US 2024 Presidential Election

[Satinavian]

For instance, in order to jail someone, there needs to be a court case, and the local prosecutor services have to decide to take the case to court. So for instance if the local prosecutors decline to pursue a case, I'm not sure Trump has any power whatsoever to make a prosecution happen. Maybe he can get the FBI to rustle up a federal case? I dunno.

The administration is already ignoring lots of court orders. And is getting away with it.

So it doesn't really matter anymore, what power the president has on paper, in practice Trump can do whatever he wants.

 

[Silvanus]

B) If people who do have the space and means to raise animals on their property do so in larger quantities, it increases the supply of eggs, which would lower the price for the people who don't have that. So it's plenty useful for the poor in the broad picture.

To be fair I don't think her statement was a suggestion of backyard farming as a solution to the issue. She said it was a 'silver lining'-- I think she was identifying something that she'd seen some people do, and trying to find a positive. Which is quite typical spin, though tone-deaf given the high cost.

But specifically in response to your B point-- egg prices have risen in part due to avian influenza & the subsequent culling. Encouraging amateurs around the country to start keeping chickens in their gardens, low-expertise and zero-regulation, is a recipe to spread avian influenza further and wider and faster. It would exacerbate the very problem causing egg prices to spike.

 

[Agema]

A) You're not allowed to consider context without considering the words as well. Did she tell people "if you can't afford eggs, raise your own chickens?" No? Huh, almost your entire response is void.

Don't be so absurd, you don't even believe that yourself. You know perfectly well that politicians don't directly answer in those sorts of straightforward and logical ways. This backyard chickens stuff is waffle - filling the space with noise as if there's some sort of thought or answer. She's not planning to make it easier, she's not expecting it to take off and bring egg prices down, she doesn't care whether more people do it.

The US government does seem to have a genuine plan for reducing the cost of eggs: importing more and deregulating industry. That is the beginning and the end of its answer to the USA's egg price problem: boring, practical answers to real problems. The US government literally could not give a shit about backyard chickens in any sense whatsoever: that's just patronising and pretentious TV drivel, and you know it as well as I do.

 

[tstorm823]

It would exacerbate the very problem causing egg prices to spike.

I do not see the logic in thinking more dispersed animals would spread this disease faster. There are other health issues one might worry about with unregulated amateur agriculture, but the spread of avian flu is not among them.

The US government does seem to have a genuine plan for reducing the cost of eggs: importing more and deregulating industry. That is the beginning and the end of its answer to the USA's egg price problem: boring, practical answers to real problems. The US government literally could not give a shit about backyard chickens in any sense whatsoever: that's just patronising and pretentious TV drivel, and you know it as well as I do.

You started with all the reasons this is a terrible solution, and now you get slightly more info and are instead telling me that you know there are other things going on and it was never an intended solution to begin with...

I feel like there should be an "I guess I was wrong" somewhere between those two arguments, but you seem content to just maintain your level of criticism even if the reasoning is completely different. Perhaps you decided to criticize first and now you're rationalizing why you were right to do so.

 

[XsjadoBlaydette]

I honestly don't believe they were Q all along. I think they were Q starting from around when Q moved to 8chan or maybe slightly later, but I don't believe they were the original Q.

EDIT: Want to be more specific. So, 4chan/8chan have this thing called tripcodes, where you supply a password and it salts and hashes it and shows the result by your post. The idea is that since you don't have an account per se and can change the name you post as at will, it acts as a form of attestation that the user behind two or more posts are probably the same user.

If you look at the pattern of Q posts for each tripcode, you see a pattern that looks like what you'd expect if about a half dozen people were Q semi-interchangeably (different ones more dominant at different times, but never a single tripcode long term and never exclusively or near-exclusively one code for more than a month or two) until September 2018, after which virtually all Q posts come from one tripcode for several months then virtually all Q posts come from one other tripcode afterwards, with the tripcode switching at the same time 8chan changed their salt (which necessarily changes the result of the hash).

My personal belief is that once we switch to essentially one tripcode behind Q, that's when Watkins became Q. Before that it was probably several conspiracy trolls building on a shared mythology with each having partly overlapping periods of high activity and then mostly wandering off to do other things.

Yeah pretty much is the current consensus from those who observed from the earliest days, and apparently from sly ole Cullen Hoback who did the 'Q: Into the Storm' doc before shit hit the fan so managed to get pretty close to the Watkins (for some reason isn't made available in my country yet, leaving only whatever interviews/articles him and Fredrick Brennan' have given since for me to extrapolate from) - a lot of that nuance is usually omitted whenever it's brought up nowadays, I assume in some cases for brevity, especially under character limitations of the popular social medias. But in other cases yeah there's no doubt a chunk of people not aware of the hazy beginnings and the switcheroo.

 

[Agema]

You started with all the reasons this is a terrible solution, and now you get slightly more info and are instead telling me that you know there are other things going on and it was never an intended solution to begin with...

Sure, I explained that it was a patronising non-solution, and then followed that up by saying it was a patronising non-solution again, albeit in a slightly different way.

It takes someone like you to turn that into an inconsistency.

 

[Silvanus]

I do not see the logic in thinking more dispersed animals would spread this disease faster. There are other health issues one might worry about with unregulated amateur agriculture, but the spread of avian flu is not among them.

The level of dispersal isn't what i'm flagging. In farming there are protections in place to identify, isolate & eliminate avian flu when it crops up, and to protect handlers. None of which will be in place for thousands of individual amateur keepers around the country.

Wide, sparser distribution may slow the spread of the disease. But it won't halt it-- and then when it crops up, there'll be nothing in place to track it, protect the handlers, isolate it. Then there's the interaction with wild birds.

 

[tstorm823]

Sure, I explained that it was a patronising non-solution, and then followed that up by saying it was a patronising non-solution again, albeit in a slightly different way.

It takes someone like you to turn that into an inconsistency.

Does she have no conception of what she's saying, or was it was it patronizing? Patronizing is certainly a crime of intent, sort of hard to accuse someone or being oblivious and willfully deceptive at the same time.

Not that it really matters, since you now know that was a fraction of what was suggested, was not a personal recommendation to poor people, and all of your criticisms have fallen entirely to pieces. You being self-contradictory is just gravy.

 

[Trunkage]

Does she have no conception of what she's saying, or was it was it patronizing? Patronizing is certainly a crime of intent, sort of hard to accuse someone or being oblivious and willfully deceptive at the same time.

I find that you are regularly patronising. Does mean your oblivious? Deceptive? Doing a crime of intent?

Not that it really matters, since you now know that was a fraction of what was suggested, was not a personal recommendation to poor people, and all of your criticisms have fallen entirely to pieces. You being self-contradictory is just gravy.

I mean, I suggest we look up how Mao did with a similar issue

 

[tstorm823]

I find that you are regularly patronising.

I genuinely worry about you specifically. Your responses keep getting worse over time, and I hope you aren't falling to pieces on the other side of the internet.