Leaderboard

An invasive species that is capable of destroying countless lives...

When the newspaper owned by the country's largest retail billionare doesn't like your anti-price-gouging idea, you know you're on the right track.

Oh give up arguing, the Covid thing is history and they're still carrying on like MAGAs about Hillary's emails FFS. They can't move on cuz that would be progress and that's a bad word to them. But we can.

I 100% believe the jabs were not created for the virus. The virus was created for the jabs. It's the only thing that makes sense of the utter insanity that ensued.

I have defended them as much as I can. That's the point. I don't want to keep replying, replying, replying replying.. I lost I guess.

It was still a coronavirus. Coronaviruses are gonna coronavirus like they always do. The only part that was "novel" was the engineered part - the funky cleavage site using human ACE-2 receptors to make it more transmissible between humans.

The heavy handed nonsense is what got me. Even with the punishments for protesting their mandates, I see two of the Coutts folks won their court case but still are being held hostage in remand three years later because of Trudeau. Very sick person

Their rights are based on pretending that false claims are okay because they're protected free speech. There's a reason why falsely crying fire in a crowded theater doesn't qualify and why Kenneth Law is charged with counselling and aiding suicide. Both should be as applicable when protecting people from medical misinformation that can lead to their deaths.

People have been given vaccines dating back a century. When you were a child, chances are you were vaccinated from smallpox, measles, and other diseases that increased the infant mortality rate. However, now that some internet "doctors" are convincing people to not get vaccinated, falsely claiming it causes Autism, among other things, measles (which was thought to be eradicated in 2000), has come back in parts of the US, and is killing children again. But hey, the parents are saying it's a small price to pay, for their "rights."

So Hamas is allowed to murder Jews all they want and Jews are not allowed to fight back. F that.

Your fantasy world takes precedence over reality, doesn't it?

She's agreed to 2 debates and a third for the VEEP Candidates. (i think waltz is going to get eaten alive). She pushed the second one late. She's obviously hoping like hell to get people to the advance polls in huge numbers and so if she blows it then it won't hurt so bad. Honestly, trump is going to start gaining ground on her by the end of september when the first debate is, and will likely continue to do so, so if she doesn't have some air between him and her early on she's toast. That's how biden took it, he opened up that lead massively early and did well in that debate and then even tho trump started to catch up at a wild pace towards the end he couldn't close that distance before he ran out of road. But she's just not got that altitude yet, so we'll see what happens with the convention. her issue is going to be that nobody's really paying attention in August. She better do very well in that first debate.

I know that there's about as much truth to this as there is to the "Trump referred to immigrants as animals" narrative from the MSM, but they should be held to a higher standard than mere anonymous posters. That meme is therefor certified "Accurate Enough for the MSM" on the truth-o-meter.

Can't keep your story straight for even a few posts can you nope, i just answered your question, and once again you're bringing it up and talking about it. You just can't go a thread without talking about men's balls or butts or poop. Here: I asked a girl who's gay and she said this might help you: 10 tips on how to come out as LGBT to family and friends | Family | The Guardian

Trump, in the 58-minute call with the governors, said of Walz, "He's an excellent guy. You've got a big National Guard out there that's ready to come in and fight like hell. I tell you, the best — what they did in Minneapolis was incredible. They went in and dominated, and it happened immediately."

They point to intent but I'm not sure that the intent is malice. It seems more believable to me that they did something amazingly stupid and wrong and when by accident that suddenly had a massive consequence that infected the entire world they moved heaven and earth to cover it up. Honestly if you were going to do it intentionally why would you release it where you developed it. It would have been pretty easy to release it just about anywhere else in the world. There was also the political element. Because of who was involved the democrats may have worn the problem if the truth had come out during an election cycle they were desperate to win. There is no denying that there were significant lies and what appears to be a widespread and organized campaign to at least repress the truth during an election cycle. There's no doubt that the media and government agencies willingly and actively participated in that. Those are now known facts. Honestly though while it is obviously too well organized not to be a coordinated effort, it's too sloppy to be well planned out. I think it got away from them unexpectedly, they suddenly realized what would happen if they got the blame for it, they moved heaven and earth to cover things up as best they could and also to prevent the republicans from getting back in and asking the wrong questions.

Midwest guy tells basic midwest dad joke. 😱

Pretty telling that the best one can offer is name calling while supporting a known pervert and convicted criminal as the alternative.

They run away every day when they eventually go to sleep or gasp!.. have something meaningful to do. and when you say, "I have said all that I am going to say".. this is apparently code for being cowardly. Someone will eventually get the last word...

Trump is not President. This was not created by his cabinet member. You are having a real problem here understanding that disconnect. Yeah, you keep showing how Trump is associated with one of the dudes who created Project 2025, but you don't even show the connection to Project 2025. Ah yes, classic. You want to make the assertions, just not defend them.

and her shitty record, there's that too.

Pretty telling that after four years of being vice-president, all they have is criticism of her laughter. That only resonates with you guys who are still traumatized by constantly being laughed at by beautiful women. 😂

Really? How so? Pointing out the policy positions of candidates that want to run the country is a waste of time?

Bingo. In other news, right wingers hate the Tech Billionaire barons until they say the magic words like woke or conmie. Repeat and reverse for left wingers...

roboslut will have a large word salad with a warm glass of soymilk, to go:

Seems that way. In the end it just drives up prices for the suckers willing to pay for their t-shirts

Nice conspiracy theory.

Nerdlinger

This is a weird/dumb thread, but I'm very worried about OP when he gets around to noticing that the Dutch live in Holland, formally The Netherlands, within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. He may go full meltdown.

Well that's a fantasy then. that's not based on reality. He "Might" be "Open" to "Some" of it maybe. Harris "Might" be willing to "be open" to "nuclear war with russia" maybe. I mean sure she SAYS she won't but .. how can we know? Prove me wrong. It's lazy thinking and it's not reasonable.

LMAO what?? There is nothing “irrelevant” or “spam” about the abundance of articles that directly support the theme of this thread, which is that the former (and potentially future) Trump administration has close deep ties to project 2025. Your “tell” is that when you have no facts or evidence to support your claims you revert to bullshit mode, claiming articles say the exact opposite of what they actually say, that synonyms are jot synonyms and that article that are 100% relevant and on-topic are not. IPfft take your pick. Not only does he take credit for things that his administration had nothing to do with but he famously takes PERSONAL credit for work done by his staffers or the bureaucracy that he would obviously have had little direct involvement in. For example although routine annual military pay raises occur every year, Trump in 2018 randomly declared that he personally got them their first pay raise in ten years and “it was a big one” even though there was nothing unusual about the increase that year. Another example is the pay Paycheque Protection Program launched after the start of COVID. Trump took PERSONAL credit for it however the program’ was actively collaborative effort of various government departments and financial institutions involving many individuals and institutions from public and private sectors well beyond the President’s direct actions. He also regularly attempted to take personal credit for government response to various natural disasters, which in reality have little direct involvement from the White House eg Hurricane Florence, 2018 I will provide you with more evidence, which you will surely falsely call irrelevant spamming true to your form. First He PERSONALLY takes credit for things that people administration did that obviously a President wouldn’t be closely involved with Trump Takes Credit For Vaccine Created By Others, Including Immigrants …In the Oval Office, Trump said, “The vaccines – and by the way, don’t let Joe Biden take credit for the vaccine. . . . Don’t let him take credit for the vaccines, because the vaccines were me.” (Emphasis added.) The evidence shows Donald Trump had no role in creating the vaccines to fight Covid-19. There is nothing in the record that warrants him taking “credit” for the vaccines. A review of events shows immigrants and immigrant-led companies created the vaccines…. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2020/12/01/trump-takes-credit-for-vaccine-created-by-others-including-immigrants/ 10 of the most questionable things Trump's claimed credit for https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/01/02/politics/donald-trump-took-credit-for-what Fact-checking what Trump has taken credit for https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/fact-checking-what-trump-has-taken-credit-for/ ‘I did the insulin’: Trump tries to take credit for bill signed by Biden Trump takes credit for legislation signed by Obama https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/trump-takes-credit-for-legislation-signed-by-obama-205384773596 Trump Claims Credit For Record Stock Market Using Bogus Reasoning Former President Donald Trump is attempting to take credit for a healthy stock market despite having been out of office for a full three years now. https://sg.news.yahoo.com/trump-claims-credit-record-stock-221003729.html Followed recently by… Donald Trump No Longer Trying to Take Credit for Stock Market Former President Donald Trump laid blame for poor stock market performance on the current administration, despite previously taking credit for record highs under President Joe Biden's leadership. https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-credit-stock-market-1934632 And on it goes I am so so so glad you asked There were so many examples to comb through I asked Chat GPT to list them for me Here you go CHAT GPT: Give examples of Trump White House staff attempting to make sense of incoherent instructions from president trump Response:: There are several reported instances where White House staff under President Trump had to interpret or clarify his sometimes vague or contradictory instructions. One notable example comes from the handling of policy statements and tweets related to U.S. military policy. Example 1: The Transgender Military Ban Announcement On July 26, 2017, President Trump unexpectedly announced on Twitter that the U.S. government would no longer allow transgender individuals to serve in the military, citing potential costs and “disruption.” According to reports, many senior officials, including those in the Department of Defense, were caught off guard by the announcement. There was no prior consultation or clear directive given to the Pentagon or relevant agencies about how to implement the policy. Following the tweets, White House and Defense Department officials scrambled to understand the President’s intentions. The tweets were vague and did not provide specific guidance on how the ban would be implemented, what would happen to transgender individuals already serving, or how the policy would be enforced. Legal advisors and military officials had to assess the legality of the proposed ban and its implications on ongoing service members. This required significant interpretation and internal discussion, as the tweets lacked detail. The White House communications team had to develop a coherent narrative to explain the President’s decision, despite the lack of clear internal direction. They had to ensure that the messaging was consistent while awaiting formal policy guidance, which was eventually issued later.In this case, White House staff had to work intensively to turn a spontaneous and somewhat ambiguous public statement into actionable policy, navigating the challenges posed by the initial lack of coherence in the directive. Another example occurred in December 2018 when President Trump abruptly announced the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria via Twitter, which caught many of his advisers and military leaders off guard. Example 2: The Announcement of U.S. Troop Withdrawal from Syria On December 19, 2018, President Trump tweeted that the U.S. would be withdrawing all of its troops from Syria, declaring that ISIS had been defeated: • Trump’s Tweet: “We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency.” The tweet surprised many senior officials, including military leaders and key allies, who had not been fully briefed on the decision beforehand. Secretary of Defense James Mattis and other key figures reportedly opposed the withdrawal and believed that a continued U.S. presence was necessary to prevent a resurgence of ISIS and to protect Kurdish allies. The lack of prior planning and communication created significant confusion. White House staff and the Pentagon had to quickly develop a plan Another example involves President Trump’s approach to handling the 2018 California wildfires, particularly his statements about forest management and threats to withhold federal funding from California. Example 3: Threats to Withhold Federal Funding Over Forest Management During the devastating California wildfires in November 2018, President Trump made a series of statements and tweets criticizing California’s forest management practices and threatening to withhold federal funding if the state did not improve its efforts. • Trump’s Tweet: On November 10, 2018, President Trump tweeted, “There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor. Billions of dollars are given each year, with so many lives lost, all because of gross mismanagement of the forests. Remedy now, or no more Fed payments!” Challenges for the White House Staff: • Factually Inaccurate Statements: The President’s statements were criticized for being factually inaccurate and overly simplistic. Many experts pointed out that the wildfires were exacerbated by a range of factors, including climate change, drought, and the fact that many of the fires occurred in areas that were not forests but rather grasslands and urban areas. White House staff had to navigate these inaccuracies while managing the public’s perception. • Clarifying and Walking Back Remarks: The White House communications team and other officials were put in a difficult position of having to clarify the President’s remarks. They needed to ensure that federal aid to California would continue despite the President’s threats, while not directly contradicting him. This involved softening the rhetoric and emphasizing that the administration was committed to helping victims of the wildfires. • Relations with California Officials: The President’s tweets strained relationships with California state officials, who were already dealing with a crisis. White House staff had to manage these tensions, often working behind the scenes to ensure that disaster response efforts were not hindered by the political dispute. They also had to work to reassure state and local officials that federal support would not be withdrawn despite the President’s public threats. • Public Communication: The communications team had to address public and media concerns about the potential withdrawal of federal aid. This involved multiple rounds of messaging to clarify the administration’s position and to reassure the public that federal assistance would continue. • Internal Friction: Internally, there was likely tension among the President’s advisers and between different agencies (such as FEMA and the Department of the Interior) as they tried to reconcile the President’s statements with the ongoing disaster response efforts. This example highlights how White House staff had to interpret and manage the fallout from President Trump’s off-the-cuff and often controversial statements, ensuring that the federal response to a major disaster remained effective and that public communication did not escalate the crisis further. Another notable example occurred during the controversy surrounding the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment that Russia had interfered in the 2016 presidential election. President Trump’s contradictory statements about this issue often left White House staff scrambling to clarify his position. Example 4: The Helsinki Summit with Vladimir Putin (July 2018) During a joint press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki on July 16, 2018, President Trump appeared to side with Putin’s denial of Russian interference over the conclusions of U.S. intelligence agencies. When asked if he believed the U.S. intelligence community or Putin regarding Russian interference, Trump responded: • Trump’s Statement: “My people came to me, Dan Coats [Director of National Intelligence] came to me, and some others. They said they think it’s Russia. I have President Putin; he just said it’s not Russia. I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be.” This statement, effectively casting doubt on the U.S. intelligence community’s findings, sparked immediate backlash from lawmakers, the public, and even some within his administration. Challenges for the White House Staff: • Immediate Backlash and Confusion: Trump’s remarks were widely criticized as undermining the credibility of U.S. intelligence agencies and seeming to support the Russian narrative. This put White House staff in a difficult position, as they had to address the criticism while maintaining the President’s support for the intelligence community. • Damage Control and Clarification: The day after the press conference, on July 17, 2018, Trump attempted to walk back his comments by claiming that he had misspoken. He said he meant to say, “I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be Russia” instead of “would be.” White House staff had to quickly prepare this clarification and ensure that it was communicated effectively, though the damage had already been done. • Managing Relationships with Intelligence Officials: The President’s comments caused significant tension between the White House and the intelligence community. Staff had to work behind the scenes to reassure intelligence officials and the public that the administration still valued their work and trusted their assessments. • International Implications: Trump’s statements at the Helsinki Summit had serious international implications, particularly concerning U.S. relations with its allies and adversaries. White House staff and diplomats had to manage the fallout with NATO allies, who were concerned about the U.S. President appearing to side with Russia, a country seen as a major threat to Western security. • Internal Tension: Within the administration, Trump’s comments likely exacerbated existing tensions between those who supported a hardline stance against Russia and those who advocated for improved relations with Moscow. White House staff had to navigate these internal divisions while trying to present a unified front publicly. • Public Communication Strategy: The communications team had to balance defending the President while also mitigating the negative impact of his statements. This involved issuing carefully crafted statements and coordinating with other officials to emphasize that the U.S. remained committed to confronting Russian interference. This example underscores the challenges faced by White House staff when President Trump made statements that conflicted with established U.S. policy or intelligence assessments, requiring them to engage in significant damage control and clarification efforts. Another significant example occurred in March 2020 during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic when President Trump made public statements promoting the use of hydroxychloroquine as a potential treatment for the virus. Example 5: Promoting Hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 Treatment Throughout March and April 2020, President Trump repeatedly promoted hydroxychloroquine, an anti-malarial drug, as a potential “game changer” in the fight against COVID-19, despite limited evidence supporting its efficacy. During a press briefing on March 19, 2020, Trump stated: • Trump’s Statement: “I think it’s going to be very exciting. I think it could be a game changer, and maybe not. And maybe not. But I think it could be, based on what I see. It could be a game changer.” Challenges for the White House Staff: • Lack of Scientific Consensus: At the time of Trump’s statements, there was no solid scientific evidence that hydroxychloroquine was effective in treating COVID-19. In fact, subsequent studies suggested that the drug could have serious side effects, especially for patients with certain health conditions. White House staff, along with health officials like Dr. Anthony Fauci, were put in a position where they had to temper expectations and emphasize that more research was needed. • Public and Media Reaction: The President’s promotion of hydroxychloroquine led to a surge in demand for the drug, causing shortages for patients who needed it for approved treatments, such as lupus or rheumatoid arthritis. The media and public health experts expressed concern about the President endorsing a treatment without sufficient evidence, leading to widespread confusion and debate. • Internal Friction: Within the administration, there were differing views on how to handle the President’s statements. Health officials, including those from the FDA and CDC, were cautious about endorsing unproven treatments, while some of Trump’s political advisors supported his optimistic stance. White House staff had to navigate these internal conflicts while trying to present a unified message. • Clarifying Public Health Messaging: White House staff and public health officials had to repeatedly clarify that hydroxychloroquine had not been proven to be effective against COVID-19 and that it should not be used outside of clinical trials or under medical supervision. This was particularly challenging given the President’s high-profile promotion of the drug. • International Repercussions: The promotion of hydroxychloroquine by the U.S. President had international implications, as other countries took notice and some followed suit in recommending or stockpiling the drug. This required U.S. officials, including those at the WHO and the State Department, to manage the global response and mitigate any potential harm from the widespread use of an unproven treatment. • Balancing the Narrative: The communications team had to balance the President’s optimism with the cautious approach of public health experts. This involved carefully crafting statements and press releases that acknowledged the potential of hydroxychloroquine while emphasizing the need for further study and caution. This example highlights the complex dynamics within the Trump White House, where staff often had to reconcile the President’s public statements with the best available scientific evidence, while also managing public expectations and ensuring that health messaging remained as accurate and clear as possible. No he didn’t. He didn’t campaign on many specifics to begin with. He campaigned on slogans like “make America green again” which he obviously didn’t. He didn’t declare China a currency manipulator like he promised or end the trade deficit with China as he promised. He didn’t invent magical health insurance that covered every person for everything and doesn’t cost anyone any money. He didn’t build a border wall and make Mexico pay for it. He didn’t “drain the swamp” and in fact his White House was cesspool of cronyism. He didn’t materially renegotiate or withdraw from NAFTA, USMCA being more of a tweak than anything. He did not “bring back manufacturing jobs” to the USA like he promised…sure there were small but noticeable increases in specific sectors but not enough to actually change anything in the bigger picture like he had promised Most of the promises trump kept are promoting the fossil fuel industry because the political right in North America is a wholly owned subsidiary of the global fossil fuel industry. And tax cuts for the rich, he kept those promises too.

You sit here sharing links to a site that celebrates freedom of speech, free from censorship, while you condemn freedom of religion. The two rights go together hand and hand. You can't celebrate freedom of speech and champion freedom of speech and not freedom of religion. You are also conflating breaking laws, like rape and murder... that have nothing to do with freedom of religion.

TBH, when I see people like ^that^, I don't think of the musicians as being dumb enough to believe that the masks are saving them, I think they just wanted to play music so they played along, and I think that the covid fear-mongers running our country were just satisfied as long as the peons were overtly displaying some form of "covid fear" acknowledgement.

I already know their "science". I watched it for years. 👇👇 And this: And being told I wasn't "following the science" by f#c&kers who were doing shit like this:

Actually, the vast majority of Canadians are going for Harris, or at least they want anyone but Trump to win. In 2020, a month before the US election, there was a mock poll done in Canada, asking if Canadians can vote, who would it be for. The results were 84-16 Biden. What a surprise. A YouTube video. At least have the decency to post some credbile polling. results

Because of a costume he wore at a party? Vance is trans in the same way that Trudeau is black

Nobody mentioned people's genitals. That was pretty random, Have you been hanging around with black dog too much?

I agree but if we want to electrify by 2050, we should have started the building process 10 years ago. The same goes for hydro electric power. It takes at least 10 and more years for finding the lands, environmental; clearances and approvals and all the court cases before you can bang in the first nail. Let alone the protests and approvals and payment by and to the indigenous LOL

BTW kleptomania is compulsive thievery, You're referring to mythomania, compulsive lying. Mental illnesses that can cause symptoms of pathological lying can include: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) Munchausen syndrome by proxy. Borderline personality disorder. Antisocial personality disorder. Narcissistic personality disorder. Bipolar disorder.

Yes, it's a mental health issue that is a component of several diagnosable disorders. Most people lie occasionally, from white lies to whoppers, but the extreme volume and often lack of identifiable benefit and certainty of being caught make it a problem. Sort of like the difference between someone who has the occasional social drink and someone who goes on benders alone in their apartment. Lying Pathologically Some providers have suggested that pathological lying is different from other types of lying because it’s excessive (a person tells multiple lies a day) and has gone on for at least six months).910 Like other problematic lying, pathological lying can be unconscious and without any obvious gain. However, it can also be intended to manipulate others. For example, a person who lies pathologically may tell lies to establish status in their social groups instead of honestly and genuinely working on building up their reputation.11 ‌Another example could be far more detailed and complex: a pathological liar may completely make up their “backstory” and lie about where they grew up, what their parents did for work, and where they went to school. They may even claim to be related to an important historical figure or celebrity.12

Because we elect them and that gives them a mandate. People like eyeball and Mike and moonbat etc will continue to support the left wing parties despite this kind of behavior because of tribalism, so there's no reason for trudeau or jagmeet to stop. Why would they? Democracy requires the voter to be responsible and the left just simply isn't. You can't fix that by tweaking the system.