Making sense of the current political climate

Discuss everything else: politics, society, culture, science, philosophy, ideas, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
yettee
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 641
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1847
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: Minoxidil

Making sense of the current political climate

#24303

Post by yettee » 1 month ago

Greetings. So...
Rudiger wrote:
1 month ago
This is how I'd generalise the typical fan of identity politics, you've actually jumped straight to giving me reasons Mattis would potentially lie about feeling this way, without given me his actual reasons for stating it in the first place. Why does your logic work like that? Why don't you consider what points he's actually making, see if they are reasonable or not, and then if it appears to be total nonsense, ask questions as to why someone would lie about it or be biased. Until I know more specifically about what he's saying, I don't care, I wouldn't give it the time of day.

A few days ago we were talking about masks, and I gave you actual reasons why I thought coronavirus was different from a normal flu, and why it was important to take certain measures, for example

yettee wrote:
1 month ago
where I'm from in the US, doctors were completely overwhelmed for weeks, nursing homes were decimated, and everyone knows people or knows of people who became very ill and died. Many health care workers have died, grocery store workers, bus and train employees, and the numbers are still rising... Not at all a normal flu season. Robust testing, social distancing including widespread mask use, and contact tracing, help. Countries that have empoyed these strategies and continue to do so now have low rates of deaths and infections and economies that are getting back on track. As opposed to the chaotic mess of the US and Brazil.

Your entire response to me was

Rudiger wrote:
1 month ago
Sorry I just had to stop reading already at this point.

You didn't like my comment about masks, OK. I don't really care, but I'm mentioning it to point out that we were discussing a topic, in depth, with "reasons" being explained, and you did to me exactly what Afro did to you. I have no problem making an assertion and trying to defend it, but it often ends in being ignored or insulted here, and so I don't do it often anymore.

So I decided to ask a different kind of question.

Part of the reponse here to anyone not supporting the president has been to criticise who they are. Evil, liars, stupid, snowflakes, Trump derangement syndrome, SJW, Jewish, minority, screeching autistic, moron, communist, funded by Soros, libtard, "deep state", etc. It's a very long list. You did it to me in your response to my question above and called me a "typical fan of identity politics".

But now the criticism of the president, comparing his actions to those of a Nazi (!) is from his own former Secretary of Defense, not a "screeching autistic". And he is also being contradicted by the current Sec of Defense about the potential use of the military, a huge thing. And other top military are speaking against Trump too. This is huge and unprecedented stuff. Here's a FOX link, as I know it's one of the only sources that won't be immediately dismissed as "fake news" here, but it's being covered everywhere, and his full comments are easy to find. Fox is biased to the right, some other news sources are biased to the left, I'd suggest just reading the comments verbatim. But here:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- ... orge-floyd
"Tensions have exploded in recent days between President Trump and a batch of current and former military officials who are critical – to varying degrees – of how he's handled the unrest in the wake of George Floyd's death in the custody of the Minneapolis Police Department.
The officials, including Trump's current Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, his former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis and several others, have either implicitly broken with Trump in statements on policy or explicitly denounced his leadership"

Here's another, just released as I was writing this.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52931133
"very troubling", "dangerous"

So top current and former military men in the USA, including 4 star generals, are now harshly criticizing Trump in a manner unseen before in the US. The reasons are clearly connected to his actions both in the past week and throughout his presidency. Mattis is making a judgement about the man, it's in his statement. I know you would disagree with the judgement and would defend Trump... hes not divisive, his actions and statements over the past week and presidency have been appropriate, etc. That's fine, I respect your opinion. I myself might not agree with everything they say, Afro says, or what anyone says. However I'm curious about something else. Several former cabinet members and current and former top US military have come out with extraordinarily harsh, unprecedented criticism of a sitting US president. None of those dismissive labels like evil, liar, stupid, snowflakes, SJW, autistic, Jewish, minority, screeching autistic, moron, leftist, communist, funded by Soros, libtard, etc, work here. So I'm curious, when his own handpicked top-level cabinet and 4 star marine generals make statements like Mattis and the others... but in particular this exceptional one from Mattis... when "screeching autistic" doesn't fit, and it sure doesn't fit 4 star generals... how do you explain it or understand it? What's the motivation? Are they for example in the "deep state"? Or...?

User avatar
Admin
Forum Administrator
Forum Administrator
Posts: 2021
Joined: 2 years ago
Reputation: 5139
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: 3 FUE hair transplants (5124 grafts), 5% minoxidil, Nizoral shampoo, hope.
Location: Belgium
Age: 30
Contact:

Making sense of the current political climate

#24304

Post by Admin » 1 month ago

@yettee, if you were in Trump's shoes, how would you go about attempting to restore law and order? If not first threatening to send the National Guard and then actually send it, what would you do? What efficient alternatives are there here?
:christian-cross:

User avatar
kj6723
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
Posts: 382
Joined: 2 years ago
Reputation: 895
Norwood: NW1.5
Regimen: dutasteride, minoxidil, nizoral

Making sense of the current political climate

#24305

Post by kj6723 » 1 month ago

blackg wrote:
1 month ago
That's right. Fully automatic rifles (machine guns) are illegal for civilian use.
You can get them legally, but it’s a pain in the ass. They have to be manufactured before 1986, so since there’s a limited number of those in circulation you need like $10k+ to blow on them

User avatar
blackg
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2182
Joined: 2 years ago
Reputation: 4045

Making sense of the current political climate

#24306

Post by blackg » 1 month ago

kj6723 wrote:
1 month ago
You can get them legally, but it’s a pain in the ass. They have to be manufactured before 1986, so since there’s a limited number of those in circulation you need like $10k+ to blow on them
I would happily pay $10.000 on a Vietnam era M16-A1. A piece if American history right there.

Anyway, can you help me with this question: are bump stocks totally illegal or is that just more misinformation I read on Aljazeera?

For anyone who doesn't know, bump stocks or bump fire stocks are gun stocks that can be used to assist in bump firing. Bump firing is the act of using the recoil of a semi-automatic firearm to fire ammunition cartridges in rapid succession, but with a loss of accuracy.

Edit: I just did some research. As of March 2019 bump stocks are illegal.
Source wikipedia:

The final rule states that "bump-stock-type devices" are covered by the Gun Control Act, as amended, which with limited exceptions, makes it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machine-gun unless it was lawfully possessed prior to 1986. Since the bump-stock-type devices covered by this final rule were not in existence prior to 1986, they would be prohibited when the rule becomes effective.[15] The ban went into effect on March 26, 2019, by which owners of bump stocks were required to destroy them or surrender them to ATF, punishable by 10 years imprisonment and $250,000 fine.[15]
VIVA LAS VEGAS!

User avatar
yettee
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 641
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1847
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: Minoxidil

Making sense of the current political climate

#24307

Post by yettee » 1 month ago

Admin wrote:
1 month ago
@yettee, if you were in Trump's shoes, how would you go about attempting to restore law and order? If not first threatening to send the National Guard and then actually send it, what would you do? What efficient alternatives are there here?
Good question and obviously a complicated situation. But... OK if I were the prez...

I'd support strong action by the police against looters. And I'd criticize the looters.

I'd draw a big and public distinction between the peaceful protesters, of which there are many, and the looters. I'd express empathy with the aims of the protesters, and I'd ensure that they are given all the leeway, and more, that the constitution guarantees them to protest. No peaceful protesters would be moved by force. And for sure not by using smoke cannisters and pepper balls in advance of a photo op.

Protesters who are violent with other protesters or the police, of which there are a significant number, should be prosecuted. There are plenty of videos like that that have been posted here. At the same time, police and other people that are violent with peaceful protesters would be prosecuted, and as prez I'd vocally encourage both. There are tons of videos of the latter circulating too. I watched a video of a man assault a little girl for holding flyers, another one in which a man assaults students for posting flyers, another one in which police push over an old man and he lies on the ground bleeding, and another in which police assault a reporter holding obviously nothing but a camera, just today. As president, I'd criticize both protesters and police who are out of line. This is crucial. DOMINATE is not the message that is going to calm the situation, nor is a history of doing things like insisting that a black man and president born in the USA is a lying foreigner, or calling countries of dark skinned people "shithole countries" in an attempt to ban immigration from them while promoting immigration from Nordic countries. Any statement I made promoting the possible use of the military in American cities would be with full prior consultation with the military and secretary of defense, to avoid the total shitshow of having both publicly contradict me and call me dangerous, and worse.

Anyway, I don't know, and I'm no 4 star general :) . But that's my quick stab at it, since you asked. I know there's much disagreement here, for whatever it's worth I respect that and I have no claim to a monopoly on truth. But I do get interested when 4 star generals start putting out dire warnings and making unprecedented statements regarding the fitness and actions of the sitting US president.

User avatar
blackg
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2182
Joined: 2 years ago
Reputation: 4045

Making sense of the current political climate

#24309

Post by blackg » 1 month ago

yettee wrote:
1 month ago

I'd support strong action by the police against looters.
You see this is where things get a little hazy. How this policy plays out in a real life situation could make you change your mind.

Added in 6 minutes 29 seconds:
yettee wrote:
1 month ago
.. another one (video) in which police push over an old man and he lies on the ground bleeding.
That old man was then picked up by another policeman.
VIVA LAS VEGAS!

User avatar
yettee
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 641
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1847
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: Minoxidil

Making sense of the current political climate

#24310

Post by yettee » 1 month ago

blackg wrote:
1 month ago
You see this is where things get a little hazy. How this policy plays out in a real life situation could make you change your mind.

Added in 6 minutes 29 seconds:

That old man was then picked up by another policeman.
Nothing you added here is a negation of anything I said, but yeah, true on both counts, G. Policing is tough, and there's good and bad out there.

Guest-2
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1189
Joined: 2 years ago
Reputation: 2523
Norwood: NW1.5
Regimen: Topical minoxidil and finasteride

Making sense of the current political climate

#24314

Post by Guest-2 » 1 month ago

Admin wrote:
1 month ago
@yettee, if you were in Trump's shoes, how would you go about attempting to restore law and order? If not first threatening to send the National Guard and then actually send it, what would you do? What efficient alternatives are there here?
That's the interesting thing..'Trump's shoes', not 'if you were president'....because the truth is Trump can't do anything else other then use brute force. He's not capable of it. Especially with black and brown people who he has 0 credibility with.

Houston, Texas police chief


NYPD Chief (national guard cant do this)

C4L
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 286
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 588
Norwood: NW7
Regimen: none
Location: India
Age: 40

Making sense of the current political climate

#24316

Post by C4L » 1 month ago



americucks
Russians must save Europe from the racist liberal elite.

User avatar
Rudiger
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1347
Joined: 2 years ago
Reputation: 3773
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: Finasteride, RU58841, minoxidil, Biotin, Dermarolling, Nizoral

Making sense of the current political climate

#24317

Post by Rudiger » 1 month ago

C4L wrote:
1 month ago


americucks
It's so ridiculous, next they'll rename it The Black House.
yettee wrote:
1 month ago
Greetings. So...

A few days ago we were talking about masks, and I gave you actual reasons why I thought coronavirus was different from a normal flu, and why it was important to take certain measures, for example

Your entire response to me was

You didn't like my comment about masks, OK. I don't really care, but I'm mentioning it to point out that we were discussing a topic, in depth, with "reasons" being explained, and you did to me exactly what Afro did to you. I have no problem making an assertion and trying to defend it, but it often ends in being ignored or insulted here, and so I don't do it often anymore.
I had asked you twice how long the masks and social distancing should go on for, your half-hearted eventual response in your first sentence was "A few months isn't forever" which was incredibly frustrating. My whole point was, if you're saying it's not a big deal to wear a mask and practice social distancing, and I was pointing out that we will now have Coronavirus forever, like the flu and cold, so where does it end? My point was that by your logic if people die by the cold or flu, then we've always been committing murder by walking around without masks.

In a few short words you managed to completely bypass all of these points, so I apologised and said I can't read past this (which I genuinely didn't) and when quoting you I deleted the rest of your response in the hope you'd realise why, are you honestly saying that's the same engagement level as me posting direct rebuttals to several of Afro's points, and his only response being "TLDR"? Do you actually think that's the same thing?

The point is you weren't explaining your "reasons" you were intentionally changing the topic away from a difficult crisis in your logic, Afro however stated points, some of them were fucking insane, I pointed this out and he intentionally belittled me in order to ignore his own insane comments. I said to you that I was sorry, but I can't read any further past this, hoping for the slim chance that you'd realise I quoted your first sentence, and then reflect on what you are actually saying with the logic you're sticking with.

On that topic I've already asked you if you can stand by your Upvotes of Afro's post, in which he brought up reasons that Trump is destroying America such as decreasing life expectancy, do you?

But no, with the masks we went back and forth a few times, and your last response proved I was getting absolutely nowhere and you weren't even trying to consider my point and instead repeating yourself or simply moving off topic.

And what a surprise, the same thing is happening again, as below...
yettee wrote:
1 month ago
So I decided to ask a different kind of question.

Part of the reponse here to anyone not supporting the president has been to criticise who they are. Evil, liars, stupid, snowflakes, Trump derangement syndrome, SJW, Jewish, minority, screeching autistic, moron, communist, funded by Soros, libtard, "deep state", etc. It's a very long list. You did it to me in your response to my question above and called me a "typical fan of identity politics".

But now the criticism of the president, comparing his actions to those of a Nazi (!) is from his own former Secretary of Defense, not a "screeching autistic". And he is also being contradicted by the current Sec of Defense about the potential use of the military, a huge thing. And other top military are speaking against Trump too. This is huge and unprecedented stuff. Here's a FOX link, as I know it's one of the only sources that won't be immediately dismissed as "fake news" here, but it's being covered everywhere, and his full comments are easy to find. Fox is biased to the right, some other news sources are biased to the left, I'd suggest just reading the comments verbatim. But here:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- ... orge-floyd
"Tensions have exploded in recent days between President Trump and a batch of current and former military officials who are critical – to varying degrees – of how he's handled the unrest in the wake of George Floyd's death in the custody of the Minneapolis Police Department.
The officials, including Trump's current Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, his former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis and several others, have either implicitly broken with Trump in statements on policy or explicitly denounced his leadership"

Here's another, just released as I was writing this.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52931133
"very troubling", "dangerous"

So top current and former military men in the USA, including 4 star generals, are now harshly criticizing Trump in a manner unseen before in the US. The reasons are clearly connected to his actions both in the past week and throughout his presidency. Mattis is making a judgement about the man, it's in his statement. I know you would disagree with the judgement and would defend Trump... hes not divisive, his actions and statements over the past week and presidency have been appropriate, etc. That's fine, I respect your opinion. I myself might not agree with everything they say, Afro says, or what anyone says. However I'm curious about something else. Several former cabinet members and current and former top US military have come out with extraordinarily harsh, unprecedented criticism of a sitting US president. None of those dismissive labels like evil, liar, stupid, snowflakes, SJW, autistic, Jewish, minority, screeching autistic, moron, leftist, communist, funded by Soros, libtard, etc, work here. So I'm curious, when his own handpicked top-level cabinet and 4 star marine generals make statements like Mattis and the others... but in particular this exceptional one from Mattis... when "screeching autistic" doesn't fit, and it sure doesn't fit 4 star generals... how do you explain it or understand it? What's the motivation? Are they for example in the "deep state"? Or...?
Thanks for wasting my time as I did go to the trouble of reading what Mattis wrote from about 4 different sources (I think the original was The Atlantic which I also read and they included the full statement) and I learned, practically nothing. It was 99% rhetoric and vague accusations, exactly what I expected it to be. I'm actually completely baffled here, I pointed out how you are doing nothing but pointing out a General is criticising Trump, and I said whatever, what did he actually have to say? What points did he make that make you concerned?

And all you've done is further pointed out that he and others are criticising Trump, like I just said before, I can give you my theories as to their motivations (deep state or whatever) if I think there are any, but more importantly, if I think what they're saying is significant or there's valid points to refute. Unfortunately again you have not provided any actual specific points, and actually I think you're doing this intentionally now. You're simply repeating that we should be concerned because Mattis is, I'm going to ask one more time, why? What has he specifically said that makes you worried?

This is why I sometimes get frustrated and outright tell you I'm ignoring what you're saying, you divert away from the point, you double down in the oddest of ways, and you frankly don't deserve a reasoned response. It's not that you're defending your assertions so competently, it's that you are blatantly avoiding the topic. In this case (I don't want to repeat myself but I really have to, otherwise you'll keep going off in tangents and posting more pointless news stories) I wanted to know why you just seem to think the fact that a senior figure is criticising Trump is more important than the arguments he's actually making, and what do you do? Tell me about how even more senior figures are criticising Trump, and therefore I have to be concerned.

You've again pointed out all their concerns, without telling me specifically what they're concerned about, it's ridiculous.

Like I said before, if we're going to play this game of "status" winning over arguments, then you have to shut up and simply listen to your elected President, and even when he's wrong, he's the fucking President, more important than some General. OK?

The only part of Mattis' statements that was of any substance was about the army removing peaceful protesters near the White House, I actually have an alternative take on what happened there however I won't say it yet because firstly, I have only heard this from hear'say, I have no sources, and secondly, I don't want to distract you further from the point I'm making. If I reply with anything at all about Trump's bible photo op, you'll completely forget about Mattis and focus on more diversions.

This being said, even if that's a valid point, to compare it to Nazi Germany or Hong Kong? That's insane.

You even just post the article and almost like a parody in this context, you simply quote the scary words used "very troubling", "dangerous", what are you proving here? I am specifically asking for some actual reasons, and I said I don't appreciate pointless buzz words, and then you write this?

I do find it hilarious that you have this long list of dismissive labels like stupid, liar, screeching autist etc and how they don't work with relation to Mattis, but you're therefore implying they are actually appropriate for you? What the hell? By the way I can absolutely call James Mattis a stupid evil liar, if he is in fact being a stupid evil liar, you haven't given me reason to think anything about him apart from the fact he vaguely dislikes Trump, has all the typical bland and noble "hot takes" on Trump we've been reading about from (probably recently fired) Liberal journalists:

“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us” - I would absolutely love to know how James Mattis can claim Trump is intentionally trying to divide people. I agree he says divisive things, he has said some incredibly stupid things and they have divided people, anyone can claim Trump is incompetent at unifying people, fine, but how can anyone argue he's doing it intentionally?

Let's even just say it's an opinion that can be strongly backed up by evidence with tweets or things Trump says, this is still an opinion, there is literally no way of factually proving the Presidents internal intentions. However, it's a fairly short statement at only several paragraphs, if Trump is so unspeakably worrying, should he not have something more factual and obvious to come out with?

If you really want to know I have a lot to say as to why Trump is so openly criticised but I don't want to go there until you tell me something about why you're so concerned about Mattis or Esper or whoever, criticising Trump, apart from the fact that they are some important army guys. And also I don't want you to now start going way off topic putting words in their mouth or "well the reasons are obvious why they'd be concerned...", and giving me a list of things that you find personally worrying about Trump, which they did not say.

I really want to understand how someone can simply just read another persons (regardless of status) statement saying something or someone is bad or very worrying, dangerous etc, and you just trust that person like you can't think for yourself. You don't seem to approve of me dismissing you as a typical fan of identity politics, but how did you prove this point wrong? By further telling me "lots of important people hate Trump so you need to be worried right! Here's a link to even more of them!" you just proved my point even more.

(I do realise by the way this isn't the typical form the term "identity politics" would take on, but to me it's the same logic)

From my previous post, I want to know specifically what they said which means I should be concerned.

Actually y'know what, on second thought just fuck it don't even bother, it would be meaningless by now anyway as my main point isn't just what Mattis wrote or whether there was any valid reasons in his letter (and as I've now read it all anyway there's even less point of you scrambling together reasons) it was that you blindly just assumed he has to be correct, or at least told me that I should be concerned, just because a senior figure is, without being able to express any actual concerns which is what really changes minds.
Look, fat...

User avatar
yettee
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 641
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1847
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: Minoxidil

Making sense of the current political climate

#24340

Post by yettee » 1 month ago

Rudiger wrote:
1 month ago
I had asked you twice how long the masks and social distancing should go on for, your half-hearted eventual response in your first sentence was "A few months isn't forever" which was incredibly frustrating. My whole point was, if you're saying it's not a big deal to wear a mask and practice social distancing, and I was pointing out that we will now have Coronavirus forever, like the flu and cold, so where does it end? My point was that by your logic if people die by the cold or flu, then we've always been committing murder by walking around without masks.

In a few short words you managed to completely bypass all of these points, so I apologised and said I can't read past this (which I genuinely didn't)
OK, well then, um, I accept your apology? Thank you.

I see you wanted more on this point. OK, sure. I think people should wear masks while in confined spaces without free air flow (stores, offices etc) until the level of transmission of the virus in an area is lower than some low pre-defined number. If the R0 is less than one then the virus is on the downswing rather than rising. So something like R0 or a point less than that. I don't think masks should necessarily be mandated by law, but I think it's good practice for people to wear them in confined spaces if the virus is still spreading and thousands of people are dying. And I think that's obvious, frankly.
Rudiger wrote:
1 month ago
On that topic I've already asked you if you can stand by your Upvotes of Afro's post, in which he brought up reasons that Trump is destroying America such as decreasing life expectancy, do you?
I went back and checked, I guess you're talking about this post?

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=82&hilit=expectancy ... 560#p24225

I mean, sure, I "stand by my upvotes". As has been discussed a lot here, giving "upvotes" isn't saying "I agree with every word of this post". And to be honest I don't care who upvotes what, whatever. But these upvotes seem to bother you. OK, looking at his post, I think I gave the upvotes because this resonated with me: "It is clearly just a few lines in Bernie's platform. I've explained this to you before, but even if I hadn't it wouldn't matter as I'm sure you understood this on your own when you were 15 years old at the latest. Political platforms don't matter. What matters is what people do when they're in power." I'm not a Bernie supporter and I also wouldn't want open borders. I also wouldn't completely agree that political platforms don't matter, I think they do matter, to an extent. However indeed candidates say a lot of stuff during campaigns that they know has no chance of becoming reality. Trump did, the centerpiece of his campaign was the huge wall that would run the length of the US/Mexico border and that Mexico would be paying for. Another was the $3 trillion infrastructure bill that would fix the nations crumbling bridges and highways. Where are these things? They don't exist, and it was absolutely clear they never would. There are very modest changes to the wall and there's nothing at all on infrastructure. So I think these kind of statements during campaigns often point to a general direction that a candidate wants to take if elected (more/less immigration, more/less wall) but on the details, in reality will clearly never be fully implemented.
Rudiger wrote:
1 month ago
And all you've done is further pointed out that he and others are criticising Trump, like I just said before, I can give you my theories as to their motivations (deep state or whatever) if I think there are any, but more importantly, if I think what they're saying is significant or there's valid points to refute. ... You're simply repeating that we should be concerned because Mattis is, I'm going to ask one more time, why?
It may be more important to you, but it's not my question. I am exactly interested in your "theories as to their motivations (deep state or whatever)". And I mean, not even in a combative way. This doesn't have to be so complicated. I'm just interested in what you think, on that point. No, I'm not saying that you should be concerned because Mattis and the other generals are, and I understand you don't agree with their criticism of Trump. I asking you specifically about what you think about their motivation for making it. For example, could they be in the "deep state"? Can they not handle Trump "draining the swamp"? Or....? What do you think might be their motivation, given that these men can't just be dismissed as communists, orange man bad NPC drones, or "screeching autistics"? However clearly you don't want to answer this question. You're just making up stuff and being personal and insulting like
Rudiger wrote:
1 month ago
I really want to understand how someone can simply just read another persons (regardless of status) statement saying something or someone is bad or very worrying, dangerous etc, and you just trust that person like you can't think for yourself.
In fact I said the opposite:
yettee wrote:
1 month ago
I know you would disagree with the judgement and would defend Trump... hes not divisive, his actions and statements over the past week and presidency have been appropriate, etc. That's fine, I respect your opinion. I myself might not agree with everything they say, Afro says, or what anyone says. However I'm curious about something else.
Etc. You wrote about why he/ they are wrong in their incredibly harsh assessment of Trump. I'm not asking about that, my question is very clear. So,
Rudiger wrote:
1 month ago
Actually y'know what, on second thought just fuck it don't even bother, it would be meaningless by now anyway as my main point isn't just what Mattis wrote or whether there was any valid reasons in his letter (and as I've now read it all anyway there's even less point of you scrambling together reasons) it was that you blindly just assumed he has to be correct, or at least told me that I should be concerned, just because a senior figure is, without being able to express any actual concerns which is what really changes minds.
Again, I'm not assuming anyone is correct, I'm asking what you think is their motivation. But I agree with you, fuck it. However if you'd like to simply and clearly answer the question, as I did above for your questions about why I gave the upvotes and what I think sensible mask guidelines should be, for whatever it's worth I'd be interested to hear what you have to say.

User avatar
Rudiger
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1347
Joined: 2 years ago
Reputation: 3773
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: Finasteride, RU58841, minoxidil, Biotin, Dermarolling, Nizoral

Making sense of the current political climate

#24362

Post by Rudiger » 1 month ago

yettee wrote:
1 month ago
OK, well then, um, I accept your apology? Thank you.

I see you wanted more on this point. OK, sure. I think people should wear masks while in confined spaces without free air flow (stores, offices etc) until the level of transmission of the virus in an area is lower than some low pre-defined number. If the R0 is less than one then the virus is on the downswing rather than rising. So something like R0 or a point less than that. I don't think masks should necessarily be mandated by law, but I think it's good practice for people to wear them in confined spaces if the virus is still spreading and thousands of people are dying. And I think that's obvious, frankly.



I went back and checked, I guess you're talking about this post?

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=82&hilit=expectancy ... 560#p24225

I mean, sure, I "stand by my upvotes". As has been discussed a lot here, giving "upvotes" isn't saying "I agree with every word of this post". And to be honest I don't care who upvotes what, whatever. But these upvotes seem to bother you. OK, looking at his post, I think I gave the upvotes because this resonated with me: "It is clearly just a few lines in Bernie's platform. I've explained this to you before, but even if I hadn't it wouldn't matter as I'm sure you understood this on your own when you were 15 years old at the latest. Political platforms don't matter. What matters is what people do when they're in power." I'm not a Bernie supporter and I also wouldn't want open borders. I also wouldn't completely agree that political platforms don't matter, I think they do matter, to an extent. However indeed candidates say a lot of stuff during campaigns that they know has no chance of becoming reality. Trump did, the centerpiece of his campaign was the huge wall that would run the length of the US/Mexico border and that Mexico would be paying for. Another was the $3 trillion infrastructure bill that would fix the nations crumbling bridges and highways. Where are these things? They don't exist, and it was absolutely clear they never would. There are very modest changes to the wall and there's nothing at all on infrastructure. So I think these kind of statements during campaigns often point to a general direction that a candidate wants to take if elected (more/less immigration, more/less wall) but on the details, in reality will clearly never be fully implemented.



It may be more important to you, but it's not my question. I am exactly interested in your "theories as to their motivations (deep state or whatever)". And I mean, not even in a combative way. This doesn't have to be so complicated. I'm just interested in what you think, on that point. No, I'm not saying that you should be concerned because Mattis and the other generals are, and I understand you don't agree with their criticism of Trump. I asking you specifically about what you think about their motivation for making it. For example, could they be in the "deep state"? Can they not handle Trump "draining the swamp"? Or....? What do you think might be their motivation, given that these men can't just be dismissed as communists, orange man bad NPC drones, or "screeching autistics"? However clearly you don't want to answer this question. You're just making up stuff and being personal and insulting like



In fact I said the opposite:



Etc. You wrote about why he/ they are wrong in their incredibly harsh assessment of Trump. I'm not asking about that, my question is very clear. So,



Again, I'm not assuming anyone is correct, I'm asking what you think is their motivation. But I agree with you, fuck it. However if you'd like to simply and clearly answer the question, as I did above for your questions about why I gave the upvotes and what I think sensible mask guidelines should be, for whatever it's worth I'd be interested to hear what you have to say.
OK I don't have any theories as to why Mattis would say that, is that acceptable? I have no idea, so let's move on.

Now that this is established, what about Mattis' words do you find so troubling and worrysome?
Look, fat...

User avatar
rclark
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1428
Joined: 2 years ago
Reputation: 2076
Norwood: NW4
Regimen: Finasteride 1mg topical, Progesterone 2% (22mg daily), Minoxidil 15% hair growth only).
Using 1.5 mm needle on all bald/balding areas weekly.

Making sense of the current political climate

#24395

Post by rclark » 3 weeks ago

This is a bad time for President Trump to break with the WHO.

Especially considering the fact that in the Fall, it is very possible there will be more
deaths than this winter in the United States.

Although the coronavirus can be killed with ultra violet light, the nights are going
to eventually get longer in the Northern Hemisphere.

Unfortunately breaking with the WHO, and not allowing mail in votes for the 2020 election,
are probably going to cost people their lives.

User avatar
yettee
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 641
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1847
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: Minoxidil

Making sense of the current political climate

#24397

Post by yettee » 3 weeks ago

rclark wrote:
3 weeks ago
Unfortunately breaking with the WHO, and not allowing mail in votes for the 2020 election,
are probably going to cost people their lives.
Ya, it seems that people may have been infected recently in Wisconsin during the election, mail in is safer.... and of course public acrimony at the top level of the military is not a good thing and an indication of discord there, no matter how you view it.

User avatar
rclark
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1428
Joined: 2 years ago
Reputation: 2076
Norwood: NW4
Regimen: Finasteride 1mg topical, Progesterone 2% (22mg daily), Minoxidil 15% hair growth only).
Using 1.5 mm needle on all bald/balding areas weekly.

Making sense of the current political climate

#24399

Post by rclark » 3 weeks ago

yettee wrote:
3 weeks ago
Ya, it seems that people may have been infected recently in Wisconsin during the election, mail in is safer.... and of course public acrimony at the top level of the military is not a good thing and an indication of discord there, no matter how you view it.
It's almost impossible to understand. Voter fraud can happen the way the system is designed now, and it has happened
before.

Where I live, we just have to sign a signature, right next to the one we signed when we last voted. Any person can forge
a signature. In fact, I even made mine different, just to see if it would cause suspicions. Most of the volunteers were in their
sixties, seventies, and even eighties.

On the other hand, mail in vote requires a specific image/scan of where they live, and their living residence address. We can see
where it came from, the first and last name of the person, and it appears to have more identity information.

I am applying for mail in vote, and there are some steps you have to do to apply for it. It is very traceable.

Trump is saying that it is too easy for voter fraud?

There are Republicans in my township, which before 2018, was always Republicans, who are running as Democrats now. They also
tried to vote out displaying their party during voting. The two Democrats of the five member board blocked that.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post