Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - cherrypoptart

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 24
1
General Comments / Re: How to save the country
« on: October 16, 2020, 12:30:15 PM »
Maybe it's just me but it seems like the only time it's convenient to talk about making big changes like packing the court, getting rid of the electoral college, adding new states, instituting term limits for the Supreme Court, and so on is when the left has lost some of their power. If Hillary had won would we be having these conversations?

Maybe the thing to do is to live with it.

If Democrats want to try to go nuclear again I suppose that's their prerogative, but it didn't work out so well the last time.

2
I love a good conspiracy theory but I'm not ready to invest in this one yet. I'll need to look into the prospectus a little more first.

3
General Comments / Re: Why so cagey?
« on: October 14, 2020, 05:47:56 AM »
If you're trying to keep up on your pc make sure to throw "sexual preference" out of your vocabulary.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/amy-coney-barrett-apologizes-being-221403092.html

Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono criticized Barrett's comment during her questioning time on Tuesday evening.

"Sexual preference is an offensive and outdated term. It is used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice. It is not," Hirono said. "Sexual orientation is a key part of a person's identity."

Barrett suggested that she didn't realize the term was offensive.

"I certainly didn't mean and would never mean to use a term that would cause any offense in the LGBTQ community," Barrett said. "If I did, I greatly apologize for that."

LGBTQ-rights groups and others pointed out on Tuesday that the correct term is "sexual orientation" and that anti-LGBTQ advocates often use "preference" to falsely suggest that a person can select their orientation.

"This is a dogwhistle," Lambda Legal, a top LGBTQ-rights legal-advocacy organization, tweeted. "The term 'sexual preference' is used by opponents of equality to suggest that being #LGBTQ is a choice."

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not seeing how the word "orientation" is any better or more accurate though and won't be surprised when that gets thrown out some day as well. We'll see a steady progression of terms as one after the other outlive their political correctness just like we do with terms seeking to describe people who have some ancestors who came from Africa, which is also not that great a way to put it either as it describes everyone if the theory that we all came out of Africa is correct.

Literally speaking, you can change your orientation just as well as your preference so insisting on one word over the other doesn't make a lot of sense. There is no sense of immutability regarding the word orientation.

"o·ri·en·ta·tion  the determination of the relative position of something or someone (especially oneself);
    "the child's surroundings provide clues to help in orientation", the relative physical position or direction of something."

Not to mention that Biden used the same term and nobody seemed to have a problem with it, just like when he demonstrated his racism by mispronouncing his running mate's name that was okay too.

4
General Comments / Re: Biden Undercuts Confidence in Election Results
« on: October 13, 2020, 06:49:15 PM »
"Are you really trying to argue that the country should not safeguard the election from foreign influence..."

Attacks and hacking are one thing. Of course we should have safeguards against illegal activity. And foreign money too.

But Facebook ads? If I wanted to take out a Facebook ad to support a Russian politician would that be illegal? Should it?

There is nothing wrong or illegal with foreigners trying to "influence" our elections. Or with Americans trying to influence their elections. Telling the truth is one of the most powerful ways to influence people. What's wrong with Russians telling the truth about America, at least as they see it? Or engaging in political satire? Or even just trolling?

From the UN Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Fake news maybe? Like the Pizzagate thing? A powerful cabal of the elite engaging in sex trafficking with minors? How does that not precisely describe Epstein and his island? Sure that pizza place had nothing to do with it but there was a sex trafficking operation going on that catered to the powerful and elite.

Going back to the original premise and how people wanted it admitted that Trump called the integrity of our elections into question first, I'll admit that. He did. And with good reason too. There's a long history of corruption and fraud.

And if Democrats are outraged at the charges that's good too. It's heartening to see the outrage.  Maybe if there's enough of it then it might eventually lead to them doing more to expose and stop voter fraud instead of figuring it's all part of the game and only fair to compensate for the fraud and disenfranchisement conducted by the Republicans.

5
General Comments / Re: Biden Undercuts Confidence in Election Results
« on: October 13, 2020, 05:50:54 PM »
I had actually been thinking more to do with the JFK vs. Nixon election in which Johnson's massive voter fraud in Texas helped him steal the election.

Not sure how great this source is but the story is familiar enough.

https://rangevoting.org/PresFraud.html

"Kennedy's election in 1960 over Nixon involved heavy fraud in Illinois and Texas. (If Nixon had won those two states, he would have won the presidency.) As examples of ballot box stuffing: In Texas's Angelina County, in one precinct, only 86 people voted yet the final tally was 147 for Kennedy, 24 for Nixon; in Fannin County the 4895 registered voters cast 6138 votes (75% for Kennedy). Discarded spoiled ballots were to be placed by Texas law in "ballot box 4" for later re-examination, but many counties (e.g. Fort Bend County, which had a huge 16% spoilage rate, topping even the worst Florida 2000 County) just discarded them, and did not store them, making any biased discarding decisions uncorrectable and unprovable. The 100%-Democrat Texas Election Board refused to conduct a recount, so game over."


That's already just history. I don't know anyone who disputes that Johnson stole Texas in that election and that there was massive voter fraud.

Illinois was also apparently interesting in that election:

"Kennedy carried Illinois by 8858 votes thanks to a 456,312-vote advantage in Chicago, whose precincts reported their totals remarkably late. (Compare this with Kennedy's nationwide victory margin of 118,574.) The "turnout" in Daley-machine Chicago was a spectacular 89%. This contrasts with the nationwide turnout of 63%. It also contrasts with the fact that in the 11 presidential elections during 1960-2000, totalling 550 statewide contests, not once did any state ever exceed 1964 Utah's 78.4% turnout, and the states with the largest-% turnout were always rural (namely North and South Dakota, Utah, Minnesota, and Maine), not urban."

More massive voter fraud and the only consequence was victory and power.

I hope this doesn't come off as sounding too racist but since it's having to do with Russians maybe it's politically okay. But the Democrats act a lot like Russians in this way. The more they cheat and lie and steal to get what they want the greater the satisfaction they feel when they win. Not all of them of course, but it's ingrained in their culture, maybe even in their DNA. To them, deception is the funnest part of the game. Do I mean Russians? Or Democrats? ... Yes.

6
General Comments / Re: Biden Undercuts Confidence in Election Results
« on: October 13, 2020, 06:32:09 AM »
https://news.yahoo.com/democrats-silence-court-packing-could-224944478.html

I'll also posit that packing the court is tantamount to not accepting the results of the election, at least not accepting them in any meaningful way as it relates to the history of our country.

Biden's silence on packing the court tells everyone that he refuses to accept the results of the 2016 election and would essentially overturn that result by adding justices to the Supreme Court. And that goes for every Democrat who refuses to denounce this court packing scheme. That's just bragging about refusing to accept the results of the election, at least in the way any reasonable person understands it.

Of course they'll accept the results of any election they win, and by their own words it's obvious they intend to abuse any power they manage to acquire to ensure that the next election they win is the last real election America ever has. Just like any good banana republic.

7
General Comments / Re: Biden Undercuts Confidence in Election Results
« on: October 13, 2020, 04:52:05 AM »
What is this sacred cow about the necessity to have confidence in our election results?

Isn't it pretty much a proven and accepted fact that Lyndon Johnson engaged in massive voter fraud in Texas to steal the election there?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_13_scandal

https://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/11/us/how-johnson-won-election-he-d-lost.html

That wasn't even the voter fraud I was referring to but that one's another slam dunk and it also highlights the problem of how the politicians get away with it. The only apparent repercussions for voter fraud are victory and power.

And if anything the problem over the years has gotten even worse, not better. We are less able to detect voter fraud than we've ever been and there is also less inclination to look for it, from the Democrats certainly. Why look for problems that don't exist, right? There is also no apparent inclination among Democrats to do anything meaningful to prevent voter fraud before the elections or cancel fraudulent votes afterwards. Why fix what isn't broken?

After four years of Democrats calling into question the integrity of our elections because of Russian "interference", now all of a sudden we're supposed to not call them into question just because all the polls indicate Biden is going to win?

And when Trump states the obvious that's unacceptable but when Biden says something just as bad if not even worse then that's excused.

The thing that undercuts election results is voter fraud and the fact that it's rewarded. Our country has a long history of it and that history repeats itself over and over, without exception, every single election.

And this mantra about needing to have confidence in the integrity of our elections and accept the results goes for Democrats only when they expect to win. As soon as they lose all that goes out the window and it's "Marsha, Marsha, Marsha, Russia, Russia, Russia, fake news, the election was stolen, we don't accept the results, and the integrity of the election was compromised."

Having said that, we should try to do the best we can to have our elections. I don't think we're really doing our best though. But in any case there really isn't much help for it but to do what we can and keep going. But that doesn't mean we need to put on our rose colored glasses and pretend that reality isn't what it is.

8
General Comments / Re: Messages from Joe Biden
« on: October 11, 2020, 08:08:09 AM »
The guy is a gold mine.

And people talk about Trump lying...

"Hell, I might be president now if it weren't for the fact I said I had an uncle who was a coal miner. Turns out I didn't have anybody in the coal mines, you know what I mean? I tried that crap — it didn't work."

    The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (2004-07-28)

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joe_Biden


9
General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: October 11, 2020, 06:54:56 AM »
Well the Taliban just spoke out about Trump and he got their ringing endorsement.

https://www.jpost.com/us-elections/the-taliban-officially-endorse-trumps-reelection-bid-645292

I wonder what Biden's plan on Afghanistan is. It seems like at least back in the day he and Trump agreed on more than they didn't.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/us/politics/trump-joe-biden-afghanistan.html

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-biden-afghanistan-policy-090007515.html

To judge from his campaign website, Biden’s approach to Afghanistan has changed little since he argued for the CT-lite option in 2009. “Biden will end the forever wars in Afghanistan and the Middle East, which have cost us untold blood and treasure,” reads the brief reference to Afghanistan on the website. “As he has long argued, Biden will bring the vast majority of our troops home from Afghanistan and narrowly focus our mission on Al-Qaeda and ISIS.”

Trump says much the same thing. “We are ending the era of endless wars,” he told cadets graduating from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., in June. “It is not the duty of U.S. troops to solve ancient conflicts in faraway lands that many people have never even heard of.”

It's nice when people can agree on something.

10
General Comments / Messages from Joe Biden
« on: October 11, 2020, 04:44:09 AM »
As putative front runner and like Hillary pretty much a sure thing to be our next President, Joe Biden deserves his own thread to reflect on his statements, unlike the voters who don't deserve many things including whether or not he intends to pack the Court.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-says-voters-don-t-170433889.html

"Joe Biden on Friday again refused to state whether he would attempt to pack the Supreme Court if elected president, saying in an interview that voters “don’t deserve” to know his position on the issue."

Is this guy joking? Because that's hilarious!

11
General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
« on: October 10, 2020, 02:49:50 AM »
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-attacks-moderator-second-debate-170817141.html

"President Donald Trump decried on Friday the planned moderator for the erstwhile second presidential debate over a Thursday night tweet that the moderator claims he did not send.

A post to C-SPAN anchor Steve Scully’s Twitter account on Thursday asked Anthony Scaramucci, the onetime White House communications director for Trump who’s since become an ardent critic of the president, “should I respond to trump” in a since-deleted message. Trump and his allies quickly pointed to the social media message as evidence that Scully is biased against the president."

------------------------------------------------------------

Sure accounts get hacked but doesn't it stretch credulity just a little bit that someone would hack his account and that's the message they'd send?

Also, I'm not sure if anyone here has noticed but the message boards on yahoo have been disabled for some time now. That's clear manipulation by the media because the posts there often pointed out the clear bias and false information and refusal to dig deep on stories or even dig a little bit when the information wasn't conducive to the various narratives the media choose to convey.

12
"Once we've reached that, people will flock to the streets and resume their lives.  Because it would be safe.  The desire for personal safety is what has shut down the economy.  Bring that back, and we can start the economic recovery in earnest."

What worked for them will not work for us because of one crucial difference. We have a wide open border with nearly a hundred thousand people illegally crossing it every month without so much as a forehead scan temperature check.

And I haven't seen a single Democrat yet suggesting anything other than opening up the border to illegals even more.

13
General Comments / Re: Town halls and debates 2020
« on: October 08, 2020, 05:43:03 AM »
Could it be that either of the candidates for Vice President would be better choices for the next office up than the two guys running for it now?

14
That's one way to look at it. Another is that revenue has gone up every year under Trump.

https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762

Fiscal Year   Revenue
FY 2021   $3.86 (estimated)
FY 2020   $3.71 trillion (estimated)
FY 2019   $3.46 trillion (actual)
FY 2018   $3.33 trillion
FY 2017   $3.32 trillion
FY 2016   $3.27 trillion

15
Are tax cuts to the wealthy the important thing though when revenues to the Treasury increase every year?

If tax cuts to the wealthy resulted in a drop in revenues then yeah I could see that being a huge problem but when the revenues go up even with the tax cuts, and some would argue they go up precisely because of the tax cuts and actually might, counter-intuitive as it is, go down with tax increases, doesn't that indicate the problem is not the tax cuts but instead it's the spending?

No matter how much more money the government takes in from taxes, they blow it all and then some. In fact, it looks like when they take in a little more they spend a lot more. Like someone who gets a $1000 a year raise on their salary and so gets a bunch of new credit cards and racks up another $25,000 in debt.

16
So apparently Trump is getting the VIP treatment with his care and that makes people upset.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/vip-syndrome-trump-discharge-walter-reed-expert-164959783.html

"Alfandre noted that while “VIP” may imply these individuals receive better treatment, many times it’s the opposite. “In spite of these perceived benefits, the quality of their care may be inferior because health care staff may be more likely to deviate from standard practices when caring for them.”

Reports about Trump’s care, which have come mostly from press briefings, suggest an atypical experience. On top of being released after three days in the hospital, while still in the midst of treatment, he’s reportedly received multiple experimental treatments — including the antiviral remdesivir, an unapproved monoclonal antibody therapy and a corticosteroid known as dexamethasone. The three are rarely (if ever) given together and are typically reserved for serious illness.

McIntosh says all of this aligns with VIP syndrome, which can lead to both too much and too little care...

... “We have an ethical code of conduct we have to follow whereby we’re told to respect patient autonomy, to treat everybody equal and not to differentiate care based on somebody’s race, gender or socioeconomic status,” says McIntosh. “So we’re being told really to practice unethically.” Currently teaching her students about the dangers of the syndrome, McIntosh hopes that things may change. But when it comes to individuals like Trump, she knows what it feels like.

“The health care team listens to them, they feel intimidated, and that’s part of the VIP syndrome — they use their power,” says McIntosh. “They use it to exert pressure on the team and say, ‘This is what I want and no, I don’t want this.’ If they don’t want this X-ray, they won’t get it. If they want to get this discharged early, then they’re getting discharged early. They dictate their care.”

So people should listen to and trust their doctors, right?

But then there's this:

"A recent Johns Hopkins study claims more than 250,000 people in the U.S. die every year from medical errors. Other reports claim the numbers to be as high as 440,000.

Medical errors are the third-leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/22/medical-errors-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-america.html






17
General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: October 06, 2020, 12:05:07 PM »
This might be what's called in legal jargon "proximate cause" with the "but for" test.

But for Reid's use of the nuclear option for lower court appointments, the filibuster would still exist for Supreme Court appointments.

If Reid hadn't done away with the filibuster for the lower courts, the Republicans would never have done away with it for the Supreme Court.

Whether that's true or not nobody can ever know for sure but it's a firmly held belief by just about all Republicans. Do Democrats believe that even if Reid hadn't gone nuclear with his pre-emptive strike on the lower courts, the Republicans still would have ended the filibuster for the Supreme Court? Would the Republicans have done it just for the Supreme Court and have left it in place for the lower courts or done away with both? The proximity in timing though certainly supports the assertion that one event lead inevitably to the other and it wasn't just a random coincidence.

18
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: October 05, 2020, 07:39:01 PM »
Costco has a nationwide mando-mask policy. Of course that's a company not a government. Texas has a statewide mando-mask policy still in effect though there was some confusion about it recently. There are some caveats to it but basically masks are required where they should be required.

I don't agree with the voluntary mask policies and we've been over why many times. The masks don't protect the person wearing it. And without eye protection there's even less protection from an asymptomatic maskless superspreader. As we saw in South Korea, it only takes one person to infect thousands.

In my opinion asking for voluntary compliance is useless during a pandemic. I don't even agree with the exceptions made for people who have trouble breathing being allowed to go maskless. Their trouble breathing doesn't do anything to prevent them from spreading the virus. I guess I'm a hardliner when it comes to this so will have to just have a difference of opinion with many conservatives on this one issue. As the saying goes, "Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose Begins." And that's where Covid-19 often first attacks, right in the nose, and more dangerous than a swinging fist too.

I don't know the details on the Michigan court cases but from a quick reading it looks like the problem is she requires legislature cooperation for such orders now and since they are Republicans who disagreed with her she didn't have it. If they had agreed with her then she would have been okay. A higher court may yet rule in her favor. Governors generally have broad powers during pandemics like this, as they should. The Republican legislature may have successful limited hers and that's their prerogative. It would be nice if we could all agree on the same course of action but that doesn't often happen. Just like Democrats won't agree to limit illegal immigration during a pandemic by stopping their sanctuary city and state policies that act as incentives and invitations.

19
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: October 05, 2020, 06:18:45 PM »
Should borders have been secured in response to Covid-19 in March?

Or was it okay to have it basically business as usual with our CDC saying that restricting travel to America was racist and xenophobic and unnecessary to contain the virus while travel even between states was being closely controlled and monitored by governors such as in New York?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/vp-pence-ordered-borders-closed-131917300.html

Did Pence do the right thing in closing the borders?

It seems to me we were getting hit with deadly Covid policies from both parties with the Democrats wanting to maintain open borders without travel bans for instance on China and Trump along with his so called health experts early on at least saying don't wear masks.

"We're from the government and we're here to help."

20
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: October 04, 2020, 04:21:59 PM »
As far as comportment goes, Pence is basically the diametric opposite of Trump. If power is handed over to Pence I think we'll quickly see the truth of the hatred against Trump. The vast majority of it is just political and it wouldn't matter which Republican was up there. Any one of them would be vilified, pilloried, and laden with hate. A lot of the hate against Trump sounds personal, and people who hate him certainly feel it's personal, but my contention is that deep down it's really just business. If it's Pence or anyone else up there and the knives all come out just the same, just like they did with Reagan, Bush, McCain, and Romney, that'll prove my point.

21
Is there any difference at all between a white supremacist and someone who wants limits on immigration and for it to be a controlled process?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/oct/1/enrique-tarrio-says-proud-boys-not-white-supremaci/

"Enrique Tarrio insists that the Proud Boys aren’t White supremacists, and he would be in a position to know. For one, he’s the international chairman. For another, he’s Black."

Anyone not for open borders is a racist. In fact, they are a white supremacist. What if they are black, Latino, or both? Doesn't matter. Still a white supremacist. Like the Jews who worked with Hitler who were still Nazis I guess. Maybe Enrique Tarrio was made an honorary white or something.

That seems to be the tact the left is taking. That goes for all Trump supporters too. Racists and white supremacists. Just like Trump himself so of course it's practically a tautology that anyone who supports a racist white supremacist is a racist white supremacist. Who was it who said something about if you keep repeating a lie often enough and loud enough the people will start to believe it? That's what our so called media does all the time. And politicians like AOC.

The exact same immigration policies that Democrats including Hillary supported during the Clinton years are now classified by Democrats and their media mouthpieces as racist and white supremacist.

"We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our im migration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."

-- President Clinton
1995 State of the Union


https://clintonwhitehouse1.archives.gov/White_House/Publications/html/briefs/iii-7.html

Bill Clinton's point plan: protect American jobs, deport, assist states, deny public benefits.

But now all of a sudden that's racist white supremacy.

22
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: October 02, 2020, 06:13:48 PM »
It's interesting that he is apparently prescribed a daily aspirin. That's what I took when I thought I had it and I believe it helped out a lot. What's interesting is that I haven't seen that suggested in the news for people generally. The vast majority would be fine with a daily or even every other day chewable baby aspirin with or without symptoms for the next year or so until this thing dies down. Since inflammation is one of the main problems and aspirin works well as an anti-inflammatory this seems like a no-brainer. Of course some people have adverse reactions and long term it may raise the risk of internal bleeding but I have to wonder if this would have been widely suggested much earlier perhaps some people could have avoided the very bad outcomes they experienced. Of course always check with your doctor and all that but it seems like a very low risk possibly high reward situation.

23
General Comments / Re: Town halls and debates 2020
« on: October 02, 2020, 03:21:33 PM »
I suppose the debates may sway a lot of voters but the problem is they both have records now and just taking them at their word regarding want they want to do combined with what they've already done it's difficult to see why people don't already have a favorite. The issues are pretty clear and there is a huge difference between the two on all of them. Supreme Court, taxes, government regulation, environment and climate change and pollution, abortion through the Supreme Court nominee if necessarily Trump's personal opinion,  the border and immigration with another 2000 migrants lining up to make a rush for it, Covid-19 where you have your choice between fast, perhaps too fast, openings and on the other hand you have that open border and travel restrictions being racist and xenophobic so kind of between a rock and a hard place, and there's law enforcement, the military, and so on. It could be a smaller list as to what the two sides agree on compared to where they differ. Perhaps people are still weighing the different approaches to the issues themselves or maybe it is just all about personality.

24
General Comments / Re: read any good books lately?
« on: October 01, 2020, 03:59:54 PM »
This all reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where George wants to listen to the audiobook version because he doesn't like the sound of his own voice in his head when he reads.

Spoiler Alert (maybe):

"George has to give a lecture on risk management (because his résumé gives the impression that he is an expert on the subject), but he finds that he can't study for it because books on tape have spoiled him. When George discovers the blind can get any book on tape, he intentionally fails an eye test so he can get his book on tape."

Not sure if this is a spoiler but as usual it doesn't work out quite the way he planned. After all, their readers are volunteers, not professionals.

25
General Comments / Re: read any good books lately?
« on: October 01, 2020, 05:54:12 AM »
For audiobook performers, the people I've liked best are Roy Dotrice with The Game of Thrones series, Marc Thompson who read Solo, John Glover who read Star Wars Red Harvest, and The Flight of The Eisenstein read by Jonathan Keeble. Red Harvest was alright but it doesn't stand out that much for me but Glover's performance was memorable. All of the other books were good and the narrators were excellent. Thompson did Wookie voices and his Woody Harrelson voice made me wonder if they had actually gotten Harrelson to dub in his own dialogue for a while there. I remember Dotrice standing out so much that when I started listening to one of the later books that was done by another narrator I stopped and looked it up to see what was going on and found that Dotrice had been brought in afterwards to do his version of it too because of fan demand so I got that one and listened to it and was a happy camper.

Of course I can't neglect Stefan Rudnicki who did Ender's Game. If you've only read the book and have never listened to the audiobook, I'd recommend it and Mr. Card recommended it in the audio format as well.

26
General Comments / Re: read any good books lately?
« on: September 30, 2020, 06:40:36 PM »
I only ever listen to them while I'm lifting weights or walking on my treadmill or outside or once recently I  listened to a couple (Solo and The Force Awakens) on my iphone speaker while riding my bicycle behind a strip mall just doing laps. I don't think I could just sit down and listen to one and have that be all that I'm doing but if there's just some repetitive exercise I'm engaged in that I don't have to think about at all an audio book is just the thing to distract me so I don't think about the exercise.  I like to think of it as working out the mind and body. I listened to the whole Game of Thrones series like that a few years ago too. My nephew says he can't get anything out of it that way so I guess it works for some but not everyone.

27
General Comments / Re: read any good books lately?
« on: September 30, 2020, 06:27:46 PM »
I listened to the Anathem audiobook when someone recommended it here a while back and really enjoyed it  so I can third that recommendation.

28
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: September 30, 2020, 05:51:51 PM »
I liked the genetic sleuthing part of it but yeah after that it kind of rambled.

29
General Comments / Re: Town halls and debates 2020
« on: September 30, 2020, 04:12:09 PM »
I can't say if Trump's performance helped him with the undecideds. To be honest, I'm having trouble getting into the mindset of someone who is still undecided. The issues are so obvious and the differences between the candidates and their agendas so stark and in contrast that it's really hard for me to imagine someone still not being sure of what they want. It's like maybe they just woke up from a coma or something and are just now getting filled in on what's going on. I can't fathom it.

If I had to guess I'd say people who really are still undecided probably are so because the underlying issues don't matter to them so much and that's why they make up their minds based on personalities and impressions so for many of those types of people Trump's sandpaper personality will work against him but I suppose some of them, perhaps a lesser number, might actually like it. Overall a positive for Biden.

On mistakes, I mean name just one that Biden admitted. Trump basically admitted his on the mask issue.

30
General Comments / Re: Town halls and debates 2020
« on: September 30, 2020, 03:43:42 PM »
Looking at the issues, the Democrats and Biden in particular aren't doing much to encourage conservatives to vote for them. The only encouragement they offer with help from Trump is Trump's personality. Obviously, it just grates on some people. Just looked up "grates" to make sure I used it correctly and it gave me a great description for Trump. He's got a "sandpaper personality".

The thing about Biden is he and his handlers apparently think that admitting any mistakes is weakness. Trump called Biden out on not wanting travel restrictions. Biden couldn't admit he was wrong. All he could do was call Trump out on masks. Biden is right about the masks. I've said that since the very beginning. Trump was wrong and so were our so called experts who told people not to wear masks but Trump sort of admitted it and pulled out his mask. Biden refused to admit he was wrong about the travel restrictions.

Trump also called Biden out on the individual mandate. Biden couldn't debate it's constitutionality but just pointed out that getting rid of Obamacare would hurt people. I think Trump is right about Obamacare. It's clearly unconstitutional. The leftists on the Supreme Court ignored the Constitution the way they usually do. Roberts contorted the law to be a tax when it was specifically not passed as a tax. So Biden refused to address the main point. There is no power in the Constitution that grants the federal government the right to make it illegal for citizens not to buy a product from for-profit corporations. Trump was also right about the public option being the camel's nose under the tent to get rid of private insurance and also about how premiums are way too high. Biden wasn't persuasive about how regardless of what so many others in the Democrat Party are saying, Biden IS the Democrat Party. Please... nobody is buying that. I happen to agree that the public option is better than Obamacare. At least it's Constitutional. And it wouldn't have to end private insurance either. But Biden isn't being realistic about how he's in charge of the agenda. Biden's always been more of a yes-man than a true leader and there's little to no doubt that he'd be a rubber stamp on anything that came out of a Democrat controlled Congress.

Biden also didn't make a lot of sense about keeping businesses open by giving them money for protective gear. For many businesses there isn't a good way to operate safely regardless of protective gear. Gyms, dine-in restaurants, movie theaters, cruise lines, air travel, and so on. The hard choice on many of them is either to live with the risk of some people dying or have the businesses go out of business. Or just give them money to keep them solvent until it's over which would be too expensive.

As for the style, I thought that being able to turn off their mics wouldn't be a bad idea either. It wouldn't have to be disrespectful. Just going into the debate everyone knows that the rules are setup so when it's the other person's two minutes then one of the mics is shut off during that time.

On issues, whatever Trump's personality there is a huge gap in the issue-divide between Democrats and Republicans.





32
General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 27, 2020, 12:22:30 AM »
Exactly.

And I'll also note that Obama gave the Republicans nothing to lose.

If Hillary won we would have gotten nobody substantially different from the guy Obama nominated.

However, if Obama had allowed the Republicans the opportunity to provide some of the "advise" part of "advise and consent" in the nomination process and nominated someone maybe the Republicans would be okay with even if it wasn't a Kavanaugh, then the Republicans would have had a little bit to gain instead of just nothing to lose. Obama played hardball. He gambled on what he thought was a sure thing. He lost.

33
General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 27, 2020, 12:06:49 AM »
So it gets back to the problem of the judiciary being so political that there isn't one justice that both sides would be happy with, or at least could stomach, having up there. Sure Mitch said that but we'll never know what could have happened if Obama would have been willing to negotiate because he never tried. For example, he could have asked Mitch, publicly or privately, to provide a list of names of people Republicans wouldn't mind seeing on the Supreme Court. Then Obama and the Democrats could have looked that list over, long and hard, to try to find someone on there that they could live with. Or turn it around and Obama floats a bunch of names and asks the Republicans if there is anyone at all on it that they'd be okay with. Maybe there really is nobody both sides could live with because everyone is so political and that really proves that our judicial system is a joke, completely arbitrary and capricious and subjective, depending on the personality of the judges and justices to determine the law instead of having any truly objective measure.

34
General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 26, 2020, 10:15:59 PM »
I understood that to be a qualification even if they didn't say it outright. Others apparently understood there to be no qualification even if they also didn't say it outright.

It wouldn't surprise me if Trump wins and the Democrats win the Senate and another seat immediately opens up if they do exactly that, wait until the next election even if it's four years later.  But that's generally when you get your more moderate justices like Kennedy, when you have a split government.

The things the Democrats are talking about now are even more extreme than that. Impeaching Trump again for doing his job of nominating a justice. Packing the court. Getting rid of the lifetime term of the justices.


The mainstream media touted Garland as a moderate but that's debatable. Part of the process with a opposite party controlled Senate involves compromise. Obama should have floated a few more names, run them up the flagpole, and looked to see if any of the Republicans in the Senate would be willing to salute any of his choices. Instead Obama did his typical thing along the lines of his philosophy of "You can ride with us if you want, but you got to sit in the backseat." And of course his classic, "Elections have consequences."

35
General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 26, 2020, 03:36:54 PM »
It looks like the torch will be passed to Amy Coney Barrett. She looks very well qualified and seems to be a great person as well.

36
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: September 24, 2020, 03:46:12 PM »
Just a good article that makes a lot of sense especially about the false dichotomies and the layered defense approach.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/09/pandemic-intuition-nightmare-spiral-winter/616204/

Just one example of many the article highlights.

"Showiness is often mistaken for effectiveness. The coronavirus mostly spreads through air rather than contaminated surfaces, but many businesses are nonetheless trying to scrub and bleach their way toward reopening. My colleague Derek Thompson calls this hygiene theater—dramatic moves that appear to offer safety without actually doing so. The same charge applies to temperature checks, which can’t detect the many COVID-19 patients who don’t have a fever."


37
General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 22, 2020, 07:11:49 PM »
But are they saying we should wait until after the election because Republicans control the Senate and the President is a Democrat or do they mean that in any case no matter who controls what no Supreme Court nominee should get a vote within a year of an election?

There is no hypocrisy in what most of them said. We shouldn't hold the vote now and should wait until after the election. That in itself is not hypocritical if it's understood that the reason is because Republicans control the Senate. That's just common sense.

Isn't it true that most of time when that type of situation came up, Senate of the opposite party as the President and an open Supreme Court seat in an election year, that the issue wasn't resolved until after the election? Like 80% of the time?

Not that past precedent means much anymore, to anyone. As I'm sure the Republicans will all remind everyone, "that was then and this is now." And I'm just as certain the Democrats will be saying the same thing when they're back in charge.

38
General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 22, 2020, 04:48:49 PM »
Only a handful of Republicans said specifically that they disagreed with voting on a nominee just because it was close to an election. Rubio is one who's comment really puts him in a box here.

Mother Jones has a good recap on what they said:

https://www.motherjones.com/2020-elections/2020/09/a-long-list-of-gop-senators-who-promised-not-to-confirm-a-supreme-court-nominee-during-an-election-year/

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term — I would say that if it was a Republican president .”

So that leaves him essentially no wiggle room to get out of his own hypocrisy trap.

Some were vague on precisely why they were opposed to a confirmation vote and Cornyn specifically mentioned the divided government, President of one party and Senate of the other.

"...Confirming a new Supreme Court Justice during a presidential election year for a vacancy arising that same year is not common in our nation’s history; the last time it happened was in 1932. And it has been almost 130 years since a presidential election year nominee was confirmed for a vacancy arising the same year under divided government as we have today."

I"m not seeing where Graham made the same commitment as Rubio either.

"Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election”

If they don't specifically say like Rubio did that they oppose confirmations in an election year as a general rule then such an assumption that they do is stretching it when a more reasonable conclusion is that they don't support confirmations when they have a majority in the Senate and don't have to support or even vote on the nomination of the opposite party's President but if it was there own party's President it's a matter of course that they'd vote and confirm.

39
General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 22, 2020, 12:02:44 PM »
I don't suppose there is any chance that a nominee like the wishy-washy somewhat middle of the road Kennedy could get any support from Democrats, could she? Sure Trump may be able to ram through a hard core conservative but is there any middle ground available here, anyone the Democrats might be able to go along with that the Republicans could also support?

You know that gets back to the issue of the arbitrary, capricious, and totally political nature of our judiciary. It seems like there is no underlying foundation that supports their decisions. I mean each justice has their own underlying foundation but for all of them together, and the judiciary as a whole, there isn't one. It's all personal. The proof is how many split decisions there are on the Supreme Court and the lower courts, decisions divided strictly along party and ideological lines. That much being open to interpretation and personal opinion really seems to fly in the face of any claim to consistency or predictability in our system of laws.

40
General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 21, 2020, 07:52:48 PM »
Thinking again about principles it's interesting that none of the Democrats are holding to their own here. None of them are saying, you know what, yeah we did get cheated out of a Supreme Court justice but when we said that the President did deserve to have his choice voted on in the Senate, we meant it. And now we're going to prove it by insisting that Trump's nominee get her vote just like Garland should have. And next time when the situation is reversed again we hope the Republicans will remember our magnanimity. I mean we don't even hear a few Democrat voices calling out from the wilderness with something like that even knowing that the Democrats in charge wouldn't let it fly so there is nothing to lose by standing by their so called principles, the ones they insisted on before. That's interesting. Fairly predictable but still interesting. Everyone's supposed principles seem to only exist when they provide a tangible benefit and are advantageous, both for Democrats and Republicans.

Democrats: "So uh... yeah. You Republicans didn't really believe any of what you were saying about how nominations shouldn't be done during an election year now did you?"

Republicans: "Well you got us there. I guess we really didn't. But you Democrats never did believe any of what you were saying either about how even in an election year a nominee deserves an up and down vote, did you?"

Democrats: "Nope."

41
General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 20, 2020, 11:11:18 PM »
A nice article here with lots of quotes from the various players.

https://news.yahoo.com/pelosi-wont-rule-impeachment-delay-145600524.html

Pelosi refused to rule out impeaching Trump for the total non-crime of nominating a Supreme Court justice.

Schumer suggests an openness to expanding aka packing the Court.

Obama apparently doesn't see the irony in his statement, "A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment." That's exactly what the Democrats are doing here, applying rules they don't even agree with because of what's advantageous in the moment.

That goes for Bill Clinton's statement too: "Today it seems that Senator McConnell has lost his faith in the judgment of the American people and wants to hurry up and put somebody on the court." So Bill Clinton is saying that Obama and the Democrats including Pelosi had lost faith in the judgment of the American people when they wanted to hurry up and put Garland on the court? Knowing history makes his premise preposterous.


McConnell made the most sense when he said that, "there was not a contradiction in his two stances because the Senate and White House were under control of differing parties at that time, where as now Republicans control both. In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia's death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president's second term," he said in a statement. "We kept our promise. Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president's Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year."

Exactly so.

And does anyone deny that the Democrats would do anything in their power to put their person in no matter what?

Just like this observation in the article: "Republicans countered that if Democrats held both the White House and Senate, they too would move forward with a nomination — regardless of circumstance."

Truer words were never written.

And the talk about packing the Court? So if Republicans win the House, Senate, and Presidency maybe they should put a hundred justices on the Supreme Court, or a thousand, or a million? Down that path lies insanity.

42
General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 20, 2020, 09:22:45 AM »
That I agree with. No doubt the Republicans who took that position back then and are changing it now because their guy is President are hypocrites. I understand the Democrats on that and fully concur. But I see at least a few of them being a little bit misleading now and acting like they've changed their minds too when they really haven't.

43
General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 20, 2020, 07:40:17 AM »
Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but Democrats have NEVER been in favor of waiting until after an election to decide on a new Supreme Court justice. Even Justice Ginsberg said that Garland should get his vote in the Senate. Democrats still feel that seat on the Supreme Court was stolen from them. None of them have ever indicated that if the situation came up again they'd be in favor of waiting until after the election.

I was going to say that's hypocrisy but technically, I'm not so sure. It seems like it's just a little off from that.

hypocrisy - a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel. The definition of a hypocrite is a person who pretends to have certain beliefs, attitudes or feelings when they really do not.

Are Democrats even pretending to believe in what they are preaching? I don't know.

Do they really believe that justices shouldn't be decided upon until after an election when it's coming up soon?

Or have they never even said that's what they believe and instead only insist that we wait this time because they feel the Republicans cheated them out of Garland, because a few Republicans said last time they believed in not deciding so close to an election, and just because it's to their political advantage right now?

It's not hypocrisy when you don't believe in something at all, you insist loudly and vociferously that you are completely opposed to it, and yet you also insist that the other guy abide by rules you detest anyway. Is there a name for that?

44
General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 19, 2020, 07:55:54 PM »
I don't know about lying. That all depends on which voters they were respecting. They delayed out of respect for Republican voters. Totally true. Yes it was purely partisan. No doubt. That's why they were elected, to be partisan and do a good job for the people who voted them into office. The Democrats do the same thing for their own voters. It did no damage to a co-equal branch of government. Congress isn't a rubber stamp for the President. Maybe if Obama had nominated someone more middle of the road that person would have gotten a vote and even confirmed. Sure he can try to ram through a hard leftist but there is no reason the Republicans in the Senate have to allow a vote then. If the Democrats feel so strongly about it which of them is proposing a Constitutional Amendment to make sure the same rules apply for everyone all the time? I wouldn't be in favor of such an Amendment but it seems like the Democrats want to have it both ways. Hypothetically again, if Hillary had won and the Democrats had the same majority in the Senate the Republicans do now, would the Democrats hold off until after the election to put in the new Supreme Court justice? Of course not. They don't even say they would. Never have said anything so absurd. And good for them. And yet that's the standard they want to hold the Republicans to?

If they want that to be the standard then it can't apply just to one party. It can't just apply to the Republicans. How would that make any sense? How would that be fair? Why would Republicans allow such a thing?

45
General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 19, 2020, 07:24:56 PM »
"If we can't even ask the Republicans to live up to the standards they themselves set"

What's so absurd about asking people to live up to your own standards when your own standards are lower than theirs?

How do Democrats have the nerve to insist on Republicans doing what the Democrats refused to do?

And what they don't even say they're going to do in the future?

I fail to see the source of the outrage. Like when an atheist goes to Amish country and just walks up to an elderly Amish man and slugs him, hard. Then the Amish man hits the guy right back. And the guy is outraged. Outraged I tell you! How dare he?! How dare that Amish man not live up to his own standards? What is the world coming to?

Like with McCain and public financing again, hypothetically if McCain had backed out of it after Obama did and then Obama and the Democrats and the media acted all shocked and outraged. After all a man's word is his bond. McCain made a promise and he should stick to it. We need to hold him to the standards he set himself. And then someone points out that Obama did the same thing and they say that's just whataboutism. That's Obama. We're talking about McCain here. Don't change the subject. Is he a man of his word on not? Can't we even ask and expect him to live up to the standards he himself set?

Maybe Democrats should be flattered. I don't off hand recall the arguments they made for Merrick deserving his up or down vote in the Senate but apparently after a few year's worth of reflection and consideration those arguments are finally persuasive. The Democrats have convinced the Republicans that the Democrats were right. Congratulations?

46
General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 19, 2020, 07:04:25 PM »
"Ignoring for a minute the moral/ethical aspects of filling RBG's seat prior to the next administration taking over..."

According to the Democrats there are no moral or ethical problems with it.

Sure some Republicans had a problem with it when it was Merrick but since when did Democrats ever care about Republican morality?

This seems like another situation where Democrats try to use Republican morality/ethics/religion against them all the while the Democrats don't share any of it like when non-Christians try to use religion against Christians.

To be sure, there is something to be said for holding people to their own standards but there is also something to be said for not holding people to standards higher than your own, like when Obama and McCain both promised a Presidential campaign with public financing and then Obama reneged but McCain stuck to it and in the Presidential race was a loser. The cynic might think Obama could have planned that all along so McCain is stuck either being a liar like Obama or sticking with his word and public financing and losing. Just like the cynic might think that the Democrats while being willing to do anything to win and fighting no holds barred for power turn right around with a straight face and remind the Republicans that they promised to fight with both hands tied behind their back. Needless to say the Republican voters are sick of it which is why they picked a dirty fighter like Trump. Losing with grace is still losing and winning by throwing sand in the other guy's face is still winning. Democrats have always been dirty fighters, just like the Obama public campaign finance trick illustrates. The kicker is that while fighting dirty they act outraged when the other guy uses some of their own tricks. Goose meet gander. Pot meet kettle. And karma bow and dance. Needless to say it's quite amusing to see the Democrats getting hoisted by their own petard.

47
General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 19, 2020, 03:38:00 PM »
But the Democrats don't agree with that "rule" do they? Which Democrat was it again that supported the Republicans not allowing a Senate vote on Merrick?

So now the Democrats want a so called rule followed even though they vehemently disagree with it? How does that make any sense?

As for Harry, remember who pushed the button on the nuclear option? When you start a war you don't always get to decide how and why it ends. If Harry hadn't started it then it wouldn't have ended up with his idea applying to the Supreme Court too. That's right. I said it. He started it! (And Mitch finished it.)

If the Republicans held off on the appointment this time and next time when the positions are reversed would the Democrats hold off too?

I may have been born at night but it wasn't last night. I don't even hear any Democrats making such a pledge.

The whole idea that just because it's close to the next elections we need to wait for the voters to decide makes no sense anyway. I agree with the Democrats on that. The voters in the last election have just as much right to have their voices heard on the new Supreme Court nominee as the voters in the next election. And I don't recall ever saying anything to the contrary.  My understanding is the rule is always "power rules". If you have the power, you make the rules. If one party has the Presidency and the Senate they get to decide on the new justice for the Supreme Court. If one party has the Presidency and the other has the Senate then it's up for grabs. If the party with the Senate can hold on until after the election then that's just the way it is. If they can't because the election is too far out then that's how that goes too. Are there any Democrats who say any different or are they all just hanging their hats on holding the Republicans to a position the Democrats not only disagree with but would never hold to themselves?

Now admittedly some Republicans did say that. But they work for the voters and the voters are telling them to get that nomination done.




48
General Comments / Re: read any good books lately?
« on: September 18, 2020, 07:38:54 PM »
I didn't read this lately but I did like one off the beaten path a bit when I was a teen called Anvil of the Heart by Bruce Holmes. About ten years ago I looked him up on the internet and bought his music cd for a dollar for the shipping cost from him directly and even though it's not generally the kind of music I listen to I liked it anyway as it offered a further connection to the author. I remember one thing about the book and that is the running. Now that I'm getting back into running since the gym is out it made me remember.

49
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: September 18, 2020, 08:00:30 AM »
That really would have been nice to have those masks early on. We see so many times that the people in charge are always trying to "handle" the public because they fear a panic more than anything else. Even on 9-11 there were idiots on bullhorns at the towers saying don't panic, don't leave the building, go back to your desks. Everything will be fine. That's our government though on so many issues.

Going back to the anonymous testing one more time, ideally by now we'd have tests at home that would cost a dollar and give quick results like a pregnancy test. I don't see how that would be any different than allowing people at the drive-thru sites to receive their results anonymously too. Even if you didn't know exactly who tested positive you'd know how many people in a given area tested positive which would be very useful information that we're not getting enough of now. People would also be more likely to get tested just because of the convenience. You're driving around and you pass by a testing site so you just drive up and get tested, no registration or appointment required, and it takes less time than the drive-thru line at the In and Out Burger. And if people want to give their information that's incentivized by taxpayer funded medical services to pay for any Covid-19 treatment required. Trying to control it with an iron grip like we are now is giving the same result Leia warned Tarkin about, "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more Covid-19 information will slip through your fingers."

50
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: September 17, 2020, 11:38:03 AM »
The point is a lot of people aren't going to get themselves tested because they aren't willing to go into the full quarantine but if they knew they had it they'd be more careful about their conduct. I mean you're right that if they aren't going to violate their quarantine then they don't have to worry about it. The corollary is that if anyone is hesitant about getting themselves and maybe their families and even some of their friends and coworkers quarantined then their best bet is just not to get tested. And they won't. So how does that help?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 24