Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Both sides? JFC. I am going to regret engaging here, but I didn’t realize this delusion is still alive.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
I don’t know, but I think the Democrats will do better than expected and then the Republicans will refuse to concede and claim “fraud”.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
I guess my reply is in the wrong place, but this is a response to Cornfed:
And Walker can be dismissed because his son is alienated from him? Then BT, I presume you are favorably disposed to Trump since all of his children are so loyal to him.
Of course not. How can you read that tweet and come to that conclusion. The content of the tweet is why I disdain Walker.
Serious question: If your sister or wife or daughter was abused, threatened, and bullied by some asshole for years on end — and you later had a chance to vote for that guy in some political race — would you vote for him?
His son is a conservative — not some woke liberal with an agenda, by the way.
-
This reply was modified 4 years ago by
.
-
This reply was modified 4 years ago by .
-
This reply was modified 4 years ago by .
-
This reply was modified 4 years ago by .
-
This reply was modified 4 years ago by .
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
Why should Christian minister come into play? Warnock’s politics are wrong, regardless of his ministry.
Of course this should have nothing to do with it. The point, as should be very obvious, is that a lot of conservatives claim to vote for Christian values.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
I guess the alternative is voting for an actual Christian minister or not voting, god forbid.
He’s still polling well enough. At the end of the day, the pro life party of family values and the folks who wagged their finger for decades and clutched their pearls turns out to have no integrity. I’m not really surprised.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
I personally don’t think the mandates are necessary. By 2035 most people will probably prefer to buy EVs with or without a mandate.
In Norway — a cold weather country not too dissimilar in weather from Minnesota — adoption just hit about 90% of new sales.
EVs aren’t for everyone, but for the vast majority of people they will work just fine even with less range than a gas vehicle. And by 2035 the range issue will probably be moot or certainly mitigated significantly as battery technology and other efficiencies improve.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
Others that I didn’t mention, such as when Trump redirected funds that had been appropriated to other U.S. government operations to cover the cost of building his wall.
As I said, I don’t like how this was done. And I suspect it will be challenged as unconstitutional.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
I don’t own a farm, but I’ve helped bail them out.
I didn’t own a house in 2008, but my taxes helped bail out Fannie & Freddie.
I didn’t get a PPP loan, but I’m paying for them.
I didn’t vote for the guy who started the Iraq War, but I’m paying for the trillions spent there.
I didn’t vote for the guy who started the war in Afghanistan, but I helped pay for all kinds of shite there for decades.
I don’t own a multimillion dollar business that got a tax cut from Trump.
I don’t own a home in a hurricane prone or flood prone area that keeps getting wiped out and rebuilt, but somehow I keep paying for that shite.
All kinds of groups, individuals, and corporations have been getting handouts and bailouts from the government for decades. It’s just that this particular group is not in a red state that gets hurricanes and floods, it’s not a corporation, it’s not a big business; it’s a group that happens to align more with Democrats, so it’s suddenly unfair.
Having said that, I actually agree this thing was not done well. I would have much preferred that Biden simply remove the prohibition on discharging the debt upon bankruptcy (which frankly seems immoral to me).
And let’s be honest: who really was the financially irresponsible party? The guy saddled with crazy debt he can’t discharge but is trying to pay back, or the organization that lent hundreds of thousands to a jobless teen getting an English degree?
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
I get it. Liberals have gone overboard with the white supremacy thing. I agree with that.
But you think I should be reading every article and asking myself why it doesn’t mention white supremacy?
Do you ask yourself why the media posted here never mentions right wing nutcases?
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
You’ll have to point me to these white supremacy theories that NPR didn’t cover. I’m not disagreeing, but not sure what you’re alluding to. Perhaps you can provide a link… Are you referring to the fact that last week the media called out “white replacement theory” that motivated the Buffalo mass shooter – and which has become a fairly mainstream conservative talking point?
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
And no surprise, other right wingers claiming this was a false flag conspiracy by the government to justify tighter gun control.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
On a related note, a GOP Rep falsely tweeted that the shooter was a trans leftist illegal alien. The lie went viral among the right and allegedly got at least one transgender person assaulted in Texas.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
The whole article is a bit “inside baseball” for me as I don’t follow the nuances of this story. But skimming through it, it seems like Fusion GPS was providing some media and government folks with information. I didn’t get the sense (at least from your link) that ABC, Slate, New York Times, etc., were taking direction from the government the way Hannity was literally scheming with Meadows:
“Yes sir,” Hannity replied [to Meadows]. “On it. Any place in particular we need a push.”
But even if it’s worse than my impression, that wasn’t my point. See my response to cardcrimson earlier today.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
Apologies. I wasn’t trying to be too personal, just sarcastic. This was a reference to your post a few months back. I assumed you would remember. I tried to make it pretty obvious — paraphrasing your title and mirroring the language in that post…. Perhaps the reference was a bit too cryptic.
To answer your question about what was my point: You suggested media folks who are in bed with the government should be suspended. I was wondering if you feel that way about Hannity.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
This thread reminds me of the comments about electric vehicles I was seeing in 2017.
Regarding the 5% energy loss per month mentioned above, yes some batteries and cars lose energy over time, but it’s de minimis. The only time it would ever possibly be an issue is if you parked your car at an airport for a month not plugged in. But most people don’t do that even with internal combustion cars. I own an electric car and have been following electric car forums for many years. There are occasional questions about “phantom” energy loss, but practically speaking it’s not a problem EV owners are complaining about. And most of the energy loss is due to “always on” electrical systems not unique to EVs. Usually the biggest problems end up being due to someone forgetting to turn off Sentry mode (anti theft) on their Tesla or something similar.
cardcrimson compared it to having a leak in your 20 gallon tank. That sounds ominous, but in reality you’ll save on average about $1000 per year in fuel costs if you drive electric. You’ll also save on oil changes and other maintenance (far few parts to break). Of course, electric cars do cost more up front still. But the total cost of ownership is becoming competitive.
Range is less than an internal combustion vehicle and it does take longer to charge than to fill a tank, but unless you’re a person going on frequent, very long road trips, it’s really not going to add much time to your travels. Something like 98 or 99% of all miles are driven within a short distance from someone’s home. And those who do go on road trips invariably report that the whole “range anxiety” thing is way overblown. A trip between SF and LA would not take that much longer, for example. If you’re doing that every weekend, then sure maybe it’s going to add up and you might not want an EV. But the vast majority of people aren’t going to have issues.
Electric cars aren’t for everyone (e.g., towing or if you live in an apartment without chargers). But things are changing rapidly. Technology is improving and costs are coming down. Infrastructure is growing rapidly too. In ten years (and probably sooner) only a small minority of people will be buying internal combustion cars, except used ones.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
-
This reply was modified 4 years ago by
