Hodad

If you find math difficult, you don't have to try it. You could, you know, listen to the economists who study these questions full time. Save your self the headache.🤷‍♂️ But if you did want to look at the numbers, you'd see that what I've said is correct.

How many times are you going to post this nonsense. From your article--which has been posted before and which I've quoted before. The documents don't lie, but you do. Gabbard is setting up a straw man. This is from your own article. Read it. "There is no indication of a Russian threat to directly manipulate the actual vote count through cyber means," wrote an ODNI official whose name was redacted in a newly published email. "However, as seen in recent media reporting, any cyber activity directed against the election infrastructure is likely to have an effect on public confidence," they continued. Gabbard also released a timeline that outlines events leading up to the 2017 assessment that Russia attempted to influence the 2016 election. The timeline focuses on the conclusions by intelligence community officials that Russia likely had not and would not use cyber means to directly compromise voter systems or change vote tallies. Gabbard argues that these conclusions are hypocritical and poke holes – if not directly contradict – the intelligence community's 2017 assessment that Russian attempted to influence the election. But Obama officials never claimed that Russian hackers had successfully changed votes or hacked election infrastructure at scale. The 2017 assessment focuses on Russian influence, from social media disinformation networks, hack-and-leak campaigns, Russian bot farms and other more psychological efforts made by Russian actors. Intelligence community experts acknowledge that Russian hacking targeting election infrastructure was likely limited and aimed at gathering intelligence.

Hypocrisy! -- Didn't you buy your wife from Eastern Europe? You could have hired local.

Careful. You're starting to make an argument about that's not very flattering for the US. 😜 If the economic activity per capita is higher but the PPP is lower one might speculate that we work more hours with less to show for it than, say, the Nordic countries. The Nordic countries are actually more productive per hour than we are. They've just made an active choice to work fewer hours and have more social stability. This manifests in things like medical care, child care, extended parental bonding, expected vacations, etc. Hence, the people are happier.

Well, you did. The second you started talking about taxing individuals you start talking about individual finances and how well off the individuals are under a certain system of taxation. Is productivity an intrinsic good, or are you intending it to be a proxy for individual well being? You are doing the latter. Which is a correct instinct. The GDP of a slave state could be off the charts, but you wouldn't want to live in one. So, detour aside, you want to make the argument that lower taxation leads to higher productivity and higher individual well being, therefore it's better to live in a system of lower taxation. That's your thesis, right? The point of the thread? But the data you linked doesn't support that. GDP and GDP per capita are the crudest proxies. As I said earlier, GDP PPP is what you want to look at if you are trying to comparing quality of life across countries using GDP data. (Which is the data that's readily available at-a-glance. Economists who study standard of living will look much deeper.)

Nonsense. This is a case of data that you don't know how to interpret. Income is an irrelevant comparison on it's own. What you actually need to understand is how much quality of life people can get with the money they earn. If a person A makes twice as much money as Person B, but also has a 2x cost of living then they are equally well off. There are economists that study quality of life measurements full time and in sophisticated ways (the US doesn't crack the top 10 in most lists), but even if you just wanted a crude, raw number, you're using the wrong one. You'd want to look at PPP. Open your first link. Flip the 2nd selector to PPP GDP. -- The US comes in 12 on that list--the entire US, certainly not Mississippi.

🙄 A. It's not a god whistle for anything. Just because someone COULD reference that phrase in another context doesn't change what the damn phrase means. It's just that: a reference. B. Comey posted it before any assassination attempts. C. He happily removed it and clarified when you crybabies actively tried to make something out of nothing.

Found that morning bar again, eh? Or just still there from last night?

It's gonna be a really rough transition for people like you. Good luck!

So you agree. China is not where most Fentanyl comes from, and they at not distributing fentanyl to Americans as an act of "war." Good. It was gonna be awkward watching the "party of personal responsibility" complain that Brazil was at war with the US by selling the sugar to the neighborhood bakery that then uses it in those delicious cookies they just can't stop eating. Fentanyl, like guns and sugar, is definitely killing a lot of Americans. It's an epidemic. It could and should be treated like one. We should address demand. We should address supply. It's all fair game. But the economic forces that drive these things are in no way an act of war. The goal is not to hurt or disable. It's old fashioned greed.

Did the other poster discuss anything about fentanyl consumers? Or just mistakenly accuse a supplier? It was the latter. Your motives are as gross as usual, but thanks for demonstrating that the analogy was an effective rebuttal.

Ah, the old enemies-to-lovers trope. You did not "win a debate" against AI. As I told you in the other thread, AI will eventually tell you whatever you want to hear. And it will with unquestioning authority. If you were to open up a new chat and press it to go in the other direction, it would eventually tell you that Fauci deserves a medal. AI is optimized for engagement. It's another piece of technology that is dangerous to people who don't understand how it works, what it's for and when/how to use it.

This really has nothing at all to do with your lumpy, orange Jesus. In spite of your fawning obsession, not everything is about him. 💡

That's just the point. You're not stating indisputable facts. You came to a dogmatic conclusion several years ago, and you're filtering every piece of information through the lens of whether it supports your conclusion or undermines your conclusion. Anything that supports your conclusion you call an "insisputable" fact. Anything the undermines your conclusion you call a lie. And you interpret and label information based on that paradigm. For example: There are no "known" Fauci lies. You have assigned both awareness and intent to statements that don't conform to your original conclusion, and because of your conspiracy thinking you havelabelled them as lies. Meanwhile, there is no actual evidence that he lied. And there's also no evidence that he concealed the truth or destroyed evidence. You're doing the exact same thing here. You think your original conclusion is "truth" and that it was censored. It's all a sequence of poor reasoning. You don't understand vaccine efficacy, so you mistakenly concluded that the vaccines didn't work. Because you mistakenly think the vaccines didn't work (despite being debunked many times) you cling dogmatically to that article of faith. Because you mistakenly think that the vaccines didn't work (they did) and that they were dangerous (they weren't) you think that everyone who promoted vaccines was promoting "dangerous misinformation." At the same time: Because the vaccines do work and it was a matter of life and death, platform owners engaged in content moderation to stem misinformation that would discourage vaccine uptake. (That's just socially responsible.) Because the "lab leak" theory was so frequently tied to anti-vaccine misinformation, and that adjacency undermined uptake in other ways, it too was moderated by platform owners. Probably only SOME of it should have been, but they were doing their best to keep people alive and nuance was sacrificed. It's not conspiracy. It's not "censorship of the truth." It's just humans making critical decisions in real time with an evolving set of information. Sorry, but no. Scientists should not burn time and money "trialing" every goddamn stupid thing that is proposed. And no, neither of them were effective. Check with the FDA, NIH and WHO. Lol. If you can't sort out an errant apostrophe, I don't think you're up to proving anything was "stupid." Scientists debate things and come to a consensus on a report. It's not a consensus that you like. So you assume it was a conspiracy. Ooooookay. And no, the "lab leak" is not far more likely, and you are not being honest. As mentioned before, the natural origin is still, to this day, has the preponderance of evidence and is the dominant explanation. AI is terribly sycophantic. It will turn your predisposition to confirmation bias to 11 if you let it. Don't log in. Just ask it the question. Regardless of when the website was updated, what you describe as "changing the definition" was a clarification made in 2017 so that researchers had clarity on what was permissible under the law. Again, not a conspiracy. This is rich. The agency that you insult and denigrate at the top of your lungs says something that supports your position and suddenly you're citing them? Bringing us right back 'round to your terminal case of confirmation bias. 🤣 The FBI does (only moderate confidence). They are the only intelligence agency with that assessment. Others are low or natural origin. And the scientific community (which is where you should be looking) is still predominately natural origin. The absurdity of you claiming lies and coverup about a matter that is still widely debated in the science community (though leaning heavily toward natura) is par for the course. Hell, anthropogenic global warming is far past consensus and approaching unanimity, and you still think all the scientists in the world are lying. 🙄 A layperson (very lay) contradicting specialized expertise with extreme certainty? Dunning, Kruger, we've got your new poster child.

Fentanyl deaths are unfortunate, sometimes tragic, but we import it illegally because there is a high demand, not because China is waging "war" on the US. Nearly all fentanyl comes into the US from Mexico, and most of it is made there. (Although Canada is a big problem, according to Trump🙄.) And the number of fentanyl deaths is running neck-and-neck with gun deaths, and most of those are manufactured domestically. So questions: Why aren't you equally concerned about stopping fun sales? Is The US government at war with the citizenry for "making" that happen? Guns are the leading cause of death for children and teens. Are MAGA and the gun lobby specifically at war on America's children?

I'm a cityist. Why should my city entangle itself with other governments an economies? Those other people are different. The city is the only right size of government and I'll believe it until I die. Everyone telling you about the need for and value in more sophisticated relationships is a commie Satanist traitor hell-bent on destroying the city. Yessir, 32.7 square miles is the ONLY holy and blessed and legitimate unit of land that can be legitimately governed.

This is noteworthy. Trump usually just bankrupts his own businesses. I guess it's just part of making America great again... He works in mysterious ways.

No, it's your confirmation bias. You've been obsessed with the lab leak theory from day 1. And like all conspiracy kooks, you think there are only two types of information: evidence to confirm your theory or proof of a cover up. Scientists we're promoting a natural origin theory? They're part of a cover up!!! Meanwhile, go ask your friend AI about the origin of COVID 19. I'll wait. ... Done yet? Still, to this day, the scientific preponderance of evidence points to natural origin and that is still the dominant theory. You WANT to believe something else, but it's not a conspiracy that scientists believe differently. It's, you know, science.

Exactly. Kids are too naive to understand why their classmates are afraid or why some of them go missing. Kids can't see masked goons executing Americans in the street. They definitely don't notice when MAGA bans books from their libraries. 🙄 You either don't know any kids or you know some very stupid kids. They see it all. They don't intuitively understand gerrymandering, perhaps, but most know right from wrong and most know better than to root for the villain.

^^This is yet another sterling example of your conspiracy-addled mind at work. The difference is that letting you rant and spread misinformation (not an article about Fauci) is pretty low stakes today. Let crazy be crazy. Plenty of time to sort out facts. But letting you spread misinformation and FUD while we're fighting a global pandemic was going to be fatal, first to your fellow kooks, and then to regular people caught as collateral damage. Media platforms were absolutely right to mute you people in a life and death scenario. It's a free country. You're free to speak. But nobody owes you a platform.

That's false. Gates was NOT part of those emails. Those are emails that Epstein sent/drafted to himself. Sometimes using a pseudonym. What he planned to use them for is unknown.

Congrats on finding a bar that opens before noon!

He wasn't there. Maybe you should reclassify an attempted arson.

The man whose real estate company was found guilty of discriminating against Black applicants. The man who called for the death of the Central Park 5 even after they were exonerated. The man whose casinos discriminated against Black employees? The man who entered political life riding down his escalator slandering Mexicans. They man who said that a judge couldn't do his job properly because of his Mexican heritage? The man who protected and reinstated confederate names and monuments across the country? Just off the top of my head, but sounds like the same guy, yeah? ETA: And let's not even get started on the racial makeup of his administration. That's story that tells itself.

Melania pretending this is upsetting is her angling for a daytime Emmie. 🙄