Twitter

[deleted1116990]

Who is that? Cause that's pretty extreme.

Vector. Had a pretty remarkable exchange with him on that topic a while back. He will argue that he doesn't support laws banning it because it never happens so therefore such a law is pointless. I disabused him of that narrative but he persisted anyway. Why it is so hard to say that it should be illegal to kill 30+ week old healthy fetuses, I don't know.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[epidural man]

In an attempt to understand, since you mention social issues, and nobody here will admit to being far left, please give me an example of what you claim is a "far left" position on abortion.

You have a poster, who denies being far left, yet refuses to support to abortion bans beyond 24 weeks up to the moment of full term birth. If not supporting legislation that prohibits elective abortion of 38 week old fetuses doesn't make you far left, then please explain to me what the far left position on abortion is? I honestly don't understand how you can get any farther to the left than not outlawing killing healthy full term babies. I know you aren't going to answer the question, but at least think about what the "far left" position on abortion is and how it differs from yours.

The attempt by the far left to normalize the far left as the normal left and the center as the far right is blatantly obvious and given away by the fact that "far left" can't exist in this attempt to move the goal posts/Overton window as far to the left as they can. Nothing can be far left because the farthest left will always be the mainstream left for progressives. Hence you all lose it over people like Gabbard, Rogan, Maher, etc.

I consider my self right in the middle - squished by the stupidity of both sides.

Anyway, my opinion is I think parents should be able to kill their kids to about age 10- maybe 15.

 

[epidural man]

I consider my self right in the middle - squished by the stupidity of both sides.

Anyway, my opinion is I think parents should be able to kill their kids to about age 10- maybe 15.

As the now infamous Bill Cosby once said

“I brought you in this word, I’ll take you out!”

 

[vector2]

Vector. Had a pretty remarkable exchange with him on that topic a while back. He will argue that he doesn't support laws banning it because it never happens so therefore such a law is pointless. I disabused him of that narrative but he persisted anyway. Why it is so hard to say that it should be illegal to kill 30+ week old healthy fetuses, I don't know.

Do you ever stop blatantly lying or misrepresenting? It spans so many threads and happens so quickly I didn’t even get a chance to tell you to stop lying in the other thread before you did it again here! Incredible.


@MirrorTodd , the guy is a troll who argues in bad faith (and worse than that is someone who doesn’t contribute anything anesthesia related either) but if you want to see what was actually said you can see here

 

[deleted1116990]

I consider my self right in the middle - squished by the stupidity of both sides.

I used to believe that most people, like myself hovered somewhere around the center and that it only seemed like there were a lot of fringe people out there because 10% of people were making 90% of the noise. I'm not sure I believe that anymore. More people are on the fringes, the left far more so than the right, but both have increased while center left, center, and center right have largely disappeared.

 

[deleted1116990]

I didn’t even get a chance to tell you to stop lying in the other thread before you did it again here!

I'm not lying. That's literally what happened and what you said in that thread you linked that anyone can go back and read unless you have changed your mind and now don't have a problem with laws restricting abortion after viability or 30+ weeks or whatever. In which case...

 

[Southpaw]

I used to believe that most people, like myself hovered somewhere around the center and that it only seemed like there were a lot of fringe people out there because 10% of people were making 90% of the noise. I'm not sure I believe that anymore. More people are on the fringes, the left far more so than the right, but both have increased while center left, center, and center right have largely disappeared.

If you’re in the middle you’re generally right on some things and left on some things. Just curious - what are you left on?

 

[Gern Blansten]

That is absolutely HILARIOUS that Gern thinks it would help heal some divisions.

Did you read the follow up sentence? It had some Latin in it, so maybe you misunderstood. It means that I think Gabbard is likely unacceptable or unwelcome to most far left democrats.

 

[Southpaw]

I'm not lying. That's literally what happened and what you said in that thread you linked that anyone can go back and read unless you have changed your mind and now don't have a problem with laws restricting abortion after viability or 30+ weeks or whatever. In which case...

I mean I read the thread then and I read it again now after he reposted. You and I must be reading different things. Why do you conveniently ignore or simply not acknowledge that there are in fact reasons to abort after 30 weeks. @nimbus had a very reasonable post in that thread also regarding viability.

 

[deleted1116990]

I mean I read the thread then and I read it again now after he reposted. You and I must be reading different things. Why do you conveniently ignore or simply not acknowledge that there are in fact reasons to abort after 30 weeks. @nimbus had a very reasonable post in that thread also regarding viability.

I do not believe there ever is a legitimate reason to electively abort a healthy fetus after 30 weeks instead of delivering it, that that has no place in a modern civilized society, and I do not believe I am anywhere close to being in the minority with that opinion, and that is not at all what he argued anyway, which was basically that he didn't have to answer that question because abortions that late almost never happen and you don't need laws against things that almost never happen. Notably, he eventually did admit he had a problem with it ethically, but weaseled his way out of opposing it politically because of the extreme cognitive dissonance his political stance requires.

 

[deleted1116990]

If you’re in the middle you’re generally right on some things and left on some things. Just curious - what are you left on?

Sure, I'll give you a real answer. I'm a right leaning moderate.

- I believe in and support certain environmental regulations and protection of wildlife, including donating to charities that support these causes
- I am not opposed to universal health care in principle and would support such a reasonable system if such a system could be proposed
- I do not oppose gay marriage legalization
- My limit on abortion laws is not 0 weeks. It's not even 6.
- I support a flat tax, which is a more centrist libertarian economic policy as opposed to systems with preferential breaks and penalities favored by left and right.
- I thought what Trump did with election was horrible (but apparently not horrible enough?)
- Umm, I voted for Obama at one point.

I could go on. You're going to say, well yeah but you don't support any of the far left agenda. You're right, I don't. And I don't have to be centrist.

But according to Vector, I'm best buds with buffalo horn man at the capitol. Meh.

 

[vector2]

I'm not lying. That's literally what happened and what you said in that thread you linked that anyone can go back and read unless you have changed your mind and now don't have a problem with laws restricting abortion after viability or 30+ weeks or whatever. In which case...

You absolutely are lying. Your statement "he doesn't support laws banning it because it never happens so therefore such a law is pointless" is something I never said.

Again, you're a liar and a troll, and anyone can go back to that thread to confirm as such.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

I consider my self right in the middle - squished by the stupidity of both sides.

Anyway, my opinion is I think parents should be able to kill their kids to about age 10- maybe 15.

I’m surprisingly entertaining this idea.

 

[Gern Blansten]

Sure, I'll give you a real answer. I'm a right leaning moderate.

- I believe in and support certain environmental regulations and protection of wildlife, including donating to charities that support these causes
- I am not opposed to universal health care in principle and would support such a reasonable system if such a system could be proposed
- I do not oppose gay marriage legalization
- My limit on abortion laws is not 0 weeks. It's not even 6.
- I support a flat tax, which is a more centrist libertarian economic policy as opposed to systems with preferential breaks and penalities favored by left and right.
- I thought what Trump did with election was horrible (but apparently not horrible enough?)
- Umm, I voted for Obama at one point.

I could go on.

But according to Vector, I'm best buds with buffalo horn man at the capitol. Meh.

I’m in agreement with all of your left leaning positions as well. Gay marriage. Heck yes it should be legal. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to be just as miserable as the heterosexuals?

 

[Gern Blansten]

I’m surprisingly entertaining this idea.

It’s currently still illegal to kill your kids. Just making sure you know that.

 

[Southpaw]

Did you read the follow up sentence? It had some Latin in it, so maybe you misunderstood. It means that I think Gabbard is likely unacceptable or unwelcome to most far left democrats.

I'll only say that given that Ukraine believes she's spreading Russian propaganda, and most of the world is rooting for Ukraine, that I hope she is disliked by a lot more than far leftists. Also, she left the Democratic party. That naturally means that you and other conservatives are going to gravitate toward her. That simply says something about her, not necessarily the party, though I'm sure you'd disagree with that. Also, it appears to me that she left the party because she wanted to fight clearly right leaning culture wars.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

It’s currently still illegal to kill your kids. Just making sure you know that.

2024 is coming!

 

[deleted1116990]

You absolutely are lying. Your statement "he doesn't support laws banning it because it never happens so therefore such a law is pointless" is something I never said.

Again, you're a liar and a troll, and anyone can go back to that thread to confirm as such.

Nope.

"Because anyone with half a brain could infer that his point is these edge cases, while they do literally exist, are so insanely rare that they don't deserve substantial consideration in the greater debate about abortion"
- You

Now here comes your strawman about "never happens" vs. "literally never happens" which is my entire point of how you deflected trying to defend your ridiculous stance.

 

[Southpaw]

I do not believe there ever is a legitimate reason to electively abort a healthy fetus after 30 weeks instead of delivering it, that that has no place in a modern civilized society, and I do not believe I am anywhere close to being in the minority with that opinion, and that is not at all what he argued anyway, which was basically that he didn't have to answer that question because abortions that late almost never happen and you don't need laws against things that almost never happen. Notably, he eventually did admit he had a problem with it ethically, but weaseled his way out of opposing it politically because of the extreme cognitive dissonance his political stance requires.

What if there's a danger to Mom's life and that's the only way to save her? What is Mom has a very aggressive cancer and needs chemo/radiation immediately and the fetus already isn't concerned viable beyond the uterus? However, in general I agree with you on 30 weeks, by laws are funny things in that it forces certain things that at times can be unpalatable and unreasonable.

 

[Southpaw]

Sure, I'll give you a real answer. I'm a right leaning moderate.

- I believe in and support certain environmental regulations and protection of wildlife, including donating to charities that support these causes
- I am not opposed to universal health care in principle and would support such a reasonable system if such a system could be proposed
- I do not oppose gay marriage legalization
- My limit on abortion laws is not 0 weeks. It's not even 6.
- I support a flat tax, which is a more centrist libertarian economic policy as opposed to systems with preferential breaks and penalities favored by left and right.
- I thought what Trump did with election was horrible (but apparently not horrible enough?)
- Umm, I voted for Obama at one point.

I could go on. You're going to say, well yeah but you don't support any of the far left agenda. You're right, I don't. And I don't have to be centrist.

But according to Vector, I'm best buds with buffalo horn man at the capitol. Meh.

These are all very reasonable. You know this but a flat tax isn't a left leaning idea. Leftists surely want the progressive tax system we have (tax the rich, spare the poor) and I imagine a far leftist would think the wealthy should be taxed even more, and the very rich should have their capital gains taxed more, etc. If your limit on abortion isn't 0 or 6 then what is it?

 

[deleted1116990]

What if there's a danger to Mom's life and that's the only way to save her? What is Mom has a very aggressive cancer and needs chemo/radiation immediately and the fetus already isn't concerned viable beyond the uterus? However, in general I agree with you on 30 weeks, by laws are funny things in that it forces certain things that at times can be unpalatable and unreasonable.

I do not support restrictions to the mother's life. However, I am not aware of even remotely plausible situations where a full term fetus could not be safely delivered without killing the mother and instead has to be killed in utero by ripping limbs off and removing it pieces rather than alive and whole in order for the mother to live. In this specific situation, we are talking post-viability. The decision to undergo life-saving medical treatment that may kill a pre-viable fetus should be the decision of the mother as we are talking about a unique situation of sacrificing one life for another. Again, to give you a real answer to the question.

 

[Southpaw]

Did you read the follow up sentence? It had some Latin in it, so maybe you misunderstood. It means that I think Gabbard is likely unacceptable or unwelcome to most far left democrats.

She's unacceptable and unwelcome to a lot of people, not just the far left. I mean she wasn't appealing at all to even more moderate Democrats (Biden was their guy). Tulsi just wasn't popular at all in the Democratic Party. Not surprising that since she left she's shown a desire to fight right leaning culture wars. Also, given that Ukraine has labeled her as someone who spreads Russian propaganda, and as far as I can tell most of the world is rooting for Ukraine, I think that the list is long with people not caring for Tulsi very much.

 

[deleted1116990]

These are all very reasonable. You know this but a flat tax isn't a left leaning idea. Leftists surely want the progressive tax system we have (tax the rich, spare the poor) and I imagine a far leftist would think the wealthy should be taxed even more, and the very rich should have their capital gains taxed more, etc. If your limit on abortion isn't 0 or 6 then what is it?

I do, which is why I labelled it as centrist. But again, I was giving you examples to demonstrate that I am centrist and not far right. A centrist can hold only centrist ideas and not uniquely left or right ideas. That is possible.

 

[deleted1116990]

Also, given that Ukraine has labeled her as someone who spreads Russian propaganda, and as far as I can tell most of the world is rooting for Ukraine,

And also spreading Ukranian propoganda. The idea that one side of that conflict is pure and the other are the propogandists is ludicrious. Gabbard is anti-war and that is spun to make her pro-Russia, which is a fallacy.

 

[vector2]

Nope.

"Because anyone with half a brain could infer that his point is these edge cases, while they do literally exist, are so insanely rare that they don't deserve substantial consideration in the greater debate about abortion"
- You

Now here comes your strawman about "never happens" vs. "literally never happens" which is my entire point of how you deflected trying to defend your ridiculous stance.

Um yes, you're still lying. Because you're quoting me talking about someone else's post. But beyond the little semantic lies, the point still stands that you're a troll who gets off on misrepresentation and out-of-context accusations to score cheap points.

Cause as I wrote before

"
Let's take a look at what I wrote, because my argument sure as sht didn't stop with "cause it [late term abortion] rare." It actually continued with:

The late-term abortions which do happen are usually some kind of edge case involving either fetal defects or some kind of harm to the mother. And these edge cases don't fit neatly into little restriction clauses in laws which pertain to survivability/health of the mother or baby. Ultimately, the woman and her doctor who have tough moral and health decisions to make don't need to be hamstringed by legislators (barely capable of mastering the 6th grade sex ex curriculum) who think they should decide the nuances of neonatal/obstetric issues​

Now I want you to read that again very slowly and carefully. My objection was not solely based around totally, totally elective third abortions being rare. It's also based around week limits imposed by legislators which make terminating pregnancy impossible when there are non-clearcut (but still serious) health issues in the fetus or mother. It's not possible to put all the myriad scenarios into hard and fast legislative gestational age cutoffs, which is why the decision is best left to the woman and her physician.
"

And also me:

" The thing is, philosophically I think that viability should be the cut off for when abortion is permitted... "



To people who are thirsty for your partisan propaganda, it's easy to cherry pick statements to try to paint your opponents as evil, especially on polarizing issues like abortion. You've got a simplistic mind and you're unable to understand the intricacies or nuances of an issue like abortion, which is why the only way you're able to engage on the issue is with stunts like telling mirrortod "the leftists want to kill all the full term babies!!!"

 

[Southpaw]

And also spreading Ukranian propoganda. The idea that one side of that conflict is pure and the other are the propogandists is ludicrious. Gabbard is anti-war and that is spun to make her pro-Russia, which is a fallacy.

Kinzinger calls out Gabbard for Russian misinformation

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) called out former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) on Sunday for “actual Russian propaganda” after the ex-congresswoman tweeted a video claiming that the U.S. is funding m…

thehill.com

“Actual Russian propaganda. Traitorous. Russia also said the Luger center in Georgia was making zombies. Tulsi should go to Russia,” Kinzinger wrote in a retweet of the video Gabbard published earlier that day.

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) in a tweet on Sunday accused Gabbard of “parroting false Russian propaganda,” adding, “Her treasonous lies may well cost lives.”

 

[vector2]

These are all very reasonable. You know this but a flat tax isn't a left leaning idea. Leftists surely want the progressive tax system we have (tax the rich, spare the poor) and I imagine a far leftist would think the wealthy should be taxed even more, and the very rich should have their capital gains taxed more, etc. If your limit on abortion isn't 0 or 6 then what is it?

The devil is in the details, of course. Invariably, only feckless environmental regulations are proposed. And every suggested single payer plan brought up has a problem that make it untenable. And the abortion law he supports is from notable "moderate" Lindsey Graham .

 

[Southpaw]

I do not support restrictions to the mother's life. However, I am not aware of even remotely plausible situations where a full term fetus could not be safely delivered without killing the mother and instead has to be killed in utero by ripping limbs off and removing it pieces rather than alive and whole in order for the mother to live. In this specific situation, we are talking post-viability. The decision to undergo life-saving medical treatment that may kill a pre-viable fetus should be the decision of the mother as we are talking about a unique situation of sacrificing one life for another. Again, to give you a real answer to the question.

a 30 week fetus isn't full term. Regardless, I generally agree - to save Mom's life the 30wk fetus should be delivered and not aborted. However, laws do funny things and make things that seem reasonable unlawful. Like a 10 year old who was raped needing to travel to another state to get an abortion.

I do notice you avoid giving a hard answer on abortion though. You find 30 weeks abhorrent and that's fine. You're okay with 0 weeks and 6 weeks. Umm...okay. But when pray tell, is it not okay?

 

[Arch Guillotti]

How much did he owe and should have paid? I really don’t know and it’s a real question. You seem to have some knowledge about what he owed and did not pay. Have you run the numbers? Did he falsely claim losses or did they really occur? If the losses are real, then what should his tax bill have been according to your numbers? If the losses are not real, what are the real numbers he should have claimed?

Wake up man. Trump dodged taxes beyond belief. When I say dodged I mean cheated.

 

[Arch Guillotti]

Why? Genuinely curious to hear the far left posters' here biggest criticisms of her.
Center left people (the few that are left) like Joe Rogan and Bill Maher seem to love her.
Is it just that she is too far to the center for you or something else? I'm assuming you all are also opposed to politicians gravitating more back to the center, as in we need more people on the center left and center right instead of the extremes which is what we have been gravitating to, and the big problem I see.

Russian stooge.

 

[Angus Avagadro]

Problem is is that I want the expensive ones. Sig 550, HK MP5, maybe a SAW for funsies.

Get a side hustle like the rest of us. In my spare time....I think of ways for my wife to make more money. Follow me for more financial advice.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

Get a side hustle like the rest of us. In my spare time....I think of ways for my wife to make more money. Follow me for more financial advice.

I pimp my wife out too! She doesn’t bring in as much as she used to though so I’ll have to wait a few years to get my daughter in the game. Times are hard.

 

[Southpaw]

And also spreading Ukranian propoganda. The idea that one side of that conflict is pure and the other are the propogandists is ludicrious. Gabbard is anti-war and that is spun to make her pro-Russia, which is a fallacy.

Wait just a second. One could read this and easily make a jump that you’re being a Putin apologist here. How would someone who is anti-war get labeled as supporting a country that started a war? That’s an odd jump you made there.

 

[vector2]

Wait just a second. One could read this and easily make a jump that you’re being a Putin apologist here. How would someone who is anti-war get labeled as supporting a country that started a war? That’s an odd jump you made there

However much we may sympathize with a small nation confronted by a big and powerful neighbours, we cannot in all circumstances undertake to involve the whole British Empire in a war simply on her account.

However much we may sympathize with a small nation confronted by a big and powerful neighbours, we cannot in all circumstances undertake to involve the whole British Empire United States of America in a war simply on her account.

 

[epidural man]

I really liked Tulsi in 2016.

I haven’t paid much attention to her of late but she is an isolationist. She thinks we shouldn’t be in forever wars. It is not surprising she is against us helping Ukraine.

But to call her a Putin apologist, I think, is what I would expect from any concrete operational thinker.l, or someone just trying to be mean, or someone being lazy in thought.

She has some good tweets.

 

[vector2]

I really liked Tulsi in 2016.

I haven’t paid much attention to her of late but she is an isolationist. She thinks we shouldn’t be in forever wars. It is not surprising she is against us helping Ukraine.

But to call her a Putin apologist, I think, is what I would expect from any concrete operational thinker.l, or someone just trying to be mean, or someone being lazy in thought.

She has some good tweets.

Have you considered the possibility that maybe, just maybe, a person with a track record of being an outright Bashar al-Assad shill is capable of being a Putin apologist?

​

While advocating for peace, Tennison has repeatedly championed Russia’s dictator. For example, in 2018, she wrote, “Putin isn’t the problem, friends. The problem is the projection of our own ‘shadow’ on Putin and Russia.” In September 2020, Tennison observed, “Putin seems to ignore detractors and continues efforts to create venues to bring peoples and countries together despite vilifications.” And the day after Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, Tennison posted, “I am deeply concerned about a NATO country being on Russia’s borders in Ukraine … As for Putin’s current dilemma, I’m sorry he felt he had to intervene in Ukraine!” Ukraine is not and has never been a NATO member.​

​

The crux of Tennison’s political contributions have gone to Gabbard, the former Democratic congresswoman and presidential candidate who’s been a prominent Russian sympathizer. Since July 2016, Tennison has contributed $15,000 to Gabbard’s political committees, including $2,000 last December to Tulsi Aloha, the leadership PAC that emerged from her presidential campaign. Donations in support of Gabbard comprise 69% of Tennison’s total political giving, according to records with the Federal Election Commission. Tulsi Aloha reported raising a total of $45,000 in 2021.​

​

A month after Gabbard dropped her $50 million defamation lawsuit against Hillary Clinton over her remarks about a potential “Russian asset” running in the 2020 race, Tennison contributed $2,000 to Gabbard’s legal expense fund.​

​

Tulsi Gabbard’s Biggest Political Donor In 2021 Is A Putin Apologist

Founder of a nonprofit that aims to improve U.S.-Russian relations was the top individual donor to the Hawaiian Democrat’s political action committee

www.forbes.com

​

---

​

​

​

Stephanopoulos asked Gabbard about a Daily Beast story listing the support her campaign has received from Russophiles. He also noted her meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, her defense of Russian military operations in Syria and her statements that Russian election interference is no worse than what America has historically undertaken.​

​

“Is Putin a threat to national security?” he asked.​

​

“You now it’s unfortunately you’re citing that article, George, because it’s a whole lot of fake news. What I’m focused on is what’s in the best interest of the American people? What’s in the best interest of national security? Keeping American people safe,” Gabbard said. “And what I’m pointing out consistently, time and time again, is our continued wasteful regime change wars have been counterproductive to the interests of the American people and the approach this administration has taken in essentially choosing conflict … has been counterproductive to national security.”​

​

---

​

Even Sean Hannity Balks at Tulsi Gabbard’s Putin Apologia

The conservative Fox News host felt it necessary to jump in and push back as Gabbard’s pro-Putin talking points went a bit too far.

www.thedailybeast.com

She couldn't even acknowledge that Putin is a threat or that Russia is an adversary, just like she previously couldn't acknowledge that al-Assad was a war criminal. Seems rather oblivious and short-sighted to state that those who think she's a Putin apologist and Russian sympathizer are only doing so out of meanness or laziness given her public record over the last few years.

 

[Southpaw]

I really liked Tulsi in 2016.

I haven’t paid much attention to her of late but she is an isolationist. She thinks we shouldn’t be in forever wars. It is not surprising she is against us helping Ukraine.

But to call her a Putin apologist, I think, is what I would expect from any concrete operational thinker.l, or someone just trying to be mean, or someone being lazy in thought.

She has some good tweets.

I take offense to that. If you like Tulsi that’s fine, I’m happy for you. But do just a little bit of digging and reading here, please. Also read the post I responded to. It is very clear what the intent was.

Against us helping in Ukraine? Look, fine. Be an isolationist. But it just doesn’t make sense to wear an anti-war badge and at the same time get labeled as pro-Russia, given that Russia started a war by invading Ukraine.

 

[Southpaw]

Twitter

No, I literally asked you what you meant and to clarify here. Having to disabuse false claims of strawmen seems to not be an uncommon thing here: Literally trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. With regards to your link, which goes to a bronze sculpture art site called John Lopez...

forums.studentdoctor.net

@pgg said it a lot better than I ever could. Guess who he was responding to? @Moonbeams. I really think some of you can’t get past Hunter Biden with regard to Ukraine to see the real danger in Putin and Russia invading Ukraine.

I’m not surprised some of you moderate conservatives like Tulsi after she left the Dems. But geez, some of the stuff you all say just gets a little too close to friendliness toward Putin/Russia for my taste. Kinda gives me the heebie jeebies.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

Twitter

No, I literally asked you what you meant and to clarify here. Having to disabuse false claims of strawmen seems to not be an uncommon thing here: Literally trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. With regards to your link, which goes to a bronze sculpture art site called John Lopez...

forums.studentdoctor.net

@pgg said it a lot better than I ever could. Guess who he was responding to? @Moonbeams. I really think some of you can’t get past Hunter Biden with regard to Ukraine to see the real danger in Putin and Russia invading Ukraine.

I’m not surprised some of you moderate conservatives like Tulsi after she left the Dems. But geez, some of the stuff you all say just gets a little too close to friendliness toward Putin/Russia for my taste. Kinda gives me the heebie jeebies.

Russian disinformation rampant on far-right social media platforms

Niche platforms lack the content moderation tools of their larger peers, creating an opening for covert information operations.

www.cyberscoop.com

” While the fringe platforms’ reach is limited, the report shows how mainstream social media platforms frequently amplified disinformation originating on alternative ones.”

Russia and China are fueling web wars to divide Americans

American adversaries not only hack our computers, but they also hack our minds.

nypost.com

“Russian state media, bots, trolls and online proxies exploit disagreements in the US over social issues like abortion, gun control, ethnic groups and police behavior.”

 

[NumTacos]

View attachment 363947
Any thoughts on this data set from the CDC?

Why Do Vaccinated People Represent Most COVID-19 Deaths Right Now? | KFF

This post explores why the share of COVID-19 deaths among those who are vaccinated has risen, Factors include a rising share of the population that is vaccinated, waning immune protection and low uptake of boosters, and changes in immunity among the unvaccinated.

www.kff.org

Base rate fallacy.

 

[epidural man]

I take offense to that. If you like Tulsi that’s fine, I’m happy for you. But do just a little bit of digging and reading here, please. Also read the post I responded to. It is very clear what the intent was.

Against us helping in Ukraine? Look, fine. Be an isolationist. But it just doesn’t make sense to wear an anti-war badge and at the same time get labeled as pro-Russia, given that Russia started a war by invading Ukraine.

Regarding Tulsi -

I'd love to do some more reading or listening. This is what I want to listen to - a long form interview where someone gets to ask hard questions, and Tulsi can spend an hour explaining what she thinks and means. I don't want to read an article about what someone THINKS about a response to a question, or a single line taken from an interview and gives their take. I have no interest in that.

Ultimately I don't care. I liked Tulsi in 2016 because from the long form interviews I heard from her (despite all the negative and seemingly misleading statements people took out of context being passed around), I really liked the cut of her jib.

But is she likely a dishonest and horrible politician like all the rest? Likely so. Is she self-serving like every other politician? Likely so.

But I find it VERY HARD TO BELIEVE she is a secret Russian agent, or even doesn't think Russia is a threat, or isn't worried about innocent lives in Ukraine, or love PUTIN. If you have listened to her speak, and answer tough questions in long form (and not read a persons opinion about what she is saying...but listen to what SHE says), I think it isn't a stretch to believe she just has a different agenda. It doesn't mean I agree with it - I just don't think it is honest to say she likes Putin.

 

[epidural man]

Kinzinger calls out Gabbard for Russian misinformation

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) called out former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) on Sunday for “actual Russian propaganda” after the ex-congresswoman tweeted a video claiming that the U.S. is funding m…

thehill.com

“Actual Russian propaganda. Traitorous. Russia also said the Luger center in Georgia was making zombies. Tulsi should go to Russia,” Kinzinger wrote in a retweet of the video Gabbard published earlier that day.

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) in a tweet on Sunday accused Gabbard of “parroting false Russian propaganda,” adding, “Her treasonous lies may well cost lives.”

I like Mitt Romney though. He is a great example of how people lack critical thinking skills. He votes more on a traditional Republican side than most Republicans, and yet, most republicans call him a RINO. Haha.

 

[BobLoblaw78]

Donald Trump Paid $0 in Taxes in 2020. He’s Not Alone: 60% of Households Paid No Federal Income Tax That Year, but for Very Different Reasons. — Barron's

It’s not that unusual. Former President Donald Trump and his wife, Melania, paid $0 in income taxes for 2020, according to a report released late Tuesday by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. That year, as the COVID pandemic hit, the Trumps reported a loss of $4.8 million. For 2018...

apple.news

How is this ok? I’m going to pull a Time to Kill reference… Trumpees, close your eyes and imagine if this was Obama.

You know, when I watched this movie it fell flat with this line. I had imagined the girl being white instead of black and it was still the same amount of horrific. I really empathize with all humans and changing skin color doesn’t change that for me. I truly think the majority of left and right empathize with most humans the same regardless of skin color

 

[epidural man]

You know, when I watched this movie it fell flat with this line. I had imagined the girl being white instead of black and it was still the same amount of horrific. I really empathize with all humans and changing skin color doesn’t change that for me. I truly think the majority of left and right empathize with most humans the same regardless of skin color

Regarding Trump and taxes, I loved what Dave Chapelle said about it on SNL opening (which I thought was brilliant).

 

[vector2]

 

[BobLoblaw78]

It was pretty obvious that Trump didn’t pay much taxes those years (or others). He was obviously hiding and embarrassed or he would’ve released them. I don’t get the “gotcha” moment bc it was all legal and tell me which of us would pay more if we didn’t have to. The gotcha moment is how he talked about women on a hot mic. Pretty despicable.

What you guys aren’t asking is how did Biden, MSM know to ask about those specific years? Was it leaked? Did they have inside info? Illegal info? Serious question bc I may have missed it

 

[vector2]

It was pretty obvious that Trump didn’t pay much taxes those years (or others). He was obviously hiding and embarrassed or he would’ve released them. I don’t get the “gotcha” moment bc it was all legal and tell me which of us would pay more if we didn’t have to. The gotcha moment is how he talked about women on a hot mic. Pretty despicable.

What you guys aren’t asking is how did Biden, MSM know to ask about those specific years? Was it leaked? Did they have inside info? Illegal info? Serious question bc I may have missed it

Lol, the degree of rationalization you have for his nonstop lying and corruption wrt his finances is absolutely incredible. Bravo.

It's so "obvious" that he was losing money hand over fist, and yet the number #2 reason most Republicans supported him was because he was purportedly a "good businessman". Just curious, was that also one of the reasons you supported him in 2016?

And, uh, we're pretty certain at this point that a whole bunch of what he did financially wasn't legal. Both he and the trump org (Alan Weisselberg is going to jail) are facing liability for falsely inflating the net worth of both his commercial and personal properties in an effort to better rates on loans and insurance policies, and to gain tax benefits.

 

[vector2]

Let's also not forget that a President's tax returns require a mandatory audit when he is in office. The IRS under Mnuchin didn't begin an audit of his 2016 returns until May 2019.

Mnuchin blocking Trump tax returns from Congress was unprecedented, Treasury response reveals - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

When Mnuchin blocked the release of Trump’s tax returns, it was the first time the IRS ever failed to turn over tax returns to Congress.

www.citizensforethics.org

Trump tax audits required by IRS were delayed, panel says

A congressional panel says the IRS failed to pursue mandatory audits of Donald Trump on a timely basis during his presidency.

apnews.com

 

[Gern Blansten]

Hey Vecna, did you see who is head of bioethics at NIH?

Is it Fauci's wife?

 

[BobLoblaw78]

Lol, the degree of rationalization you have for his nonstop lying and corruption wrt his finances is absolutely incredible. Bravo.

It's so "obvious" that he was losing money hand over fist, and yet the number #2 reason most Republicans supported him was because he was purportedly a "good businessman". Just curious, was that also one of the reasons you supported him in 2016?

And, uh, we're pretty certain at this point that a whole bunch of what he did financially wasn't legal. Both he and the trump org (Alan Weisselberg is going to jail) are facing liability for falsely inflating the net worth of both his commercial and personal properties in an effort to better rates on loans and insurance policies, and to gain tax benefits.

You are just irritated bc I won’t grab a pitchfork and join the mob. You are obviously irritated that I won’t echo whatever you are saying. Why you get huffy when I dislike him for different reasons than you? I get irritated bc I have to hear you say I supported him in 2016 when I did the opposite. I actually fell more in line with Ben Shapiro ie- couldn’t stand Trump or support him. Still can’t stand trump as a person. Trigger warning: as a president he did a better job than Biden is doing.

You do realize your method of attacking even when I agree he is bad orange man makes you look emotional, right? You actually push rational people away from agreeing with you while simultaneously robbing your subsequent accusations of any real weight. You already know he is guilty, you just need more time to make the pieces fit.