@MaiqTheTrue's banner p

MaiqTheTrue

Renrijra Krin

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 November 02 23:32:06 UTC

				

User ID: 1783

MaiqTheTrue

Renrijra Krin

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 November 02 23:32:06 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1783

The democrats suck as a party. They just don’t seem to understand how anything works in actual politics.

1). They have insanely high standards especially as the minority party. Like Al Franken was reasonably popular. But Alas, he had a picture taken in the early 1990s of him pretending to touch a sleeping woman’s boobs not even actually touching, just hands near the boobs, and it was an obvious joke by a professional comedian. But that’s the end of him because even though the picture was 15 years old when it came to light, it was just too much. And I’m sure this has happened many other times as well.

2). They publicly in-fight and publicly refuse to accept party discipline and therefore cannot get a real coalition going. Kamala lost, in part because she was not pro-Gaza enough for that wing of her party. To the degree that GOP members and voters disagree, they are extremely disciplined in voting. Disagree with your GOP membership’s position, you do so in the primary elections, but in the general, every GOP candidate gets the support of the party and the voters. There’s not even public disagreement. The party wants your support, and you are expected to shut up (at least in public) and vote with the party.

3). They lack media platforms in major markets. If you want to hear conservative news, you have a very large network to choose from. You have podcasts, YouTubers, tv news networks, radio, websites, substacks, etc. and they are generally agreed on what they support, or at least who they support. They have a mutual respect and understanding that you don’t attack other conservatives unless they’re going too far to the left. The Left has individuals with TV, radio, or podcasts, but they really don’t support each other. Raechel Maddow doesn’t tell the same story as Ezra Klein who doesn’t tell the same story as Thom Hartmann.

  1. they seem to lack any sort of clear, coherent vision of what life in a Democratic Party run America would look like. And because they can’t articulate a clear vision, it’s really hard to get people to buy into it. If they had a vision for America as Denmark, but multicultural, or something, sure they could probably get some buy in. If they said “competent leadership” again, I think people would go for it. When your best come-on is “ those other guys are nuts and want to have a white Christian nationalist fascist dictatorship with blackjack and hookers,” it’s hard to get past the question of “okay, but what are YOU going to do for me? Because he promised to make Americans strong and prosperous again, and all you got is he’s lying and a fascist”.

5). They mistake procedure for power. Democrats famously asked the permission of the parliamentarian to add “increase the minimum wage” to a budget bill. This parliamentarian has no power, and can be fired at the whim of Congress. But when the parliamentarian said no, they basically threw up their hands and gave up. When a Supreme Court seat came open during and election, republicans suspecting they’d win, refused to confirm any Obama appointed nominee and thus took a lifetime seat on the SCOTUS for their side. One group chooses procedures as a proxy for power, the other simply uses their power to get power. And the party that chooses power wins, unsurprisingly.

I’m convinced that most younger Americans have generally gone to the GOP if they want power. Theres just no way that a party who couldn’t tell an octogenarian with obvious dementia that he couldn’t run for a second presidential term is going to weird much power. It’s a very weird thing. The democrats want the trappings of power — the fundraisers, the ceremonies, the interviews on legacy media that pretend they’re important. But for anyone who wants actual power, the GOP is the lace to be.

I’m not sure where the misreading of the Bible is here, because I’m not sure what the prophecy he’s going on actually says. It’s plausible he’s actually right about those verses.

But I think hyper fixating on “omg” he doesn’t know the population doesn’t mean much for very obvious reasons.

First of all, he’s not remotely involved in planning the war. The people who are absolutely have the relevant information and probably intelligence assets on the ground telling them where the targeting drones should go first. It’s like being shocked that the CEO at apple doesn’t know exactly how much RAM the new iPhone has — he’s not the one designing the phone, he’s the one who demanded the phone be designed at built. As with most high powered elites, he has people to handle the details and he has been told that the military can probably pull this off. That’s all he needs to know.

Second, the exact population is irrelevant compared to things like geography, technological levels, military strength and enlistment numbers, and so on. China has a billion people, but how many of them are in the military? How many are rapidly aging members of the generation before the one-child policy? How many are women? Deciding Cruz doesn’t have any idea about Iran because he didn’t know off by heart tge exact population of Iran is really silly.

If bombing Iran buys us five or ten years, it’s probably worth it. I don’t think they can restart a program we just blew up and have a bomb in two years.

I don’t think that the meaning is self evidently the same as originalism. There are other ways to derive intent that don’t come directly from the written text of the constitution or case law or any other written all.

The first amendment says “Congress will make no law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The plain meaning is “no state church, and congress (NB: only one branch of government is mentioned in the text). So what does religion mean, in this context? What does free exercise mean in this context? What happens if Trump issues an executive order enjoining the entire country to the Orthodox Church in America? The text actually doesn’t say anything about executive orders. So you’d have to look to other things: what kinds of things were the people debating the bill saying about the bill, what were they trying to prevent from happening? What did they say when trying to sell the Bill of Rights to the People? What did early case law say about things like various states having official churches? What did they think religion means? These things are not plain reading of the meaning of the text. (Which, going only by the text, only prevents Congress from passing a law to make a National Religion or to forbid a religion from being practiced. That’s what the meaning of the words on the paper say.”

I’m rather impressed because of the political capital used. This isn’t the kind of decision one should make with an eye to what the people will think about it. If you need to prevent an enemy from getting too powerful to deal with, you need to act even if it is unpopular. An Islamist state with a history of supporting terrorism is not a state that should be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. It’s beyond crazy to me that everyone is worried about poll numbers here when the issue was Iran with access to a weapon that could kill millions.

I mean just to make the point from the perspective of Russia, this is to them much more like the civil war — rogue states decide to break away and the Russians not being willing to allow them to leave and to make alliances with rival powers. The color revolution to us looks like they chose us, but to Russia it looks like a hostile state being formed on its border, potentially armed with weapons supplied by its enemies. If Puerto Rico declared independence, allied with Russia and started buying Russian weapons, we might well invade too.

I mean IQ itself is a fuzzy concept. We can only really measure it by proxy, which by itself would create some added complexity here. The more precise way to say this would be “twins are 60% likely to score the same IQ on an IQ test.” The test doesn’t directly measure IQ, and depending on which test you take, when you take it, and under what conditions, you might get some different scores just from those things even if the same person is being tested. Then you have environment, one kid is encouraged to read a lot and do math puzzles. The other plays lots of sports. One eats nothing but junk food, the other eats clean. Those differences can affect brain development.

It’s both and, to my mind.

The difficulty is that a determined person could easily maintain their allegiance without overt signs especially in service to a greater cause. If I’m a person allied to hezbollah I don’t want the USA to know that, and especially if I’m joining a cell in the USA. If all I have to do is hide my allegiance to hezbollah for three years, I can probably scrub my name from official records, purge my social media, and keep my mouth shut for three years and be fine.

I’m arguing that having a citizen in the family does in fact benefit the entire family including entitling the child to benefits that might well be unavailable in the home country thus creating a strong inducement to do anything possible to have the baby in America. And that without skin in the game of some form, it’s a big problem.

And the whole thing is about the immigrant because the baby doesn’t drop down from outer space. The stork didn’t deliver the baby, Scottie didn’t beam down the baby, the baby came from a woman who had sex with her husband. And therefore creating benefits for the baby by necessity creates benefits for tge family that created the baby. And I think you should very careful about how tge thing is handled.

I mean in the most technical of senses, sure. The problem being that the “cheats” rely on leverage which really only works when you do the technique exactly right and the opponent has not trained a counter. For almost all real world, this doesn’t work as well as advertised. As such, even in competition of these arts that supposedly have these types of techniques, you still have weight classes. MMA has submissions and chokes and so on, but you still have weight class divisions.

In reality, a woman would have to train her art to near professional levels to get to the point of being able to take down a median male even if that male had never learned to fight at all. It’s why I laugh at the concept of “women’s self defense” classes. It’s not only useless, but unfortunately gives the woman a false sense of security where she ends up doing risky things she shouldn’t be doing because the mcdojo she trained at taught her a few moves (but didn’t tell her she has to be in great shape and practice daily to pull them off) and never had her try to fight off a man fighting at full strength. She goes out to sketchy places and stays out too late at night where she’s putting herself at risk of attack and does so thinking that whatever techniques she learned but doesn’t actually practice more than once a week means she can take down a rapey man who goes to the gym once a week. Good luck.

From my point of view, it seems to represent blue-collar working-man masculinity for most people who have them. The point is to signal that you’re a hard working man’s man. Most of the drivers are actually urban professionals of one type or another, at least where I am, most actual contractors use minivans.

In either case, the invasion period is exhibit A for getting nukes. We talked them into giving up nukes in the 1990s. We promised protection. They got invaded. And North Korea isn’t being invaded because of those nukes. I mean, if I’m on the outs with a superpower, my best hope of avoiding “liberation” is nuclear weapons. So no matter what happens between Israel and Iran, they aren’t going to stop trying.

I mean, for most things medical, electrical, or legal, there’s no good reason for anyone without the training to attempt to DIY. For food and food additive advice, I’d look for someone who’s a Registered Dietitian, because they have trained in the material and would know the information you need.

I don’t think it’s quite the mainstream position in the right-leaning spaces. They might nod along with “evil” or “ideologically possessed” (which started with JBP, I think) but I don’t think, aside from mocking college students and wine moms that they call liberals stupid.

Honestly, women tend to do that because they generally are protected from those kinds of situations. It’s true of anyone so sheltered, without the lived experience of “drug dealers are violent and crazy” you don’t develop the sort of mental habit of saying “people who are like that are crazy and to be avoided.” Add in the social virtue of being “nice, forgiving, and open-minded” and you get a toxic mix that results in toxic empathy.

It doesn’t have to be specifically weird experiences, but there has to be some kind of life experience outside of LA childhood-> rich people high school -> film school pipeline. And without ever meeting a person that isn’t upper middle to upper class professionals, living in the country, going to parts of third world countries that are not tourist zone, or the like, it’s almost impossible to create those kinds of stories and have authenticity to them. Rural Tennessee is not LA with everyone talking with a southern accent. Military people do not banter like teens at their first job at Starbucks, nor do they disobey orders on a whim.

I think it can be fixed. If your parents were legal at the time of your birth, you should be a citizen. If your mom crossed the border while in labor specifically so you’d be born in America, you should not be.

No, if Iran with a nuke is dangerous, letting them have it because you don’t want to lose a midterm is short sighted. A nuke detonated anywhere on earth would kill millions. That would certainly be worse than losing a midterm. Especially if that nuke hits an American or allied city, an American military base, or some high value target in the Middle East.

Israel is Israel and they’re frankly not part of my analysis here. If Israel didn’t exist, I think the history of Islamic radicalism would make an Islamic nuke a danger to world stability. A religion that says those who kill for God with a weapon that can obliterate a city is not something that would improve my insomnia.

I still would avoid obvious icky hobbies on a dating profile. Anime has a very strong association with porn, child porn, and childishness. Video games tend to send immature and irresponsible signals. If you have a weird hobby that’s fairly active, creative, or social, fine. But the goal here is to get a woman to want to take a chance on you. It’s like searching for a job in a sense — anything that would make a woman hesitant to hit the “buy” button is probably not a good idea. One in a thousand find a gamer girl. But at the cost quite often of having hundreds of women see anime and gaming in the bio and deciding to not engage.

I’m a traditional Christian so I’m not goin* to Wade in the waters of your particular religion or traditions. But to me, having a pillar of “at least I know this is true” (and again mine is traditional Christianity) does allow you to not be sure about the rest without going crazy and being cynical about everything. I know that the Bible and the early Christian tradition is true, and whether or not anything else is lies, I at least have that. Maybe we’re headed to world war, maybe not. Maybe Trump is our Putin or Orbán, or maybe not. Maybe Covid was a deadly virus that killed people or maybe it’s just a flu bug. Let the chips fall.

For individuals, yes, but I think on the national, let alone international level your representatives and elected government act a lot more like medieval potentates protecting and trying to expand their power and fiefdoms. To give a fairly recent example, the government is supporting Israel (I personally agree with them, but whatever). This is despite a large, fairly active movement that might have tipped the election to Trump and is unpopular with democrats and is strongest in supposed must-win states. By Democratic logic, it should be a slam dunk to support Palestine and go with the thing the public seems to want. Or the BBB which is unpopular and passed anyway. The government barely cares what people actually want, they care for their fiefdoms and maintaining power. If they can do so, they do so by rigging the districts so they aren’t competitive.

If forcing dissidents whether liberal or conservative to shut up allows them to win power games, they’re perfectly fine doing so. It will be hate speech or misinformation or state secrets.

It’s a Jewish specific thing in this context because Jewish laws forbid that anything that touches something unclean must be destroyed. Christianity has no similar rules. If I hold a race in a church, it might be offensive, but it doesn’t render the building “unchristian” to the point that it must be destroyed. The closest I can think of is hala in Islam or no beef in Hinduism. Reserving the holy things of religion against things that break those rules isn’t special treatment is the condition doesn’t exist for other religions.

TBH I think the big problem, which I’ve talked about before is that really most shouldn’t be following politics and probably shouldn’t be voting. Voter apathy isn’t a flaw in the system, it’s a feature. If people who don’t understand politics are heavily politically active, it’s honestly a problem to be solved because those people generally make terrible decisions. Even if they were somehow given “good” news sources, most of them don’t understand the issues well to make good decisions. Take away the “good, true’ news, and you have a situation in which people who don’t know what is going on and wouldn’t understand what is going on even if they got the truth are voting based on who looks most truthful and leader-like while lying to them on TV or TikTok. When people like that decide elections, it’s more likely to damage the country than do go.

I mean, the reason that deterrence works on Putin is that he’s at least semi-rational. He doesn’t want to have millions of dead Russians as a result. The concepts of Jihad and martyrdom of killing and dying in the name of Islam giving you a ticket to paradise— these negate the deterrent effect of “don’t try it, you and 3/4ths of your people will die.” Add in that there are statements in the Hadith that claim the end of days is marked by a great slaughter of Jews, and it’s not hard to imagine that they’d be willing to use it.

I mean we have no information about the stars in the universe too far away to see. We actually know quite a bit about mundane physics, and it’s mundane physics that rule out most travel between stars at least at human lifespan scales. This would drastically change the equation for why beings would come here. The sentinalese are fairly trivial to get to. If you got on an airplane in New York, you would be able to get to them in less than a day and without the need to carry your own life support systems. Going from one solar system to another takes 4 years at the speed of light. It would take a generation at 0.1 of light speed. Would anyone spend 40 years at huge expense to prank drunken rednecks and steal the naughty bits off of dead cows? Especially since you’d need life support systems, food, water, and waste disposal. This isn’t just a small trivial jaunt on a jet plane followed by a boat ride.

The trouble is that we keep conflating the age of sail to space travel. They are nothing alike. Traveling from England to North America took a month under sail. You had to bring food and water, but you were never in a hostile environment. In fact the age of sail was possible because the ocean would provide the propulsion for you in the form of wind and ocean currents. You thus don’t need to provide fuel. You could breathe the sea air, and in fact as someone who enjoys an ocean beach, it smells pretty good. If worst came to worst, you could easily catch fish along the way. Space is nothing like that. In a month, you wouldn’t even reach Mars, let alone deep space (which at current technology would take decades), and you’d have to pack everything you’d need including atmosphere and a way to recycle it, food (and if it’s a long trip, a way to grow food), water and a way to recycle urine into water.

Second, due to studying earth biology, we have a fair understanding of what kinds of chemistry to look for to find life on exoplanets. So far, I think there are maybe one or two that are possible candidates for exobiology. We know what to look for as far as technology, and to my understanding we haven’t found anything that’s even plausible as alien technology. No Dyson spheres, no repeated mathematical signals, no lights on the ground nothing that is large and regularly shaped and made of metal.

Based on this, im just not buying it. If aliens exist they’re as trapped by biology and physics as we are.