by capping the amount any individual wheat farmer could produce, supply would be restricted and prices would stabilize. The Act failed to achieve that purpose, as you might have imagined.
Before this case, there was a clear limit on the scope of commercial activity subject to federal regulation. Before, the Commerce Clause's reach was cut off at intrastate commerce, meaning commercial activity that occurred solely within a single state. This case vitiated that limit. After, the Commerce Clause's reach allowed regulation of intrastate commerce that had a "substantial economic effect" on interstate commerce. Thus began a new era of federal legislative overreach.
Essentially anything had a "substantial economic effect" on interstate commerce. Apparently, even a single rural Ohio farmer growing wheat on his 12-acre plot of land to feed his family was not immune from the national legislature's reach. And the national legislature demanded that the farmer be fined for growing more than Congress in its infinite wisdom determined was proper.
Stalin would be proud.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The most basic rule of freedom is that the freedom to swing your arms ends at the next person’s nose.
Actually, that's a legally, potentially criminally and at least civilly actionable intentional tort. You cannot put someone in imminent apprehension of a battery, without running afoul of someone else's rights. Most states call that "assault." Realize the scenario you're articulating.
You're talking about actually causing someone to be in fear that you might cause them some kind of physical pain. Non-aggression principle notwithstanding, one's freedom --- here, in the sense of bodily autonomy --- ends where other's rights begin. It turns out others have the right to be free from assault (or the imminent apprehension of any battery) as they move through the world and conduct their lives, in general.
One’s right to “self defense” by carrying a gun on them at all times places everyone around that person at elevated risk because their lives are now subject to the individuals level of responsibility, judgement, and aim.
There is no analogy to be drawn between engaging in an act of criminally and/or civilly actionable violation of another's right to bodily integrity and the individual constitutional right to bear arms, for personal self defense or any other. In the first instance, simply by carrying a firearm, you are not placing someone else at "elevated risk," of anything. Rather, you are improving their safety by reducing the probability of armed confrontation. I understand you're less about hard data and more about practicalities. So let me give you this set of practical scenarios to think over.
- Scenario 1: Woman is on the train, riding home after a long day of work. A gang member approaches her, attempts to steal her personal effects and proceeds to sexually assault her in the process. She is unarmed at all relevant times, unable to defend herself and is a victim in all possible ways this plays out.
- Modification A to Scenario 1: Same facts as above, but instead of the woman being totally unarmed she has pepper spray. She deploys it, but only hits one of the gang members. Others beat her within inches of her life, take the pepper spray from her use it against her. She almost dropped it, in the process of retrieving it from her purse anyway.
- Modification B to Scenario 1: Same facts as above, but instead of pepper spray she has a gun. She isn't well trained but has the wherewithal to draw it and fire off one shot. She misses, potentially causing property damage to condo on the other side of the train; but the attackers flee to another car.
- Scenario 2: Your son is walking home from work, after he got off the train to make his way back to his apartment. The neighborhood is familiar and he's lived there for many years. But tonight, a drug dealer who is moving in on territory at the direction of a Mexican cartel confuses him for a rival gang member. Your son looks like Barack Obama, aged 22. Not exactly "rival gang member" material, but the identity is still mistaken. The drug dealer shoots and kills him in the mishap. A totally random occurrence. After your son tries to clear up his identity.
- Modification A to Scenario 2: Same facts as above, but instead of your son being totally unarmed, he has a knife. Maybe. He attempts to withdraw it, but remembered that because he was stopped and frisked one day he lost it. The drug dealer shoots and kills your son.
- Modification B to Scenario: Same facts as above, but instead of New York City's laws being utterly idiotic, your son sees the threat draws his gun and shoots to kill first. He comes home. The drug dealer does not.
Tell me which of the above situations are less worse (not so much better, just less worse). Obviously no one wants any of these situations. And random acts of arbitrary violence may not befall most of us, especially in the suburbs. But the idea that in the cities, we can just pass laws and criminals will all of a sudden disarm is nonsensical. I know that you know who has guns and who does not. I know that you know they still have them, despite the laws saying otherwise. Would you rather yourself, your family or your friends be prepared? Or risk the alternative. I am fully aware of all the accident statistics, suicide statistics, violence statistics and the like. They matter from a sociological perspective, but not a moral one. Morally, in this country we stand as citizens. There is an old saying from Colt, that goes along the lines of "God created men all equal. Colt made them equal."
But yeah, go freedom.
Absolutely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Totally agree. States are supposed to do this anyway. The Federal government has far too much power, far more than any founder intended and has held the same for far too long.
Fewer priorities are more compelling than restricting its size and scope. This is what occurred with the recent decision concerning abortion. Roe was not overturned, only limited according to the constitution's requirements.
Created:
Posted in:
Without commenting on the reasons proposed by Double R beyond the below, I agree source points should be dropped. So should conduct.
The objective in judging a debate is to decide a win and loss. This is a subjective call in practice, though we should all try to be as objective and fair as possible. We can't be perfectly fair or objective because we're human beings (among other existential considerations beyond the scope of my point here), but that should be the goal. This process optimally done with a single decision, whether up or down/win or loss.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
With your clarification that you don't contest the veracity of what I quoted, ok.
But your understanding of a militia, how it works and specifically how it worked in/around the time of the country's founding; in addition to how it differs from a standing army, as per the Federalist Papers we have both cited, is incorrect. If you are interested in understanding the history behind this, there are secondary sources to which I can direct you. I understand that most people didn't spend substantial parts of their lives doing research on this subject, though I did and I'm happy to point you in the direction of materials you can consider for yourself. I don't think what I tell you will change your mind, so I would rather refer you to published material others have prepared.
I will be very frank with you on this subject as well. For almost all of my life, before I started going through the historical record for myself, I thought "well regulated militia" meant that there was no general constitutional right to self defense, that most if not all restrictions on the possession, use and sale of firearms was constitutionally permissible and any objection to the contrary was frivolous right-wing nonsense. That's because the way the Second Amendment is worded, one can reach that conclusion on the face of the plain text without difficulty.
But that interpretation is wrong. It is wrong legally and it is wrong historically.
Created:
Posted in:
In its New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen decision yesterday, Supreme Court has struck down the State of New York's "may issue" firearm license regime.
- The State of New York required a showing of "special need for self-protection distinguishable from
that of the general community" (emphasis added), to keep and bear arms for general self defense.
- That requirement was unconstitutional for several reasons; chief among them, that no other constitutional right requires any such showing.
- There may circumstances in which the right to keep and bear arms may be subject to limited restraint. But historical practice contemporaneous with the Second Amendment's adoption does not comport.
- In reaching this decision, the Supreme Court further rejected the Circuit Courts of Appeals' two-step method of analysis for constitutionality, post-Heller and McDonald.
- The first step was acceptable, as it requires "establish[ing] that the
challenged law regulates activity falling outside the scope
of the right as originally understood." This is consistent with both Heller and McDonald.
- The second step was not, as it required judges to consider "how close the
law comes to the core of the Second Amendment right and
the severity of the law’s burden on that right." Any constitutional right subject to the whims of future judicial interpretation is no such thing. The Second Amendment clearly says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right that shall not be infringed. Where a state imposes a "may issue" licensure requirement to exercise one's right to keep and bear arms for general self defense purposes, it infringes upon Second Amendment rights.
Let freedom ring.
Created:
Your article is stupid and your response to what I wrote is moreso.
These are choices on your part, and poor ones at that.
Created:
There are few things worse than peddling crackpot nonsense based on the false illusion of an imaginary outcome of improvement. That is exactly what you article is, which is why it is stupid.
Your response to my comment is even stupider than the article you initially linked, too. This is because you purportedly believe that this particular approach to addressing a very complex psychiatric condition is at least a plausible means to manage the "suffering" you reference.
Turns out that in science and in life, it is results that matter. Not intentions or false hope, like that from snake oil sold to psychiatric patients.
But there is good news. You don't have to say stupid things or read stupid articles. That is a choice.
Say less stupid things and read less stupid articles.
Created:
This is stupid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Ribeye steaks, Mexican (traditional and Mexican-American/Tex-Mex), traditional Persian or Lebanese kebabs, middle eastern/Israeli food in general and South American food (generally, specifically from Brazil, Peru and Argentina)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I disagree. Pederasty is still, fundamentally, is based on male-on-male sexual contact. What I see progressives doing is inconsistent with that. They're pushing a gender-confused mentality on young boys, to induce them to engage in gender-nonconforming behaviour, dress in gender non-conforming ways and modify their physicality and biology in ways that are fundamentally inconsistent with maleness.
What progressives seem to be pushing looks a lot more like the kind of perverse sexual practice of tribal Afghanistan, whereby young boys (usually aged 7-12) are made to look, dress and behave like girls, to be used as objects of sexual exploitation. This is different than the pederasty of, for example, Ancient Rome (even though the practice may well have been an offshoot of the same cultural aberration).
Created:
An online debate website almost certainly will be comprised of a self-selecting INTJ user base.
The older I get, the more pronounced that I becomes, the more pronounced my NT type becomes and the harder that J leans to almost 100%.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Totally agree. If you're in charge, the buck stops with you. You can't turn around and pass the blame off to someone else, specifically any subordinate.
And let's not forget the idiocy, degeneracy and overall mindfucked self-gaslighting nonsense. On the one hand, leftist types pretend like gas prices are the president's fault when they're bad and a republican is in office, but not the president's fault when they're bad and a democrat is in office. Likewise, when gas prices are good and a republican is in office, it's got nothing to do with him; but everything to do with him, if that person is a democrat.
Obviously none of this matters for the ultimate question of how responsible the president is for gas prices, but to pretend like this conversation is anything other than complete partisan hackery? Beneath frivolity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It's a vague outline on how the US should approach green energy and inequality. How is this relevant?
Maybe you missed the voluminous explanation I provided. Read it and get back to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I have provided you quotes to the article you linked, which you thereafter contested the veracity of. Admit the quotes are correct, or any "dialogue" is a waste of time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
When do you think they shoudve raised rates?
At some point before the worst inflation we've seen in more than 40 years.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What do you think the effect would be if the fed carted out 1 trillion paper dollars and had a bonfire outside the Capitol?
Also known as QE-infinity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Capitalism is a false meritocracy.
Today in stupid things I read . . . .
Created:
Posted in:
The economic hellscape of a depression into which we are about to enter is Ron Paul circa 2008's vindication, once again.
Relatedly, the fed is the biggest ponzi scheme on earth.
Created:
Trevor Noah is less funny than Samantha Bee, while having the personality and demeanor of Brian Stelter.
Created:
Posted in:
So, no one going to bother to address what I wrote in #21? Yeah, didn't think so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Do a control+f for what I quoted in what you linked, and get back to me.
Created: