Thought for the Day

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=filghy2;2042126 All he really wanted was get some kind of deal he could spin as a great win, regardless of the substance.[/QUOTE]

With dollars attached -for example, did he get a 'bonus' when 'transferring' intelligence on nuclear energy to the Kingdom of 9/11?

Is it not the case that he made more money playing golf in four years than Tiger Woods made in 20?

And is it not the case that he has made more than $100 million from a SuperPac which he uses as a personal piggy bank rather than dip into his own (alleged) $3 billion?

And that he doesn't declare his candidacy for 2024 because he would then have to provide accounts showing how that money is being spent on the Campaign rather than his hair products, Diet Coke and Escorts?

Can you believe Kayley Mac has been advertising a $10k dinner in which you get to stand next to 'the Man' for a photo-? Shouldn't it be the other way round?

In view of the fact he was such a failure, I think the Americans should ask for their money back -neither the Russians nor the Saudis need to do that, as they know which side of the fence their lad is pissing into. The American side.

[filghy2]

Oh yeah, autocracy. Autocracy = Vaccine Mandate, FBI vs Parents, and shitting on the will of the majority in favor of your party's agenda to line their own pockets with tax dollars.

What exactly is this "will of the majority" based on when Trump received less than 47% of the vote? In fact, your party has won the popular vote only once since 1988. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ar_vote_margin

And who is the target audience you think you can convince with these "big lies"? Is it just you and your ego?

The claim of a popular will that is independent of actual election results is a common fascist theme, by the way.

[filghy2]

PS: I think it's increasingly clear that what Nick means by "strong" is actually authoritarian.

Of course, in his definition only democratically-elected governments that stop him doing what he likes are authoritarian. Governments that let him to what he wants and target only people he doesn't like are never authoritarian, no matter what they do.

[filghy2]

Courtesy of Jonathon Freedland, here's a couple of articles that support my point about Trump's support being based on a psychological disposition toward authoritarianism.
https://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/1112742...thoritarianism
https://morningconsult.com/2021/06/2...ritarian-test/

These passages sum up the key point:

According to Stenner's theory, there is a certain subset of people who hold latent authoritarian tendencies.

Authoritarians prioritize social order and hierarchies, which bring a sense of control to a chaotic world. Challenges to that order — diversity, influx of outsiders, breakdown of the old order — are experienced as personally threatening because they risk upending the status quo order they equate with basic security.

When they face physical threats or threats to the status quo, authoritarians support policies that seem to offer protection against those fears. They favor forceful, decisive action against things they perceive as threats. And they flock to political leaders who they believe will bring this action.

[Nick Danger]

I don't deny he has a great instinct for what appeals to ignorant arseholes, which is his only real talent. Did you get a hard-on when he made that speech about Latino immigrants being criminals and rapists?

I like Mexicans, Flighty. I go to Mexico somewhat regularly. But just like any other group of people, there are rapists and criminals among them, and those types will generally be found more among the poverty-stricken portion of the population - i.e., the exact type of Mexican who's most likely to try to sneak across our border and live here illegally. Again, it's classism and not racism. We have a statue that says give us your poor and hungry blah blah blah. We stopped meaning that a long time ago.

Sounds exactly like Nazism. Do you actually think about what you write, or do you just upload your stream of consciousness unfiltered?

No, I don't filter what I say, Flighty. The time for filtering is over. If you need conservative thinking filtered for you, I suggest you withdraw deeper into your echo chamber because at this point we're only interested in stamping out progressivism, not coddling it. Biden's betrayal of his mandate has made this war.

What exactly is this "will of the majority" based on when Trump received less than 47% of the vote? In fact, your party has won the popular vote only once since 1988. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ar_vote_margin

And who is the target audience you think you can convince with these "big lies"? Is it just you and your ego?

The claim of a popular will that is independent of actual election results is a common fascist theme, by the way.

Lot of conservatives and fence-sitters voted for Biden out of fear based on the Democrat-controlled street violence. Some voted because they thought Biden was going to address some social issues that they'd like to see addressed, economy be damned for now. But now that Biden's gone full Bernie Sanders on everyone out of the blue, the majority would no longer vote for him. His Build Back Better bill is scaring the fuck out of everyone, even a lot of moderate Democrats. But he fully intends to try to ram it down our throats anyway. If you don't believe this is true, why do you think his approval ratings are historically low?

[broncofan]

I consider someone to have authoritarian tendencies if they politicize the investigation of criminal trials and undermine the rule of law by interfering with investigations; if they don't accept democratic outcomes and try to get the results they want by breaking the law or stoking violence; and do not respect the independence of our judiciary. Donald Trump wanted to use his office to go after enemies and violate institutional safeguards. His supporters, more motivated by their angst towards enemies than any positive vision of America felt that victory could be measured by satisfying his every whim, even when that did nothing for them or the country. They are worried about communism but their cult of personality could be described as total self-abnegation for the purpose of satisfying the ego of a "strongman." That's weak and pathetic.

Speaking of anecdotes: someone who I work with (not in person) is an antivaxxer. She watched her brother die and her sister in law survive a serious case of covid and she still believes the vaccine is a graver threat to her safety than covid. The phantom threats Nick writes about are not anywhere near as concerning as the mass delusion that it takes to hold her view.

Nick you never seem to provide any details about the things you're afraid of. What is it you think is dangerous about the vaccines (please don't say you just don't like the idea of mandates; you must think there's some potential harm)? What about mandates by private employers? Do employers have the prerogative to fire people for no reason or any reason? Or is this an exception to that rule? And what part of the bbb are you concerned about?

[Nick Danger]

I consider someone to have authoritarian tendencies if they politicize the investigation of criminal trials and undermine the rule of law by interfering with investigations; if they don't accept democratic outcomes and try to get the results they want by breaking the law or stoking violence; and do not respect the independence of our judiciary. Donald Trump wanted to use his office to go after enemies and violate institutional safeguards. His supporters, more motivated by their angst towards enemies than any positive vision of America felt that victory could be measured by satisfying his every whim, even when that did nothing for them or the country. They are worried about communism but their cult of personality could be described as total self-abnegation for the purpose of satisfying the ego of a "strongman." That's weak and pathetic.

Speaking of anecdotes: someone who I work with (not in person) is an antivaxxer. She watched her brother die and her sister in law survive a serious case of covid and she still believes the vaccine is a graver threat to her safety than covid. The phantom threats Nick writes about are not anywhere near as concerning as the mass delusion that it takes to hold her view.

Nick you never seem to provide any details about the things you're afraid of. What is it you think is dangerous about the vaccines (please don't say you just don't like the idea of mandates; you must think there's some potential harm)? What about mandates by private employers? Do employers have the prerogative to fire people for no reason or any reason? Or is this an exception to that rule? And what part of the bbb are you concerned about?

I never said I was an anti-vaxxer, Bronco, I said I wasn't going to get it because I don't need it, I'm immune to the virus and practically everything else, it's a gift. I have a VERY aggressive immune system and I don't want to take any chances on fucking it up by letting them inject me with some experimental vaccine I don't need. I may get it anyway, being unvaccinated is starting to interfere with my travel plans, and I'm not more scared of what the vaccine might do to my immune system than I am disappointed that I won't get to travel to Germany in February to reunite with an old Air Force friend and go catch a Wolf Alice show unless I get the damn thing.

Far as vaccines for everyone else, I mean, good luck with that. Seems like every time some high-profile Covid case hits the news these days it's someone who was fully vaccinated, so I'm not really seeing it as effective, and I'm also not convinced the vaccine itself isn't what's pushing the virus into so many different mutations. I mean if it weren't encountering resistance why would it mutate?

I can hire or fire anyone I want but that's because I live in Utah which is an at-will employment state - meaning the employment contract can be broken by either party at any time for any reason, or no reason, without repercussions. Tennessee likewise. Can't speak for any other states because I've never owned businesses there.

I'm gonna leave the BBB for another time, maybe later today or maybe tomorrow, I'm heading outdoors this afternoon and there's so much horseshit in that bill it's a project to parse it all out. But yes I certainly think it bears a good hard look and a post of its own.

[Stavros]

Mark Meadows wants to claim 'Executive Privilege' to avoid giving evidence to the House Committee investigating the attack on the US on Jan 6th, yet has written a book which discusses those very same things, and many others which he might claim are covered by 'Executive Privilege' -does this mean he is, in the words of his Boss- "fucking stupid" -?

[filghy2]

Far as vaccines for everyone else, I mean, good luck with that. Seems like every time some high-profile Covid case hits the news these days it's someone who was fully vaccinated, so I'm not really seeing it as effective, and I'm also not convinced the vaccine itself isn't what's pushing the virus into so many different mutations. I mean if it weren't encountering resistance why would it mutate?

Don't know much about history
Don't know much biology

Mutations are just random variations in the genetic code that occur when it is replicated. The mutations that prosper are the ones that offer some advantage in survival and reproduction. The more the virus is spreading, the more mutations will occur, and the more the likelihood that some will be harmful. That is why the problematic mutations are originating from poor countries where vaccination rates are low (the latest one from Southern Africa). If your hypothesis was correct, they would be originating mainly from countries with high vaccination rates.

As for your other claim, the latest data show that unvaccinated people are nearly 6 times more likely to be infected than fully-vaccinated people, and 14 times more likely to die.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tra...vaccine-status

But why look anything up when you can just invent some shit in your own mind. You really are a determined idiot.

[filghy2]

If you don't believe this is true, why do you think his approval ratings are historically low?

Actually, Biden's net approval rating is still well above Trump's at the same stage of his Presidency, and better than what Trump got over most of his term.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...proval-rating/