@LotsRegret's banner p

LotsRegret


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 17:00:51 UTC

				

User ID: 639

LotsRegret


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 17:00:51 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 639

I'm not sure I'd consider this a "conspiracy" outside of the most trivial sense of the word as the FBI, and law enforcement in general, tend to be loathe to reveal details on active investigations or even if there is an investigation going on.

So people not revealing they are investigating Hunter Biden and they have his laptop is just standard operating procedure, the same behavior they'd do for essentially any other crime they suspect went or is going on.

It may be powerful, but is it a power which results in a stronger, healthier, and better nation?

I personally much prefer a nation which organizes along a shared ethic, not ethnic line.

Talking about it and actually doing something about it, especially with regards to Trump are very, very different things. Trump talked about fraud a lot but in terms of actual action, he did next to nothing to meaningfully try and thwart any. Four years of smarting over the loss and the GOP workshopping how to actually crack down on where they feel the fraud occurred is an entirely different thing. They were much better prepared this time and had a lot of lawyers working to make sure the rules were as in their favor as possible.

It is the job of the production team to educate the relevant actors on proper gun-handling procedures and ensure the safety of the gun.

Of which, Baldwin, having worked on many movies where guns were used were well aware of.

A big issue in the Baldwin situation is that in the scene that was being shot, Baldwin was meant to be quickly drawing the gun. He was not meant to be firing it. If you look at the filming right before the incident happened, his finger is clearly inside the trigger guard and likely near or on the trigger itself. So the revolver should have never of been fired in the first place. It was his negligence by pulling the trigger. If he was in a scene wherein he was intended to "shoot" the gun, and that is when the negligent discharge happened I would have more empathy towards Baldwin's innocence. This is not the case, so the armorer failed by allowing live ammunition onto the set and Baldwin failed by negligently pulling the trigger of the revolver when the scene did not call for it. Both made critical errors, leading to the death of one and another injured, and both are justifiably going to be charged.

Absolutely, I think your views here are matching my own.

In my post I was leaning more into my acknowledgement that my vice is not good or healthy, it is something that deserves at least some shame by me. This was because of the beliefs espoused by the OP as well as the "healthy at any size" / "anti-fatphobia" activists; I was looking to distance myself from them and show the OP that my current state does deserve at least some contempt. I did try and bring in the fact that it is a vice like many others, as you bring up, though one that is always visible to everyone unlike almost every other vice as a way to help them better contextualize how I think fat people should be viewed.

This reasoning seem bizarre to me. I'm not saying there was fraud what is common background noise and especially not that it was enough to swing several states, but your reasoning seems to be the equivalent of saying "Well, if the Japanese snuck attack Pearl Harbor, surely they'd pull another Pearl Harbor" it neglects that after that sneak attack, the US was on a much different footing.

Seems space exploration and colonization could be a good outlet for the dangerous world desires.

Are you sure about that?

Was Fifty Shades of Grey a well written product?

Was Jersey Shore a well produced TV show?

I'd never suggest the quality of the product and the sales figures are anything but loosely correlated.

As mentioned in part of the oral arguments in the case, would you like to look up impeachment through history and how quickly political parties will play tit for tat?

Obviously not the OP, but I'd point to the myriad of women empowerment messaging you see almost everywhere whereas the same messaging doesn't exist for men or boys. From "The Future Is Female" to "Women Get It Done" to positive affirmations on yogurt (this annoyed my spouse enough for them to rant about it to me).

I'm not sure I'd include the complaint about indifference of the universe towards being a man in the email, as I think it distracts from what should be focused on and could rankle sensibilities of the person reading it who may believe the world is set up for male benefits.

Because it is a losing political issue.

"X politician won't take free federal money to improve our student's education and pay our teachers more!"

but those guys are weird and I’m a normal person

It also doesn't help the online right has just returned the charge with pictures of a Biden cabinet members surrounded by people in dog masks, Harris with a drag queen (or possibly a clearly non-passing trans woman in woman coded dress), etc etc. It is very difficult to celebrate "queer identities" and then call your opponents "weird" when they are, at least publicly quite normie, (with exceptions of Trump's bombastic used car salesman style speeches, which are at least "normal" in the cultural context of people being used to used car salemen).

Which is why you don't need everyone to choose blue, just over half the people, which is a much more tenable solution.

I think the existence of the ability to travel faster than light which is known to at least one alien species drastically worsens the fermi paradox. With faster than light travel, massive galactic empires can form in (astrologically) insignificant timescales and why we haven't heard/seen them is more inexplicable.

Someone who is racist already has demonstrated a poor judgement of reality.

While I would say being racist is a moral failing - if being racist makes you a poor judgement of reality and unfit for providing input on things outside of race we've got a lot of governments throughout the world and a ton of civilizational knowledge we need to toss in the dumpster, including the US and liberalism.

Do people on both side of the debate actually care about women's sports, or is it just an excuse to wage the culture war?

I care insomuch as I have a daughter who wants to compete in sports as I did when I was young and be given a "fair shot" at becoming an athlete worthy of scholarships, etc.

As a compromise, I think trans women should compete in sports where there testosterone does not give you an advantage, such as long-distance swimming, fast climbing, equestrian sports, shooting, etc.

Something to consider is it isn't just current levels of testosterone which gives one an advantage. Going through male puberty grants additional bone density, height, muscle mass, etc. than had they of been women going through puberty. So while their muscle mass may regress some, the advantages of extra height and bone density do not disappear

We'll see how that goes now with Chevron deference no longer being the law of the land.

The Colorado GOP was already threatening to go to a caucus system before this; there's near certainty that they'll try to do so now.

To what end? Assuming they had the caucus system in now and Trump were to be win the nomination (regardless of if he won in CO's caucus or not), the same reason for stripping him from the primary roster is also true for the general election roster.

I think this is the other side of the mind-kill coin you see out of media analysis through a feminist/queer/whatever lens. Suddenly the lens becomes blinders and it becomes simple to find any grievance, perceived or otherwise, to condemn the show (or praise it if you can claim certain characters are X-coded)

To take a Red Tribe issue of note; the idea that the Federal government could ever confiscate already owned guns is fantasy.

Can I be skeptical that this is so far fetched? Unlikely, sure, but all it would take is a 5-4 SCOTUS decision to claim the 2A does not confer an individual right to own guns. Right now, with the current SCOTUS lineup that won't happen, but give it a generation or two, some unlucky deaths/retirements, or court packing and we could quickly be there.

It may be bias on my end, but I also feel the more conservative members of SCOTUS who are textualists (and to a lesser extent originalists) are less partisan and more consistent with their rulings on the whole than the more liberal side whose motivating principle seems to be more about how they think society should be.

This is my understanding as well, but if the laws are challenged, how long would it take to go to SCOTUS? By the time it is deemed unconstitutional, well, the election season is over. "Oops"?

You have to feel for BU here - after all, the guy won a MacArthur genius grant and wrote a NYT bestseller. There was no way to predict he had no idea how to run an academically rigorous enterprise.

Absolutely not. Firstly, Kendi's entire philosophy could be summarized simply that "any difference in outcome is caused by racism, we just need to find the racism". That isn't academic or rigorous, it is a conclusion looking for targets. Secondly, receiving accolades and awards for saying politically flattering things to those people who are granting those awards and are part of the cultural and political elite isn't impressive.

Left wing political ideals and policies poll substantially better than the DNC does, and for good reason.

Because general policy proposals with no need to discuss tradeoffs and costs of implementations will always poll better than known entities with baggage who have to make compromises to get things done?