Wednesday, August 17, 2022
Random Stuff
https://winteryknight.com/2022/08/17/uk-gender-clinic-to-be-sued-by-1000-families-who-regret-transforming/
Presumably the people are run this clinic, and provide these medical procedures are "medical experts", how could this go so horribly wrong?
https://thepostmillennial.com/california-gender-clinic-treats-patients-as-young-as-2-years-old
No, absolutely no one is starting young children down the road to transitioning genders. It's simply not happening. There are "experts", and "best practices", and "guidelines", and all sorts of things...
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)01487-8/fulltext
Because Monnkey Pox is a threat to everyone. Why exactly hasn't the CDC or other medical experts called for people to limit the activities that seem to be the most realated to it's spread?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-passports-fbi-search-mar-a-lago/
With a legal system predicated on the concept of innocent until proven guilty, where the court might ask someone who's been charged with a crime to surrender their passport as a condition of recieving bail, how is federal LE justified in simply taking someone's passport? Especially since the warrant didn't specify passports as something they were looking for.
TULSI GABBARD: (D HI) "When you look at permanent Washington, you look at all the different hands that are involved. And as we're seeing this whole situation play out over the last couple of weeks, we see very prominently placed is the national security state and the mainstream media. And you've outlined some of these changing narratives and new information when they see the old piece of information wasn't quite having the impact that they wanted. It's hard not to be skeptical when you look at their tactics and their timing to really question what their motives are. To leverage their power and their influence. To have an impact on these midterm elections that voters will be going to vote at in just a few weeks. And to do what they have already stated publicly is their objective, which is to prevent Donald Trump from running for president in 2024. This is not something new."
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-health-and-wellness/sex-men-not-skin-contact-fueling-monkeypox-new-research-suggests-rcna43484
"Now, however, an expanding cadre of experts has come to believe that sex between men itself — both anal as well as oral intercourse — is likely the main driver of global monkeypox transmission."
So I guess the guy I posted about who was looking for sympathy after he got Monkey Pox as a result of multiple orgies, at least one 4 way, and drinking piss, really did bring it on himself.
"The Inflation Reduction Act will cut the deficit and fight inflation," Biden tweeted.
"And we'll do it without raising taxes a single penny on families earning less than $400,000 a year."
Is Joe delusional? Or just lying?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
When I saw WK's post, I knew you'd reference it. Just more stuff which will make Dan scramble to find fault or simply reject out of hand the facts therein. Of course, it's not reported by the BBC, so Dan will crap on the source.
Oh, no! Can we trust the Post Millennial??? We'll have to ask Dan!
That Lancet story...it's always the innocent who suffer. Poor dog!
There's so much wrong about the Mar-A-Lago raid which can't be found on Dan's favored news sources who celebrate Trump's misfortunes. Trump wasn't arrested. There's no justification in taking his passport...but the left doesn't care about the law, unless they can profit from "supporting" it.
Art,
Whether it's reported in the BBC or not, it's literally 1000 people filing suit. There's going to be proof of this if it's real, and the proof will come from HM court system, not the media.
After I posted about the idiot who was looking for sympathy because he got Monkey Pox after two orgies (@40 total participants/sex partners), one 4 way, and drinking/bathing in human piss, it's not JUST the innocents who get the worst of things. But yes, poor dog.
I agree that the MAL raid is problematic in a number of ways. If we are to believe Tulsi, it's pure political theater intended to keep Trump out of the '24 election. If that's True, it makes one wonder why the DFL/powers that be are willing to go to such lengths to keep Trump from running. Fear?
"Whether it's reported in the BBC or not, it's literally 1000 people filing suit."
Well, I know that, and you know that. But neither of us judge the truth of a story solely based on who's reporting it.
"If that's True, it makes one wonder why the DFL/powers that be are willing to go to such lengths to keep Trump from running. Fear?"
Sure. That word works, though it might need fleshing out. But yeah. They fear a return of the Donald because it means they're losing their grip on the sheep.
I'm sure it does, although Trump's record on draining the swamp and controlling spending was so unimpressive that I'm not totally sure what they're afraid of.
They fear any threat to their power. He just gave them the ability to mask that with attacks on him personally as if he's a threat to "our democracy".
And yet you insist you're paying attention.
Why yes, I am paying attention. I'm probably no paying attention to everything you are. Obviously people fear threats to their power, one could make the argument that is what's driving Trump. Clearly Trump did little or nothing to drain that swamp of entrenched bureaucrats and the non elected swamp dwellers.
But I understand where you're coming from.
Do you think "draining the swamp" is a simple thing or easy to do? Or do you focus only on promises unfulfilled?
Not necessarily. I do think that it's something that Trump could have made some sort of effort to at least make some symbolic changes. The problem isn't that he didn't finish the job, it's that he didn't start the job.
If you've paid any attention to what I've written about Trump over the last few years, you'd be well aware of the fact that I've acknowledged the things I see as successes during the Trump administration. What I'm responding to now, is to folks like you who only want to focus on his successes, while ignoring or minimizing his failures. since Trump did virtually nothing to attempt to "drain the swamp" during his first term, I see no reason to assume that he'll do anything significant on that front in his second. Also, since Trump did very little to curb spending (pre COVID), I have no reason to think that he'll prioritize it if he's elected again. Your argument seems to be that Trump will do, in his second term, more of what he did in his first term. Given that, it seems reasonable to conclude that he'll also do more of what he didn't do in his first term, in his second term.
Now, the expected counter to this would seem to be the following. "Trump was planning to do those things if his second term." or something similar. The problem with that is, assuming that Trump will do something in the future that he hasn't done in the past, is no different from saying that we have no idea what DeSantis would do as POTUS.
"Not necessarily. I do think that it's something that Trump could have made some sort of effort to at least make some symbolic changes. The problem isn't that he didn't finish the job, it's that he didn't start the job."
Actually, that isn't so, as demonstrated in the following:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/08/donald_the_dynasty_slayer.html
(Note Charlie Kirk's tweet.)
"What I'm responding to now, is to folks like you who only want to focus on his successes,"
Nonsense. As I've always done, I respond to that which is not fully truth with regards to Trump by providing what's missing in criticisms of him. I don't so much focus on his successes as I do keep them in their proper perspective along with that which is less preferred. The balance sheet tilts strongly in his favor in that regard, whether you're willing to admit it or not. Indeed, you wish to overstate his negatives. I'm not overstating anything when I'm simply responding to those who do. When someone says, "he's not a good president because AB&C", it's not overstating his successes to remind that person of DEFGHI&J. And his even his spending doesn't outweigh all the good as it is at least mitigated by the influx of tax dollars which resulted from his tax and regulatory policies. To our shared chagrin, politicians spend our money. At least this guy has done more good while doing so than is typical.
" Your argument seems to be that Trump will do, in his second term, more of what he did in his first term."
My argument is that as he's got a really good track record, it's more logical to assume he'll do well in another term. It's why presidents get second terms in the first place...because it's assumed by enough people that a second term will be as good or similar to the first. So to the extent that he did quite a bit of good the first time, I have no problem believing it's far more likely than not that he'll do good again. That's what logic looks like.
"...it seems reasonable to conclude that he'll also do more of what he didn't do in his first term, in his second term."
If you mean things like not dragging us into a war, not taxing us to death....I agree. Somehow I think you mean something different.
"Now, the expected counter to this would seem to be the following. "Trump was planning to do those things if his second term." or something similar. The problem with that is, assuming that Trump will do something in the future that he hasn't done in the past, is no different from saying that we have no idea what DeSantis would do as POTUS."
Trump's record of promise keeping is possibly...if not truly...unmatched. Thus, it's also logical to assume he'd continue to attempt to fulfill those promises he didn't get to fulfill the first time around. Given what Trump has accomplished, it's a bit of a stretch to complain he didn't get to everything in only four years. Again, that's why presidents are generally given a second term.
"My argument is that as he's got a really good track record,"
I believe that I pointed this out earlier. Given that your argument is based on his "track record" then it only makes sense to look at his failures as well as his success. If he's going to be consistent, then it'll likely cover both.
"Somehow I think you mean something different."
Yes. Like failure to curb spending (pre COVID), failure to even attempt an infrastructure bill that actually focused on our failing infrastructure, failure to push comprehensive immigration legislation (the wall was a good start, but not enough).
I think my concern is that you're basing your optimism on projections of what he might do, while dismissing other candidates because people are projecting what they might do. Given that we have no way to know what anyone will actually do, I'll push for the person of the highest competence, highest character, and least negatives as the '24 nominee. Then I'll wait to see who actually gets the nomination.
"Given that your argument is based on his "track record" then it only makes sense to look at his failures as well as his success. If he's going to be consistent, then it'll likely cover both."
Track record is the most reliable metric for any politician. That includes failures, but weighed against successes. You seem to be putting more weight on the failures which are lesser in number, and greatly so.
"I think my concern is that you're basing your optimism on projections of what he might do..."
...while you're doing just the opposite. Worse, actually, as you're basing your pessimism on expected failures. I insist you've never done that for any other candidate. But then, so many treat this guy in a manner inconsistent with how they've treated others.
"I'll push for the person of the highest competence, highest character, and least negatives as the '24 nominee."
Trump's proven his competence. His character hasn't detracted from that as much as all the opposition he's had to overcome. That, too, is an indication of his character, and a far more important character trait for the purpose of succeeding as president on our behalf, than his tweeting and boorishness have possibly interfered. Please don't dismiss this out of hand as if it means nothing.
I don't know if any other alternative who might best him for the nomination could possibly fail as Biden and his team of clowns have. But at this stage of the game, they'll need far more of what Trump has than most want to believe. Aside from DeSantis, I don't know who's learned the lesson Trump's presidency should have taught them all. (Not to say that DeSantis didn't already have it, but that's a big expectation of anyone else who hasn't yet displayed it as plainly)
Actually, I'm not putting excessive weight on the failures. As you rarely mention them, and when you do you seem to minimize them, I'm sure that simply mentioning his failures seems excessive.
"while you're doing just the opposite."
No, I'm not.
"Worse, actually, as you're basing your pessimism on expected failures."
Just like you're basing your optimism on expected success. Strange that it's reasonable to assume success, but not to assume some failures as well.
"But then, so many treat this guy in a manner inconsistent with how they've treated others."
Yet, I've been pretty consistent in expressing where I see GOP presidents fail, and where I see DFL presidents succeed. Obviously I'm a conservative who's lost much of my attachment to the GOP. (As the GOP has abandoned many conservative positions). Given that I'm likely to find more to like in GOP presidents, but I'm also a little harder on them because I expect more from them.
"Trump's proven his competence."
Which doesn't mean he's the most competent. His character failings are what they are, some of us might put more weight on character than others. Prioritizing character isn't something I'm ashamed of. For example, both Lincoln and Truman were men of pretty high character, but virtually zero competence in an executive role. Yet both of them did pretty well without the competence you prize so highly.
Look, if you want to keep pimping Trump and pretending that he's the best possible candidate more than 2 years out, you do you. I'd prefer not to anoint Trump on the assumption that there is no one who wouldn't be worse then him.
"Actually, I'm not putting excessive weight on the failures."
Actually, you are.
"As you rarely mention them, and when you do you seem to minimize them, I'm sure that simply mentioning his failures seems excessive."
I don't need to mention them, as so many already are over his successes which are overwhelming by comparison. I've mentioned my disapproval of his spending, but like Dan's objection to God, I don't feel I need to mention disapproval constantly. I still consider not firing Fauci to be a major flaw, and the deaths of so many resulted unnecessarily. I'm not particularly fond of tariffs. And yeah, I'd prefer he was more like Emily Post in his manner. None of these problems are small in my mind, but I'm already at the "scraping the barrel" phase of finding fault. I can come up with more, but few of those things have the negative impact in the daily lives of citizens as you'd like to believe. No...they're not things we should ever overlook. But I don't have to pay off the debt all by myself, whereas I do have to pay my bills, and that was easier while he was in office than it is now, given how they're all increased.
"Just like you're basing your optimism on expected success."
I'm basing mine on past success, which is how everyone does it for every other freakin' politician who has ever lived (except for Dem voters who are stupid). NOBODY takes the position that a given effective politician is unlikely to repeat. NOBODY, including you...except where Trump's concerned. The expectation is always for a repeat performance.
Yet, I don't pretend perfection is likely, so maybe that's where you're confused as regards my position. Keep that in mind before presuming I'm "pimping".
"Obviously I'm a conservative who's lost much of my attachment to the GOP."
As am I.
"Given that I'm likely to find more to like in GOP presidents, but I'm also a little harder on them because I expect more from them."
As am I. But I'm not likely to accept crap because of insignificant character traits where the effective traits are what is needed in all GOP politicians of every level. My first expectation is getting done what's needed and Trump is good at identifying what's most needed and acting to deal properly. That's just the reality.
"Which doesn't mean he's the most competent."
It most certainly does at this point, and likely will continue to be the case unless someone proves him/herself in that regard between now and Nov '24. Aside from DeSantis, who's in an executive capacity as FL gov, you couldn't provide another alternative who isn't just a hope and a prayer, as opposed to a proven commodity in that regard. There are quite a few who suggest it, but none with a comparable body of work. I'm open to suggestions if you have any.
"His character failings are what they are, some of us might put more weight on character than others"
Why not try to come up with an example where his character issues resulted in an important issue going south. That might help your case with regard to "character". I put great weight in character. I also recognize it includes qualities beyond being a nice guy. It includes standing in while assholes from both parties are attacking and obstructing, for example.
So you can stuff that "pimping" crap while you go out of your way to do the opposite with far less basis. He's already "anointed" by virtue of his record and I assume nothing about unnamed potential alternatives. I'm stone cold objective about this, with the only priority which matters...the welfare of this country as the place in which my descendants must live.
Post a Comment