Jump to content

Featured Replies

  • Replies 27.3k
  • Views 887.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • And people wonder why I'm doing whatever I can to resist. To me, this is VERY personal. Never mind that my family and I have been good citizens for decades, that we've done some good for our communiti

  • I feel this needs to be shared.  

Posted Images

comment_2956304
54 minutes ago, Old Man said:

People are starting to assume he's the one who killed the cub in the first place. 

 

I doubt it, because even a bear cub is gonna do pretty substantial damage to the car's front, and if he drove to Peter Luger with that, it seems unlikely that would go unnoticed.

 

That said...I rather suspect his polling numbers are about to plummet, altho according to a story in US News

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2024-08-02/rfk-jr-s-poll-numbers-took-a-hit-after-biden-dropped-out

 

that already happened when Biden exited.  Still, it's another serious embarrassment.

 

comment_2956305
1 hour ago, tkdguy said:

 

I question number 2. How many of these kids are the bullies and not the bullied? I think a lot of these kids are bullied, feel ostracized, and feel powerless. That's why they use a gun. It's a totem of power.

 

It seems that school shooters who are students/former students don't go for efficiency (less personal but more effective methods like bombs, fires, vehicles, etc.), but for a gun. I think this is because they want to feel power. They want to be close enough to see fear in their victims when they kill them, but not close enough to get dirty. You'd think they'd key in on this, as I believe it's the strongest argument that reducing access can move the dial on school shootings.

 

The biggest argument against restricting access (by restricting everybody's access) to more efficient guns is that it doesn't address the root cause, and other methods are available. However, I think if we look at these specific cases (won't help with, for example, politically motivated violence much) of school shootings, a valid argument could be made along the above lines. But these guys are going with the narrative that the shooters were the bullies prior to the shooting, when all I've heard since Columbine is the opposite. Or am I wrong here? I'll admit my POV is pretty anecdotal.

Edited by Pattern Ghost

comment_2956309

Most of the school shooters reported on say the shooter was a loner and social misfit. Crooks, the guy who shot at Trump, fell into this even though he was on the high side of the curve at twenty. I am willing to say most of the adult shooters reported on are characterized like this unless there is proof otherwise. The only exception I can think of off the top of my head is the guy who shot at the outdoor concert from his hotel in Vegas. He supposedly had enough social awareness to be wealthy, and build an arsenal.

CES    

comment_2956315
3 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I question number 2. How many of these kids are the bullies and not the bullied? I think a lot of these kids are bullied, feel ostracized, and feel powerless. That's why they use a gun. It's a totem of power.

 

I think it was worded poorly.  'Being Bullied' maybe?  Unless the term 'Bullying' is/has undergone a transformation in modern social sciences meaning?

Even in the vignette the future shooter was shown to be a victim of bullying.

comment_2956333

'Trump is a coward' now trending on ex-president's own social media network

Quote

The phrase "Trump is a coward" is currently trending among users on Donald Trump's own social media network, Truth Social.

Trump, who recently backed out of a debate he had previously agreed to on ABC and instead insisted he debate Vice President Kamala Harris on Fox News, has come under fire for saying he would no longer participate in the scheduled event. In addition to changing the network, Trump has proposed changes to other terms, such as the audience.

 

comment_2956382
4 minutes ago, death tribble said:

The travelling riots hit town tonight. My family were ok and the first I knew of it was the reports on the news but still this leaves an unpleasant taste in the mouth

 

Glad you're safe DT.  Hope you stay that way.

 

But if you need to vaporize some of the rioters with your flaming eyes I'm okay with that too.

comment_2956395

It is horrible, and inexcusable, and I'm so sorry for all the people this has targeted, and for how it must be making the British people fear for their country's future. But when I see violent demonstrations like this, I see panic by the right wing. They know in their hearts that the kind of world they want is dying, and they're lashing out because they're scared to adapt. These are death throes -- they can do much harm in the short term, but in the long term there's no going back.

Edited by Lord Liaden

comment_2956422

Today's BBC Newshour gave extensive coverage of the events in Bangladesh, including an interview with PM Sheikh Hasina's son giving a predictably spun version that this was just a nasty, undemocratic minority, but his family is "done with" Bangladesh. The ungrateful wretches, after all his family has done for the country... Interview starts about 4 minutes in. Critical analysis begins about 10 minutes in, and again later.,

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w172zb903hsqwqx

 

A salutary reminder that authoritarian regimes can seem unshakeable right up until the day they fall.

 

Dean Shomshak

 

 

Edited by DShomshak

comment_2956425

All Things Considered interviews the makers of a new documentary in which former military and political officials game out a scenario in which a losing Presidential candisdate tries to mount a coup, and a splinter of the military joins it -- but the insurgency relies as much, or more, on misinformation.

 

The filmmakers sent reports on the exercise to American political and military leaders, but they hope they can get people to watch it, too, in hopes they work harder to make the country more coup-resistant. Though I am fairly sure that at least 10% of the members of Congress would be taking notes on how to improve their odds of overturning an election.

 

https://www.npr.org/2024/08/05/nx-s1-5038069/the-new-film-war-game-asks-what-if-jan-6-happens-again-but-worse

 

Dean Shomshak

comment_2956439

Even before talking about undue influence (Thomas most notably)...asserting the independence of the Supreme Court became laughable when Senate Republicans so grossly manipulated the nomination process.  Even before that, it would be disingenuous, at best, to presume ideological considerations haven't been a part of the nominee selection process.  The Republicans simply made no bones about what they were doing.

comment_2956470

https://thehill.com/business/4813153-fox-news-cavuto-trump-stock-market-wall-street/amp/

Quote

“The Donald Trump thing in the market amazes me,” Cavuto said. “When they’re up, it’s all because of him and looking forward to him. When they’re down, it’s all because the Democrats and how horrific they are.”

“Yet some of our biggest point drops, three of the biggest of the top 10, occurred during his administration,” he continued. “Now, a lot of those were in the COVID years, I get that, but, you know, you either own the markets or you don’t. It does confuse me.”

 

comment_2956478
1 hour ago, Starlord said:

Meh.  Shapiro was a much stronger choice IMO, but maybe the renewed attention on the sexual harassment scandal of his aide or some other unknown issue with his vetting revealed some weaknesses that we don't know about.

 

  There are other political considerations when it comes to choosing a VP than just their inherent qualifications for the office, or even potential scandals. For one, you want to balance the appeal and experience of the POTUS candidate, which is one reason why all the front runners were white men. ;)  For example, Kentucky governor Andy Beshear has the appeal in the Appalachian region that J.D. Vance was supposed to deliver, but hasn't. But with the distinct possibility that Trump will dump Vance, that's not as big a factor.

 

You also have to look at what taking a candidate from their current political office will cost. That weighed against picking Senator Mark Kelly, which might have lost the Dems a critical seat in the Senate.

 

Josh Shapiro is a popular governor in Pennsylvania, known as a consensus builder in a government and state that's sharply divided between Blue and Red. His successor, Lieut. Gov. Austin Davis, is the youngest to ever hold that office, and is black (it hurts that that matters, but it probably does). As a battleground state, Dems don't want to risk losing it.

 

Tim Walz brings a lot to the Harris campaign.  He has a rural, blue-collar, and military background. He has a lot of government experience at the state and federal levels. Walz is known for being pretty progressive as Governor of Minnesota, so that will appease the progressive wing of the party. From a PR perspective, he was also the first, and remains one of the most frequent and vocal, to start calling Republicans "weird." That must have earned him some brownie points. ;)

 

Another factor that can't be overestimated is how the President and Veep work together. Harris may want her Veep to be part of her inner circle, and we're not privy to how sympatico she is with the various candidates.

 

Really, there were no bad choices among the front runners, unlike with today's GOP.

 

Edited by Lord Liaden

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.